Say Less: Do We Mean the Same Thing When We Say “Prevention…?”
By Kimberly Martin
Say Less
Say Less is a series from Kimberly Martin, which exploring the contradictions and policy tensions contained in the seemingly simple words we take for granted.
Each edition of Say Less interrogates the language of child welfare policy, revealing the contested conversation underneath.
Written by policy strategist Kimberly Martin, the series draws from her lived experience and legal expertise to unsettle euphemisms and bring precision to policy.
Do We Mean the Same Thing When We Say “Prevention…?”
By Kimberly J. Martin, JD.
The layered language of child welfare reform obscures the paradoxes those words contain. Seemingly obvious words like “prevention” contain deep policy tensions.
Sometimes prevention means making sure families never need the system in the first place. Policies that promote economic development and a strong safety net promote family autonomy. Think quality jobs, stable housing, and direct financial support.
Sometimes prevention means community programs, like federal Community Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) grants. This too has layers; it can prevent or address a looming crisis, so families never encounter the child welfare system, or it can keep families “near but not in” the system, preparing them to enter it.
Other times, it means the system itself delivering services– case plans, compliance checklists, and conditional services offered under threat of removal. The Family First Prevention Services Act funds services to prevent foster care. But eligibility happens once you’re at imminent risk of entering foster care, which is the backup plan.
All of these are called prevention, and that’s the problem. One word is doing andhiding too much. When everyone’s using the same word for radically different things, families caught in the middle pay the price for the lack of clarity.
Prevention can be safety and it can also be surveillance. What are we preventing when a family isn’t “in the system” but is surrounded by it?
Bipartisan federal investments in prevention have grown in recent years, including:
Title IV-B. Last year’s bipartisan reauthorization included $75M in new mandatory annual funding for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program;
Family First Prevention Services Act. Starting at $13M in federal funds in FY2020 it has continued to rise, to $172M in FY2023;
CBCAP: From under $40M in FY2019 to $70M in FY2025.
The challenge is that funding follows framing. We’ve defined prevention in relation to the system, so 54% of federal Title IV-E funds still go to foster care; $5B in FY2023.
If “risk” is defined by poverty, disability, or race, then prevention becomes racialized prediction. That’s why last year’s Title IV-B reauthorization saw bipartisan commitment to ensuring poverty alone can no longer be considered neglect.
Even with this progress, too many families still encounter the system unnecessarily. One study found that 53% of Black children in the U.S. will experience a child-welfare investigation by the time they turn 18.
If you find that alarming, you should know that the base rate is also staggering; nearly one-third of all children nationally receive a child welfare investigation by age 18. That’s not prevention, it’s profiling – with paperwork.
I’ve personally experienced an inconvenient reality; in child welfare, proximity to the problem can disqualify you from defining it, while distance can buy you the authority to do so.
Until we agree on what prevention is and isn't, reform will keep misfiring, and families will continue taking the hit.
If prevention doesn’t restore agency to families and communities, it’s just another program pretending to help.
Say less.