Welcome back to Director’s Cut, our standing series featuring former agency directors from across the country and ideological spectrum.

We invite former leaders to say it straight— what do they wish policymakers, advocates, and philanthropy knew when crafting policy.

Investing in Better Child Welfare Outcomes – A Balancing Act

By Brenda Donald, MPA

To be an effective child welfare leader, it’s not enough to be expert in policies, the budget process, direct service, and management.

You need all that, and you need to be savvy on navigating the political process in a nonpartisan way.

The average tenure of a child welfare leader is less than two years.

And they don’t just get a short runway; they usually start when an agency is in crisis or in response to high-profile child tragedies

Even when a child welfare agency is in relatively good shape, the new leader always has a learning curve but still needs to hit the ground running.

Courting Your Critics

When I assumed my role as Cabinet Secretary for the Maryland Department of Human Services, I made a list of the key players I would need to meet with, including legislators, advocates, and providers.

One of my first meetings was with the powerful chair of one of the legislative Committees.

He was a key power center, with authority over our funding and the accumulated clout of 20 years in office. He was also our Department’s most vocal critic.

My team told me he was a huge problem, and that his legislative agenda was influenced by an advocacy community that was fed up with the department’s terrible outcomes over many years.

As a leader, I understood how the sting of his criticisms led my new team to get defensive. At the same time, he saw a need for deeper change that registered with me.

I was new on the scene with a credible track record from running the Washington, DC child welfare agency, but everyone was impatient and wanted immediate change.

I knew I had to model a different type of leadership for our team by positioning the department as a credible entity capable of doing its job.

Cultivating Common Ground

Maybe I could have been more diplomatic, but I decided on a more direct approach. My opening statement in my meeting with the chair was:

“Everybody warned me that I would have to fight you. I’m hoping we can find common ground and work together to improve the department. I know we both want better outcomes for the kids and families we serve.”

That opened the door for a productive partnership during my tenure.

Of course we didn’t agree on everything, but we found ways to agree on important issues.

The chairman, the governor, and I all wanted to reduce the state’s use of group homes for children in foster care, for different reasons:

• The governor hated group homes because they were costly and often poorly run;

• The committee chair hated them because of what he heard from constituents- they brought more traffic, noise, and police activity to the neighborhoods they were concentrated in;

• My concern was that kids should be raised in families, and only placed in congregate care for episodic treatment and stabilization.

At that time, over 15 percent of Maryland’s foster care children were in group homes, well above the national average of five percent.

So we all had an incentive to address the issue, even if we had totally different motivations to bring us to it.

Crafting Compromise

The chair was considering legislation that would simply reduce the number of annual group homes licensed.

I didn’t want to reject his agreement on a core aspect of the issue, but I also knew that reducing the number of kids in group homes had to be part of a broader child welfare systems transformation.

Reducing group home utilization would take time, beginning with reducing the number of kids entering foster care, increasing kinship placements and recruiting and retaining more foster homes.

So my team developed a comprehensive plan called Place Matters.

I was able to convince the chair that I had a viable plan and that legislation was not necessary, and perhaps even counterproductive.

Instead, I outlined a comprehensive approach for him; preventing unnecessary foster care, increasing use of kinship care, and better supporting foster parents.

I showed him that these approaches worked, both with evidence and my track record using them in DC.

I committed to regular, public-facing reports on progress via a Place Matters report card.

As the department made progress, the chair could claim victory on his agenda as we proved the department could deliver on our commitments.

What could have led to a tenure of contention became a win-win; in just two years, we cut the number of kids in congregate care by half.

These experiences taught me a few things to consider for a better balancing act that I would share with any new leader:

• Be impatient, but realistic. Change takes time, but there must be a sense of urgency. As a policymaker, consider what that looks like.

  • Is legislation actually necessary, or might it inadvertently impose hamstrings that slow and undermine progress?

• Make informed cost-benefit analyses – is there evidence that the policy makes sense/cents? What are the possible unintended consequences?

• Look at the whole picture – context matters. It’s never just one thing.

  • Is it worth it to go down a rabbit hole when that means leaving the rabbit free to enjoy the rest of the garden?

• Look for the common ground – if the goals are better outcomes for kids and families, there is room to work together, even if there’s a lot you disagree on.

Brenda Donald has over 25 years in senior leadership human services roles, including serving three Mayors and one Governor in Cabinet level positions.

Child Welfare Wonk invites insights from bipartisan former state child welfare leaders on the biggest ideas shaping the field today.

Our contributors surface how former state child welfare leaders think through high-stakes policy moments.

