Say Less: What We Mean When We Say “Accountability”

Say Less

Say Less is our series from Kimberly Martin, exploring the contradictions and policy tensions contained in the seemingly simple words we take for granted.

Kimberly’s piece digs into accountability, one of the most loaded words in child welfare. It challenges the “reform” vs. “abolish” discussion, exposing structural contradictions that should concern leaders across the ideological spectrum.

It also points toward a deeper project; designing systems that are structurally accountable both upward and downward.

What We Mean When We Say “Accountability”

By Kimberly J. Martin, JD.

Accountability is central to child welfare oversight, but its definition and application depend entirely on where you sit. That shapes system behavior and family experience.

At its best, accountability reflects transparency, ownership, and a willingness to answer for outcomes based on shared expectations. But in child welfare? What you’re accountable for, and who you’re accountable to, depends entirely on where you sit.

Systems account for federal monitors. Families account to the state. One submits metrics, the other surrenders children.

Differing Timelines for Accountability

I’ve witnessed families being told to change everything in 30 days, while states fail the same safety outcome for a decade. Parents meet every requirement in their case plan, only to be told they weren’t “engaged enough.” Accountability is a moving target for families, and a resting place for systems.

The Power Flows of Accountability

Accountability is about power; who has it, who doesn’t, and who defines the terms. Congress writes mandates, agencies create checklists, and parents are told, ‘We don’t trust you to know what your family needs.’ That dynamic reflects control more than support.

The most powerful forms of accountability are chosen. When an agency says, “No more warehousing kids in group homes,” or when a frontline worker returns every parent call within 24 hours, not because policy demands it, but because they deserve it, that’s when change sticks. The power there emerges from intentionality.

What We Want and What We Get

We claim to want authentic outcomes, but we chase them with coercive tools. We design accountability mechanisms rooted in mistrust, then act surprised when they don’t produce trust. That contradiction doesn’t just undermine families, it creates rigid, performative policy that makes systems less accountable to policymakers.

We ask parents for weekly proof of treatment, sobriety, and housing. Meanwhile, agencies fail the same Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) indicators for years without consequences. Since CSFRs began in 2000, no state has met all benchmarks. Yet this persistent failure has created neither urgency nor a public conversation about whether the benchmarks themselves are the right measure.. Instead, we turn up the pressure, just not on the system.

When Accountability is Flexible

Take the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). It’s supposed to hold systems accountable by reducing group placements and funding prevention. But implementation has dragged. In FY2018 when Family First passed, 10 percent of children in care were in group homes or institutions.⁴ In FY 2023, 11 percent of children were in group homes, institutions, or residential care.⁵

The issue could be more kids in those settings, or better data quality reflecting the real rate. Either way, the pace of reform isn’t just slow, it’s optional, and we have ongoing policy discussions about how to help states implement it. Meanwhile, parents face hard 15-month timelines under the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89, ASFA), with little flexibility for the challenges they face.

When a child dies under state supervision, public outrage is swift, but rarely upward. Maybe a director resigns. But when the same outcomes persist for decades, that’s not a fluke; it reflects how current accountability structures are designed and applied. Everyone passes the pressure downward until it lands on families, especially the ones with the fewest resources and advantages to deflect it.

What Accountability Measures Matter

Too often, systems say they’re being accountable when what they really mean is they’re being measured. And those measurements are shaped by federal law, state budgets, and media optics, not families. When those goals conflict, families lose.

A uniform approach to accountability would mean timelines for agencies or more flexibility for families. It would also mean tracking not just whether services were provided, but whether they worked, and for whom..

Would pulling funding change how systems respond? Maybe. But federal agencies already have that authority, yet rarely use it. When they do, it can backfire, so it doesn’t seem to be a viable option. Policymakers recognize this and have shifted increasingly to incentives for systems. Perhaps next we could offer families the kinds of incentives and flexibility we offer systems.

Accountability can’t be a mirror we hold up only to families. It must be a window into how systems function and a door to change when they don’t. If it doesn’t apply in both directions, it’s not a principle. It’s a weapon.

Say less.

Kimberly Martin is a policy strategist whose work spans justice reform, equity, and systems accountability. She brings both legal insight and lived experience to the child welfare conversation.