Weekly Wonk: Child Care Is Child Welfare Policy
The role of childcare access in reducing abuse and neglect
From the Founder’s Desk
Welcome to this week’s Weekly Wonk.
While child care policy is frequent “above the fold” news, its role in reducing child maltreatment is not often part of the conversation.
That’s an opening for both of those policy communities.
This week’s Deep Dive is a guest piece from Elliot Haspel, a leading expert on child care policy and author of the excellent Substack The Family Frontier.
His piece makes the structural case for what we miss by looking at these policy domains separately.
Our premium members are reading the latest from Senior Contributor Doug Steiger, who shows the key moves to make to navigate the Hill more effectively.
For our most recent WonkCast, I sat down with Ryan Hanlon, the new Associate Commissioner of the Children’s Bureau.
It’s a key window into how the new Children’s Bureau leadership is thinking about policy priorities, long-term financing, and what’s ahead.
And in the Wonkatizer, a new ASPE brief offers a federal snapshot of where states actually stand on kinship care, and there’s changes to the child welfare policy manual.
Let’s get into it.
Special thanks to Binti for their foundational sponsorship of WonkCast.
Weekly Wonk Deep Dive
How Child Care Access Quietly Shapes Child Welfare's Front Door
Reducing parental stress and adding more trusted adults into a family ecosystem reduces child maltreatment
By Elliot Haspel, Guest Contributor
Reducing parental stress and adding more trusted adults into a family ecosystem reduces child maltreatment
American child care debates tend to organize around two arguments.
The economic case, parental (and especially maternal) labor force attachment, and the ways in which accessible child care impacts businesses and the economy writ large.
And the early childhood development case, which focuses on how good child care, or the lack thereof, impacts the rapidly growing brains and school readiness of young kids.
There is, however, a structural blind spot in the discourse: child care access plays a load-bearing role in the infrastructure that can keep children safer and families out of the child welfare system.
The evidence is substantial, and largely absent from how child care policymakers, advocates, and funders currently calculate the case for investment.
Two Mechanisms, One Overlooked Connection
There are two primary mechanisms by which child care intersects with child welfare: parental stress, and the presence of trusted adults in a family’s ecosystem.
The stress mechanism is direct.
Reduced family well-being dramatically spikes the risk of child maltreatment; when a parent is at the end of their rope and lacks an ecosystem of support, it is more likely they will take harmful actions.
The lack of affordable and accessible child care can be an isolating hammer-blow to family well-being.
Not only are there clear effects on financial security (and therefore vital elements like housing and food stability) but research has found that managing the search for and precariousness of child care is itself a significant psychological burden.
The impacts are worst for mothers, for whom unstable, unreliable child care is correlated with harms to mental health that can last six years or more.
The second mechanism is less visible but equally important.
Child care programs are often essential hubs through which new parents build informal safety nets — friendships, emergency backup care, and key parenting knowledge such as safe sleeping practices.
When child care is inaccessible, those networks don’t form.
Sociologist Mario Small has documented how central these programs are to that connective tissue.
That social isolation, combined with precarious shift work, can also lead to reliance on unsafe care arrangements, such as leaving children home alone or with adults unequipped to care for them.
What the Data Show
When child care breaks down, the effects can be severe.
Colorado’s Child Fatality Review Team has identified so many deaths correlated with a lack of child care that it made a formal recommendation that the state ensure “affordable and accessible child care for all families.”
Between 2013 and 2017, the Team identified 223 child maltreatment deaths that might have been prevented with adequate child care available.
The positive impacts of solving America’s child care challenge on child welfare, then, are also sizable.
A research team led by Dr. Henry Puls calculated that a major national investment in child care — akin to what was proposed in the Build Back Better legislation, approximately $400 billion over six years — “might reduce” child welfare:
Investigations for suspected maltreatment by 6.4 percent,
Victimization by 6.0 percent,
Foster care entries by 3.1 percent,
Maltreatment-related fatalities by 11.6 percent.
Puls’ team applied these estimates to real child welfare data from 2014-2019 and found it would yield a “striking number of potentially safer children”:
1.3 million fewer children investigated
244,000 fewer children substantiated as victims
9,000 fewer children entering foster care
1,198 fewer deaths.
Why the Blind Spot Persists
The curious absence of child welfare from discussions of child care policy can likely be tracked to a few sources.
Child welfare and child care advocates are more cousins than siblings: they may occasionally come together, but largely live apart.
That separation is both caused by and a cause of siloed federal funding streams.
This is also a symptom of a more program-focused approach to family policy that was cemented during 1990s welfare reform, as opposed to an ecosystem approach that understands and responds to the myriad influences on family well-being.
That shift has created a structural divergence which has led to downstream fragmentation of policy and advocacy communities.