These aren’t endorsements; they’re strategic intelligence.

Looking at leadership across political and geographic contexts, you get to see the kind of thinking that shapes decisions before they’re public.

So, how are leaders thinking about what we’ve broken down in our Title IV-B Explainer?

The Opportunities in Title IV-B Reauthorization

By Mike Leach

Title IV-B has always been the program that lets states focus on the work that doesn’t always show up in a federal review but matters deeply to families; prevention, reunification, supporting kin, and stabilizing the workforce.

Title IV-B funds give states flexibility to build community partnerships and invest in front-end services.

For states already prioritizing those approaches, the reauthorization brings more consistency and helps insulate the work from leadership changes.

What Deserves More Attention

There are a few aspects of this reauthorization worth emphasizing.

Poverty≠Neglect

The bill’s language around poverty alone not being sufficient cause for neglect is big. If states take that seriously, it could shift how we respond to families in need and reduce unnecessary removals.

Youth Input and Mental Health

Second, the new requirements around mental health and youth voice in state plan development could reshape how we build plans and teams.

Overhyping of Virtual Caseworker Visits

Allowing these is helpful but not transformational. This should have already been going on, even if agencies weren’t able to count it as a visit.

Is it a Boxchecker?

If states treat this like another compliance exercise and respond by layering on more forms, checklists, or one-off trainings, it’ll add bureaucracy without improving outcomes.

Reducing Administrative Burden

The reauthorization requires HHS to reduce administrative burden by 15% and simplify reporting.

That’s a clear opening to step back, cut duplication, and build systems that work better for staff and families.

Where I’d Put the Dollars

If I were sitting in the director’s chair now, I’d be looking to use the expanded IV-B funds to:

• Invest in family resource centers;

• Provide real support for kinship caregivers;

• Build up legal advocacy statewide.;

• Invest in tools that ease documentation burdens (such as AI case documentation); and

• Mental health and safety culture support

Most of what’s in the law isn’t new work, but things agencies were already trying to do: legal advocacy, addressing poverty, involving youth, and supporting mental health

This reauthorization just gives it backing, funding, and some structure.

If you’ve got the right leadership in place, you can use these changes to support your people, not burden them.

The Real Question

The real question is whether states will build around values and culture, or just respond to mandates.

That’s the difference between better systems and more red tape.

Michael Leach is a values-driven leader known for his authentic approach and focus on improving child welfare and social service systems.

He served as Deputy Commissioner in TN and State Director of South Carolina DSS, and now works with states and nonprofits through Leach Consulting Group.

Child Welfare Wonk invites insights from bipartisan former state child welfare leaders on the biggest ideas shaping the field today.

Our contributors surface how former state child welfare leaders think through high-stakes policy moments.

These aren’t endorsements; they’re strategic intelligence.

Looking at leadership across political and geographic contexts, you get to see the kind of thinking that shapes decisions before they’re public.

So, how are leaders thinking about what we’ve broken down in our Title IV-B Explainer?

Alignment with Vision and Other Funds Is Key

By Rebecca Jones Gaston

The Supporting America’s Children and Families Act (PL 118-258), reauthorizing Title IV-B in December 2024, underscores the importance of funding services—not placements—to prevent family separation, support reunification, and strengthen systems support to families and children, court improvements, and kinship supports.

As a leader, I see Title IV-B as a critical, though modest, funding stream—about 4% of federal child welfare funding compared to Title IV-E, which is nearly 60%—that can support upstream efforts to keep families safely together and support reunification.

The IV-B funding increase for FY26–29 is positive, but impact will depend on how well states align Title IV-B with other resources like IV-E, CAPTA, TANF, and Medicaid.

If I were a director today, I’d focus Title IV-B funds on

• Family preservation, prevention, and reunification;

• Kinship navigator services;

• Tribal consultation and ICWA compliance;

• Cross-system coordination with health and community partners; and

• Extended supports for youth transitioning out of care up to age 26.

While the law’s modest increase in federal funding matters, we cannot overestimate what the funding increase alone can achieve.

IV-B’s Real Opportunity

The real opportunity lies in continuing to break barriers and support community pathways for families and children to have access to what they need, when and where and how they need it.

As systems face federal funding cuts, it is critical to not use the child welfare system as a catch all, and to continue to have systems that are more integrated, and centered on community voice and family well-being.

Rebecca Jones Gaston served as Commissioner of ACYF from 2022 to 2025. She served as Oregon’s child welfare director from 2019 to 2022. She is the Founder and Chief Strategist of RJG Consulting, LLC.

Our new series, Child Welfare Director Perspectives, invites insights from bipartisan former state child welfare leaders on the biggest ideas shaping the field today.

