Source: NY Times/Ross D. Franklin/Associated Press

Earlier this week I read several articles (example) about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s executive order to dismantle the state’s Child Protective Services (CPS) agency under the Department of Economic Security and create a Cabinet-level division called the Division of Child Safety and Family Services that would take over CPS duties. This division would be directed by Charles Flanagan, the current director of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections.

Apparently the child welfare system in Arizona has been having quite a few problems over the years, but the final straw came when a new law enforcement team under Flanagan, charged with screening and investigating cases with a criminal component, discovered over 6,500 “ignored” reports of maltreatment by CPS.

According to the New York Times, Governor Brewer has been receiving pressure from advocates and policymakers from all sides of the political divide to do something about the child welfare system in Arizona. The legislature added 200 new workers last year but it appears this did not help with the recurring issues with CPS.

A Cautionary Note

When a system meant to protect children from harm does not fulfill its mandate, it is important to look at both policy and practice in order to understand why and determine whether changes are necessary. It is worrisome when policies are developed quickly as a solution to public outcry and negative media coverage, because it is unlikely that these policy solutions were thoughtfully researched and examined, or even fully funded, which could lead to even more problems within the system in question.

In reading about the swift changes occurring in Arizona, as well as the amount of media coverage, it begs the question whether this is a reactionary policy response—a Band-Aid solution—in which the policy response fails to consider the “underlying infection,” i.e. the more in-depth issues that are contributing to the failing of the child welfare system in Arizona.

For example, the policy response came after law enforcement discovered 6,500 reports of maltreatment that never saw an investigation. The very first question I had was whether these reports met screening criteria under CPS policy. If they did not, then perhaps a policy solution would be to broaden the screening criteria in order to ensure that the reports will be screened in and investigated in the future.

In addition, the policy response from last year included 200 new positions created to address the issues of backlogged reports and understaffing in CPS. Questions to consider are:

  • How were these positions funded?
  • What kind of training was required of these new workers?
  • What qualifications did the workers need to have in order to become a child welfare worker?
  • Did the pay rate match worker qualifications?
  • Did these new workers only take on backlogged cases without reducing the overall caseload size of the average worker?

Questions related to the new positions should be asked alongside questions addressing more general issues, such as the level and quality of supervision support, overall funding levels for the system as a whole, caseworker licensure and training, and client access to services and resources.

Another Reactionary Policy Response?

As I was trying to learn more about the relationship between law enforcement and child welfare in Arizona, I discovered that Arizona had differential response in the past. It was created in 1997 and was meant to “address a backlog of abuse and neglect reports that were not investigated.” The article providing this information stated that the program “struggled to contain costs” and that in 2003, after several child deaths, the director of the Department of Economic Security disbanded the program and stated that CPS would treat all cases as investigations.

This begs the question, could this also have been a reactionary policy response? Generally speaking, multiple child deaths pretty much automatically equals a swift policy response, so to me it seems safe to label this move a reactionary solution. But then, was this solution thoroughly researched? Were there underlying issues to this policy solution that were not addressed, which eventually led to the policy solution undertaken this week? The article states that the program was having financial issues—could increased funding have helped the differential response system? Could changes within the practice model have helped—for example, could increased collaboration across systems have reduced costs? Finally, what changed between 2003 and 2013 that prompted the legislature to appropriate more funding to a system that had been struggling to “contain costs?” It appears that the funding in 2013 was appropriated for more restrictive services, rather than services which address the whole family’s needs, the goal of differential response and child welfare as a whole.

In Sum

In the spring of 2012 CASCW published a CW360° on secondary trauma in child welfare. Two of the articles touched on the media and reactionary policies and cautioned readers to ensure that policies are thoughtfully developed and are not guided by public outrage. One of the articles referred to this as a “vicious cycle” in which a tragedy occurs and a policy solution is quickly developed without addressing underlying issues, resulting in increased mandates for workers and agencies (often without additional funding). Thus, problems continue to bubble up to the surface.

Caution is needed when developing policy responses to high-profile child welfare issues. As Dave Chenot says in the CW360°:

Not only do reactionary policy changes have an effect on the working lives of

[child welfare services] social workers, they also have an impact on the services offered by these workers and, therefore, on clients. (p. 10)

What do you think about the recent changes in Arizona? Do you have any insight on what’s going on in Arizona? Leave a comment below.