IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v12y2022i1p26-d748634.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structures of Oppression in the U.S. Child Welfare System: Reflections on Administrative Barriers to Equity

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa Merkel-Holguin

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

  • Ida Drury

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

  • Colleen Gibley-Reed

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

  • Adrian Lara

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

  • Maleeka Jihad

    (MJCF-Coalition, Denver, CO 80208, USA)

  • Krystal Grint

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

  • Kendall Marlowe

    (Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO 80045, USA)

Abstract

In the United States, child welfare reform efforts have dominated three decades of landscape. With glimmers of systemic promise and innumerable individual success stories, data suggest insufficient improvements, resulting in calls for transformation and even abolition. In this article, the authors illustrate structures of oppression that bolster the system’s tentacles, in regulating family life, contributing to racial disparities, reinforcing economic hardships, and supporting policies of family separation. Some of the structures take the form of practices, policies, laws or regulations. Individually and collectively, these structures may serve to oppress and harm those that the child welfare system intends to help. In this article, we include mandated reporting, substantiation decisions, central registries, decision-making processes, background checks, ongoing service delivery frameworks, conservative interpretations of confidentiality statutes, and how immigration status interplays with child welfare. Each of these structures could warrant an individual article, delving into the inner workings of how each oppresses families and the professionals who work with them. We also recognize that there are other structures of oppression that this article will not address. We encourage other scholars to not only continue the identification of oppressive structures, but to also work collaboratively, to generate solutions that dismantle these mechanisms that continue to perpetuate harm and unnecessary family separation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa Merkel-Holguin & Ida Drury & Colleen Gibley-Reed & Adrian Lara & Maleeka Jihad & Krystal Grint & Kendall Marlowe, 2022. "Structures of Oppression in the U.S. Child Welfare System: Reflections on Administrative Barriers to Equity," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:26-:d:748634
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/1/26/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/12/1/26/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Miller, Keva M. & Cahn, Katharine & Orellana, E. Roberto, 2012. "Dynamics that contribute to racial disproportionality and disparity: Perspectives from child welfare professionals, community partners, and families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2201-2207.
    3. Raz, Mical, 2020. "Calling child protectives services is a form of community policing that should be used appropriately: Time to engage mandatory reporters as to the harmful effects of unnecessary reports," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Cénat, Jude Mary & McIntee, Sara-Emilie & Mukunzi, Joana N. & Noorishad, Pari-Gole, 2021. "Overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare system: A systematic review to understand and better act," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Joseph Henrich & Steven J. Heine & Ara Norenzayan, 2010. "Most people are not WEIRD," Nature, Nature, vol. 466(7302), pages 29-29, July.
    6. Fluke, John D. & Corwin, Tyler W. & Hollinshead, Dana M. & Maher, Erin J., 2016. "Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers' experience, position, and perspectives," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 210-218.
    7. Estefan, Lianne Fuino & Coulter, Martha L. & VandeWeerd, Carla L. & Armstrong, Mary & Gorski, Peter, 2012. "Receiving mandated therapeutic services: Experiences of parents involved in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2353-2360.
    8. Boyd, Reiko, 2014. "African American disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Toward a comprehensive conceptual framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 15-27.
    9. Hollinshead, Dana M. & Kim, Sangwon & Fluke, John D. & Merkel-Holguin, Lisa, 2017. "Factors associated with service utilization in child welfare: A structural equation model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 506-516.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohamud, Faisa & Edwards, Travonne & Antwi-Boasiako, Kofi & William, Kineesha & King, Jason & Igor, Elo & King, Bryn, 2021. "Racial disparity in the Ontario child welfare system: Conceptualizing policies and practices that drive involvement for Black families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Jill R. McTavish & Christine McKee & Masako Tanaka & Harriet L. MacMillan, 2022. "Child Welfare Reform: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-24, October.
    4. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    5. Huebner, Ruth A. & Hall, Martin T. & Smead, Erin & Willauer, Tina & Posze, Lynn, 2018. "Peer mentoring services, opportunities, and outcomes for child welfare families with substance use disorders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 239-246.
    6. Bouma, J.A. & Nguyen, Binh & van der Heijden, Eline & Dijk, J.J., 2018. "Analysing Group Contract Design Using a Lab and a Lab-in-the-Field Threshold Public Good Experiment," Discussion Paper 2018-049, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    7. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    8. Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia & Esposito, Tonino & Trocmé, Nico & Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia, 2020. "A longitudinal jurisdictional study of Black children reported to child protection services in Quebec, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    9. Sahba Besharati & Rufus Akinyemi, 2023. "Accelerating African neuroscience to provide an equitable framework using perspectives from West and Southern Africa," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-4, December.
    10. Markussen, Thomas & Sharma, Smriti & Singhal, Saurabh & Tarp, Finn, 2021. "Inequality, institutions and cooperation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    11. Voigt, Stefan, 2022. "Determinant of Social Norms," ILE Working Paper Series 58, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    12. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:6:p:1392-1412 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ahn, T.K. & Ostrom, Elinor & Walker, James, 2010. "A common-pool resource experiment with postgraduate subjects from 41 countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 2624-2633, October.
    14. Ran Xu & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2018. "Neuroscience bridging scientific disciplines in health: Who builds the bridge, who pays for it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 1183-1204, November.
    15. Cornand, Camille & Hubert, Paul, 2020. "On the external validity of experimental inflation forecasts: A comparison with five categories of field expectations," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    16. Andrea Bizzego & Mengyu Lim & Greta Schiavon & Gianluca Esposito, 2020. "Children with Developmental Disabilities in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: More Neglected and Physically Punished," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-16, September.
    17. Michael Muthukrishna & Joseph Henrich & Wataru Toyokawa & Takeshi Hamamura & Tatsuya Kameda & Steven J Heine, 2018. "Overconfidence is universal? Elicitation of Genuine Overconfidence (EGO) procedure reveals systematic differences across domain, task knowledge, and incentives in four populations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-30, August.
    18. Mowbray, Orion & Ryan, Joseph P. & Victor, Bryan G. & Bushman, Gregory & Yochum, Clayton & Perron, Brian E., 2017. "Longitudinal trends in substance use and mental health service needs in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-8.
    19. James Derbyshire & Mandeep Dhami & Ian Belton & Dilek Önkal, 2023. "The value of experiments in futures and foresight science as illustrated by the case of scenario planning," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 5(2), June.
    20. Monic Sun & Xiaoquan (Michael) Zhang & Feng Zhu, 2012. "To Belong or to Be Different? Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment in China," Working Papers 12-15, NET Institute, revised Oct 2012.
    21. Ingo S. Seifert & Julia M. Rohrer & Boris Egloff & Stefan C. Schmukle, 2021. "The Development of the Rank-Order Stability of the Big Five across the Life Span," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1156, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:12:y:2022:i:1:p:26-:d:748634. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.