This new series surfaces how former state child welfare leaders think through high-stakes policy moments.

These aren’t endorsements; they’re strategic intelligence.

We share them because in moments like this, understanding how different leaders actually think is more useful than hearing what other people think they should do.

By looking at leadership across political and geographic contexts, you get to see the kind of thinking that shapes decisions before they’re public.

Different states, different politics, & different mental models- same stakes.

First up: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a sweeping proposal with major implications for child welfare systems across the country.

How would and could leaders prepare and reflect on Doug Steiger’s analysis of the current dynamics of budget reconciliation?

The Hidden Costs of Implementation: What State Leaders Need to Know

By Tom Rawlings

Former Director, Georgia State Division of Family and Children Services

Starting conversations on cost shifting

In anticipation of budget cuts from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, state agency leaders should be discussing with legislative and gubernatorial budget staff the need for significant funding increases to cover expected federal reductions—particularly in Medicaid and SNAP.

Prepare for bottlenecks, a short runway

Increased work requirements and more frequent redeterminations will require more staffing and significant increases in payments to the handful of large national contractors who build and maintain state Medicaid and SNAP eligibility systems.

With a likely December 2026 implementation for new requirements, state leaders really don’t have much time.

Contracting for and making significant changes to complex eligibility IT systems requires a long runway.

That includes determining how to track the additional work requirements, how many additional hours will be required to make the changes, and getting those changes implemented in time.

Legislators will be looking more closely at the agency’s per-case administrative costs. Leaders will need to reduce those costs with a workforce already challenged by recruiting and retention issues.

Anticipate multi-system impact

Medicaid changes are also likely to impact child welfare services indirectly.

Nationally, around two-thirds of children whose families become involved with child welfare are on Medicaid.

Medicaid-reimbursable services for parents such as mental health and substance abuse treatment and in-home counseling services keep children out of the foster care system.

While exempting parents of younger children from the work requirements will soften the blow, families most in need of these services are most likely to be headed by the parents likely to go without coverage as a result of the Medicaid work requirements.

State dollars will have to fill the gap.

Tom Rawlings led the Georgia child welfare agency from 2018 to 2021. He served the state of Georgia for over 30 years as an attorney, family court judge, and child rights ombudsman. He is the President and CEO of Child Welfare and Justice

Our new series, Child Welfare Director Perspectives, invites insights from bipartisan former state child welfare leaders on the biggest ideas shaping the field today.

This new series surfaces how former state child welfare leaders think through high-stakes policy moments.

These aren’t endorsements; they’re strategic intelligence.

We share them because in moments like this, understanding how different leaders actually think is more useful than hearing what other people think they should do.

By looking at leadership across political and geographic contexts, you get to see the kind of thinking that shapes decisions before they’re public.

Different states, different politics, & different mental models- same stakes.

First up: the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a sweeping proposal with major implications for child welfare systems across the country.

How would and could leaders prepare and reflect on Doug Steiger’s analysis of the current dynamics of budget reconciliation?

Resisting Scarcity Thinking: A Call for Smarter Policy

By Rebecca Jones Gaston

Former Commissioner, U.S. Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Former Director, Child Welfare, Department of Human Services, Oregon

As a former state child welfare director and federal commissioner, hearing about sizable cuts to Medicaid and state budgets sets off a familiar alarm.

It’s never welcome news—especially when you’re leading system transformation with a focus on well-being and equitable outcomes.

In budget crunches, resist scarcity thinking. Anchor to mission.

Leadership is navigating uncertainty with clarity and purpose, not fear. Resist the reflex to retreat into scarcity thinking and instead sharpen focus on the mission: strengthening families and preventing unnecessary system involvement.

When budget reductions are imminent, the first step is anchoring to a clear, guiding vision. For me, that has always been about keeping children safely with their families.

Start with a clear vision—and hard data.

In tough budget moments, systems tend to revert to muscle memory—leaning more heavily on Title IV-E foster care funding because it feels more predictable.

But removing children from their families is not only a relational loss; it’s expensive and does not necessarily improve safety.

Prevention offers real return on investment, both in human outcomes and fiscal terms.

My first move would be to gather my senior leadership team and dive into the data. We’d need to map out where we’re most vulnerable, but also where we have flexibility.

I’d ask:

• What programs are delivering the most impact per dollar?

• What services are duplicative or underutilized?

• Are there opportunities to braid funding or shift services upstream?

These questions are less about cutting and more about optimizing and protecting what works.

Know your funding systems—or lose leverage.