Similarly, the philanthropies which both issue communities depend on rarely work across both domains, despite often having overlapping priorities.
And economists asked to calculate the benefits of child care investments are almost never asked to incorporate the effects on child welfare, or the savings from meaningfully reduced investigatory caseloads and foster care placements.
As a result, the researchers, advocates, and messengers in each domain are optimizing for their own audiences, and the connection between the two rarely gets made or resourced.
For instance, since higher income eligibility limits for child care subsidy has been linked to lower child maltreatment rates, taking a broader view may reduce the functional cost of raising those limits and make state legislatures more inclined to fund them.
Similarly, most states give some form of subsidy priority to families who are referred by state or local welfare agencies.
But given enrollment freezes and a lack of available slots in many areas, states may need to get more creative to ensure that when such a case arises, child care needs can actually be addressed.
A Solvable Problem
The structural barriers are real but not immovable.
Philanthropies — perhaps through existing collaboratives like the Children, Youth & Family Funders Roundtable — could set tables where child care and child welfare advocates and policy experts can come together to identify a common agenda and a more comprehensive accounting of benefits.
Advocates and wonks, of course, can initiate these conversations themselves, and ensure that child welfare gains are included in their analyses.
State child welfare directors could walk across the hall to state child care administrators and have a similar conversation, and vice versa.
Congress could hold a hearing or ask the Congressional Research Service, Government Accountability Office, or relevant agencies to research the intersection to inform future thinking on policy focus and approach.
Demonstrating the stark impacts that child care has on child welfare make the stakes for decision makers clear.
Public investment in child care doesn’t just impact workforce participation or child development; it’s also an upstream factor that shapes family stability and child safety.
Decisions shaping philanthropic investment, policy design, and advocacy strategy that don’t include this awareness are missing an essential element that matters for both policy communities and, most importantly, for families.
It’s time to illuminate the blind spot.
Elliot Haspel is a Senior Fellow at Capita and author of The Family Frontier, which focuses on child care and early childhood policy.
From the Wonk Briefing Room
Every Friday, members of our premium community, the Wonk Briefing Room, receive our latest premium brief.
Where the Weekly Wonk maps the terrain, our premium resources focus on how to navigate it.
Two weeks ago, Kristen Torres gave us the view from inside a personal office — what staff are juggling, what filters every ask, and what it takes to get an ask moving.
This week’s brief goes deeper into how to navigate the structural incentives, pressures, and decision-making processes of the institution itself.
It also gives forward guidance on the moves that quietly determine whether a Hill staffer sees you as an expert resource, or someone to sideline:
How to be an honest broker,
How to follow up in ways that build rather than burden,
How to deploy your comparative advantage; and
The mistakes that signal to staffers you don’t understand the room.
It’s essential reading for anyone moving policy through Congress.
To read the full brief and access all our premium resources, individuals can sign up here, or get the team membership rate here
Wonkatizer
Most States Haven’t Caught Up Kin Care Policy
What Happened
A new ASPE issue brief, co-authored with ACF, benchmarks where states stand on kinship care and points to policies to expand uptake.
What It Says
64% haven’t taken the option to amend their Title IV-E plans to adopt separate licensing standards for kinship homes as of January.
Fewer than 20 percent are operating a Title IV-E kinship navigator program.
The brief points to strategies for expanded use of kin that we have previously discussed, including widening the definition of who qualifies as kin or adopting kin-specific licensing
Why It Matters
The licensing gap is the operational bottleneck — without a licensed home, kin caregivers can’t access Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments.
Structural difficulties related to the Title IV-E clearinghouse downthrottle what’s possible for kinship navigator deployment.
What to Watch
How ACF uses this data to encourage expanded kin care as part of its A Home for Every Child agenda, and what strategies states find to boost last-mile policy delivery.
Child Welfare Policy Manual Curtails Cultural Competence Costs
What Happened
The Children’s Bureau updated a question in the Child Welfare Policy Manual to no longer allow Title IV-E administrative funds for training on “cultural competence”.
What It Is
The policy manual is a core guidance document to jurisdictions that answer questions related to interpretation of federal financing and policy rules.
The updated question details the kinds of training topics on healthy child development for which Title IV-E admin funds can pay.
Deletions to the manual are typically here, though this one doesn’t appear up yet.
It appears that the rescinded text refers broadly to cultural competence and uses examples related to sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.
Why It Matters
Cultural adaptation and cultural competence are broad concepts that can include and apply beyond LGBTQ issues.
For example, these are approaches often used for adapting policies and programs for use with tribal populations, such as by tribally-run Title IV-E programs.
What to Watch
Whether this leads to unanticipated state, local, or tribal expenditures for costs jurisdictions incurred but for which they have not yet received reimbursement.
That’s it for this week.
Stay sharp, Wonks.
~Z
Partners Making Your Weekly Wonk Possible
