Community-Centered Services and the Role of Agencies of Color

Child Welfare Plans: Yesterday and Today

Megan McLaughlin, DSW, Member-at-Large, NASW-NYC Board of Directors, former Executive Vice President, Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies

The child welfare system is undoubtedly one of the most studied public entities in New York City. Every Mayor and every Commissioner has studied the child welfare system and developed a reform plan. What is most noteworthy is the amazing consensus that has existed for over 50 years about the essential elements of an effective child welfare system: a neighborhood- based approach that includes community residents and institutions, and family-centered and preventive services. It is also important to note that reform is a process that occurs over time with past actions, small and large, serving as building blocks for current reforms.

Early Plans for Decentralization

A look at plans and innovations between 1957 and 1962 demonstrates this point. In 1957 the Bureau of Child Welfare was reorganized to strengthen intake and increase services to help parents maintain children in their homes rather than place them. Later, a 1961 Plan recommended decentralization to make services more accessible to families - improvement of protective services, preventive services and increased coordination with other entities and services. Then, a 1962 report to Commissioner Dumpson, “A Plan for Decentralization of Services,” outlined the administrative structure and program needed for the Bureau to decentralize its services.

These themes were reinforced and refined in many subsequent reports including a Citizens’ Committee for Children 1971 report, “The Dream Deferred,” and the 1979/80 Dumpson plan, “Redirecting Foster Care.” A few years later the Koch/Beattie report recommended decentralization, integration of services and a separate mayoral agency for families and children.
Plans for Neighborhood-Based Services

A 1989 report by Agenda for Children Tomorrow assessed the results of previous reports and plans and concluded that few of the recommendations in the various reports had been implemented. It recommended a transition to neighborhood services responsive to the community and guided by community needs assessment.

“Failed Promises: Child Welfare in New York City: A Look at the Past, A Vision for the Future” recommended appointment of a “point person” empowered to address the needs of children and families, and develop- ment of “Family Service Centers” to serve as the centerpiece for decentralized services in Community Districts. A Commission under Mayor Dinkins, “Child Welfare at a Crossroads: Rethinking, Redirecting, Reinvesting”, recommended geographic placement and organization of service delivery such that children and families would have access to a full range of services, including mental health, in their own neighborhoods.

Commissioner Scoppetta’s 1997 Reform Plan included three key elements: restructuring to focus on child safety, coordinating and restructuring of services to create networks of neighborhood-based services, and improving the skills of all staff. Unlike previous plans, it spelled out goals, clear objectives, and strategies to achieve objectives, outcome and performance measures. In addition, Commissioner Bell later provided great continuity since he was a part of the leadership team that developed the 1997 Reform Plan; he continued its implementation during his administration.

Changes Form Building Blocks

While change has been very slow, some significant changes have been made, and the current Commissioner has a solid foundation on which to build. Preventive services and kinship foster care are now integral components of child welfare services. There is a Mayoral Agency for Children’s Services with a Commissioner, staff training is recognized as a priority, and the system is inching toward geographic placements and greater accountability. The foster care census that increased dramatically between 1986 and 1992, decreased dramatically between 1992 and 2005 and has now returned to the 1986 level. The decline is attributed to decreases in the crack epidemic and HIV and AIDS, as well as to the implementation of some important reforms. Most importantly, significant steps have been taken to address the inherent inequity in child welfare financing.However, one of the major recommendations, transition to neighborhood centered services, is yet to be implemented and is the major challenge for the current Commissioner. This challenge comes at a time when “downsizing’ is an imperative.

The Current Challenge

Commissioner Mattingly is poised to implement a strategy that “redefines the child welfare system in a way that emphasizes the needs of children and families, meeting those needs in communities where they live, and partnering with adequately resourced providers who have a demonstrated record of performance and the capacity to do quality work.” There is no question about the approach; the key issue is implementation.

As we move along that path, it is important to recognize that Child Welfare Services alone cannot resolve the most pressing issue of poverty, which drives the majority of problems facing families whose children are most at risk. A move to community-centered services should not shift the responsibility for family and child welfare from the public sector to the most beleaguered, resource-poor communities. Most important, community-centered services must build on existing community institutions.

Neighborhood-Centered Services and Agencies of Color

The communities in question are primarily communities of color since they house the overwhelming majority of families and children served by ACS. However, there are relatively few child welfare agencies of color. Except for two agencies, those that exist were formed in the late 1980’s to make the provider system more representative of the client population and to make services more culturally appropriate. But the need for their existence has remained an issue for many in the field and is more critical at this time when downsizing and neighborhood-centered services are on the agenda.

Why is there such an issue about Black and Latino Child Welfare Agencies/ Agencies of Color? In New York City it is not unusual for ethnic and sectarian groups to organize and provide services to members of their group. In fact, that is the history of human services, especially in the northeastern United States. The more pertinent question relates to the quality of services that black and Latino children and families are receiving. Are they receiving services that are accessible to them not just in terms of geographic proximity but also in terms of cultural consistency?

The communities at highest risk remain poor communities of color; therefore any plan that seeks to implement neighborhood-based or community-centered services must address the role of agencies of color. In my view, a community-centered program reflects the needs and priorities of the community and addresses them in ways that are consistent with community values and culture. It incorporates community leadership, formal and informal, incorporates the community’s approach to problem solving, and strengthens the fabric of the community. If one goal of the community-centered approach is to embrace and engage the community then it must involve the community at all levels, as board members, supervisors, staff and clients. Programs are not community-centered if power over policy and decision-making, resources, and practice reside outside of the community.

Many child welfare agencies of color were established when crack cocaine and HIV and AIDS threw the system into crisis and the request for out-of-home placement was at an all time high. Let us not forget the period of “boarder babies,” “nomad children” and “AIDS orphans.” Agencies of color were birthed during a time of crisis and they proved their mettle by finding homes, involving more relatives for kinship care, and increasing foster care placements of adolescents, all of which are now incorporated into current best practice. It is also true that they did not receive the resources needed to do their job and they have had to invest their own scare resources to justify their existence. Nonetheless, the history and experiences of these agencies should inform present plans to move
to neighborhood-centered services, and they should constitute the core of the evolving service system.

Join NASW