Equally critical is understanding Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) not just as funding streams, but as policy levers. State-level decisions around eligibility, coverage, and match rates can dramatically alter what's possible.

As a director, I made it a priority to really know the fiscal landscape myself—not just rely on what others told me. If you can't speak the language of budgets and financing, you're not driving the deliberations.

To cabinet leaders and legislators: prevention isn’t optional—it’s protective.

To cabinet leadership and legislators, I would convey this message: cutting upstream supports guarantees downstream costs.

When families lose access to behavioral health care, substance use treatment, housing supports, or child care, we will see them instead enter our child welfare and juvenile justice systems.

Cutting prevention when budgets are tight doesn’t avoid costs; it delays and shifts them to less effective and efficient approaches. Preserving prevention maintains the flexibility that supports agile systems that deliver safe, stable, thriving families.

Ultimately, under pressure it’s important to lead with purpose and discipline—never forgetting that every dollar cut is felt most acutely by the families we serve.

Rebecca Jones Gaston served as Commissioner of ACYF from 2022 to 2025. She served as Oregon’s child welfare director from 2019 to 2022. She is the Founder and Chief Strategist of RJG Consulting, LLC.

Our Director’s Cut series features former agency directors from across the country and ideological spectrum saying it straight— what do they wish policymakers, advocates, and philanthropy knew when crafting policy.

Hard Choices Shift Impossible Costs

By Mike Leach

It’s not a question of if the safety net will be cut again, it’s when. The pain won’t show up first in spreadsheets or headlines. It’ll show up in people’s lives.

A single mom will walk into her local DSS office asking for help with food or child care, and someone will have to say, “I’m sorry. We don’t have that program anymore.”

A social worker will sit with a family who’s doing everything right, and still have to tell them they no longer qualify. Not because we don’t care, but because we have to do more with less, and without the tools for the job.

When programs like SNAP, TANF, child care assistance, and foster care services face cuts or restrictions, whether through budget reconciliation or state implementation choices, the frontline feels it first.

We shift those hard choices to the families who need support and the frontline staff who have to deliver the bad news.

These workers are people who chose this work because they believe in helping others. But the more the safety net frays, the more they find themselves saying, “I’m sorry, I can’t help you.”

As someone who has led these systems, It’s heartbreaking. I’ve seen the look in a caseworker’s eyes after telling a dad he’s not eligible for a program that could help him reunify with his kids.

I’ve watched child care workers cry after having to turn away a single mom who’s just starting to get back on her feet. I’ve listened to SNAP workers explain to families that a change in policy—one they didn’t create—now means they lose their food benefits.

These workers didn’t sign up for this job to say “no.” They signed up to serve. And families didn’t come to us because they wanted a handout—they came because they needed a little help to keep going.

But when funding gets slashed or new rules are added that don’t reflect real life, the system stops working for the people it’s supposed to serve.

We like to say these programs are too expensive. But do we ever talk about the cost of not having them? The cost of parents losing jobs because they can’t find child care. The cost of families going hungry. The cost of another child entering foster care because a struggling family couldn’t get the support they needed in time.

And the truth is, this isn’t just a child welfare issue. It’s the whole safety net—mental health, employment/workforce, SNAP, TANF, child care, refugee services. These programs are connected.

When one part gets cut, the pressure builds somewhere else. We see it in schools, in hospitals, in law enforcement. And we especially see it in the lives of the people who are trying their best in a system that’s not trying its best for them.

As someone who’s led a state system, I’ve made hard choices. I know budgets are tight. But we need to stop making families and frontline staff pay the price. Every time we cut these programs, we’re telling a family in crisis, “You’re on your own.” And we’re telling a worker who wants to help, “Do your job without the tools you need.”

We can do better. We have to. That means investing in programs that work. Writing rules that reflect real people’s lives. Above all, it means stopping the practice of shifting the true costs onto the frontline workforce we already ask to do far too much with far too little.

Let’s build a net that actually catches people. Let’s make sure the next time someone walks through our doors and says, “Can you help me?” the answer is, “Yes. We’ve got you.”

About Director’s Cut
Each edition of Director’s Cut will bring former child welfare agency directors from across the country and ideological spectrum.

This is not an exit interview; it’s a chance for those who spent time “in the chair” to offer sharp and strategic insights for those who work on child and family policy.

If you’re a former director who would like to contribute, we’d love to hear from you.

About Michael Leach

Michael Leach is a values-driven leader known for his authentic approach and focus on improving child welfare and social service systems.

He served as Deputy Commissioner in TN and State Director of South Carolina DSS, and now works with states and nonprofits through Leach Consulting Group.