Introduction

The American child welfare system was created to protect children from abuse and neglect at the hands of their biological parents or guardians. In some instances, it is deemed necessary to remove children from the care of their biological parents in order to protect them. In America, the foster care system serves nearly 400,000 children per year, with over 50% either returning home to live with their biological parents (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2015). However, for many of the children that do enter foster care, the experience will be less than positive both while in care, and after. The literature is quite clear that they are substantially more likely to experience abuse and neglect while in care. Additionally, they are likely to experience negative outcomes related to overall functioning including, education, health (mental and physical), and wellbeing (Barber & Delfabbro, 2003; Courtney et al., 2007; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 2003; Jonson-Reid & Barth, 2000; Kools, 1997; Perry, 2006; Stott, 2012; Vacca, 2008). There is an apparent disconnect in these findings, why is it that in a system designed to protect children from harm, youth are continuing to experience maltreatment and negative outcomes?

This paper explores the bureaucratic policies and behaviors that perpetuate neglect and abuse in the lives of children for who the system is the legal guardian, as well differential expectations about appropriate parenting behavior between biological parents and the foster care system (as the legally designated parent). Additionally, this paper will explore issues related to the oppression of biological families and children by the foster care system based on their status of class and race. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of strategies to ameliorate bureaucratic neglect and oppression for these children and their families.

Parenthood and Discipline: Rights and Responsibilities of Biological Parents

Parental Rights and Parenthood

Throughout history, parents have had the freedom to raise their child in any manner they choose, so long as it does not violate the norms of society. This freedom, often referred to as parental rights, has been echoed throughout a variety of cultures and societies around the world (Huntington, 2006). In ancient Greece, for example, fathers had such extensive and exclusive parental rights; they had the power to decide if their child was allowed to live (Huntington, 2006). While this example pushes the idea of parental rights to the extreme, it serves to illustrate the relative freedom afforded to parents with regard to child rearing relative to their culture.

In the context of American society, parental rights, while vast, are limited in that a parent may not abuse or neglect their child. Abuse and neglect is defined by societal expectations regarding parental and child behavior, and is therefore susceptible to change and determined by state level statutes. However, the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) generally defines neglect as the “failure of parents or other caregiver, for reasons not solely due to poverty, to provide the child with needed, age-appropriate care, including food, clothing, shelter, protection from harm, supervision appropriate to the child’s development, hygiene, education, and medical care (Child Welfare League of America, n.d.).” The factors influencing that definition are culturally and contextually bound, and intimately tied to the concept of parental rights. In American culture, factors influencing the spectrum parental rights, in the normative sense, are factors generated from biological, ethical, and religious influences (Hill, 1991; Huntington, 2006; Schoeman, 1980).

For many, the largest influencer of what constitutes parenthood is biology (Hill, 1991). Biological parents, until the invention of artificial insemination, were exclusively responsible for the creation of their children. From a biological perspective, once a child is born, it is logical that a parent would seek to ensure all of their child’s needs are met. In mainstream America, typically it is the responsibility of the parent to determine the needs of their child, and take actions to ensure that those needs are fulfilled. However, the larger goal is to raise the child to become a self-sufficient being, in a manner deemed appropriate by the parent within the context of their society and culture. This serves to create the greatest possibility that the child will grow up to become a healthy reproductive adult and ensures the continuation of the human race (Hill, 1991). This fundamental, biologically, and culturally rooted construct of parenting helps to understand the deeply entrenched notion that parents should have the freedom to raise their children with little interference from the outside world and that this is their parental right (Schoeman, 1980).

In addition to the biological implications of parenthood and parental rights, the familial relationship between the parent and child generates a moral imperative in which the parent is morally obligated to protect the interests of the child until such time when their child is capable of doing so themselves (Huntington, 2006). This relationship, in which the parent cares for the child and the child grows and matures, is rewarding and beneficial to both parents and children (Schoeman, 1980). Furthermore, the notion that parents are supposed to love, care for, and protect their children is seen as a critical American societal obligation (Schoeman, 1980).

In some religious cultures, the relationship between parent and child is seen as a unique, sacred, and an intimate relationship, and safe from outside interference (Schoeman, 1980). Yet, religious institutions frequently prescribe methods of child rearing, including discipline, in order to preserve these bonds, promote positive development, and teach children social norms (Gershoff, Miller, & Holder, 1999; Hoffman, 1983).

In America, the use of religious teachings as a guide to parenting is deeply entrenched, with roots extending back before the Declaration of Independence (Gershoff et al., 1999). Within Christianity, there are several distinct ideologies about the relationship between the parent and the child concerning discipline (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2008). Within Christianity and Judaism, there are two core beliefs about parental rights and discipline. On the one hand, some believe it is the role of the parents to model God’s love for a child by employing discipline strategies to promote obedience and faith (Mahoney et al., 2008). However this is a relationship to be maintained between the parent and the child only involving religious leaders for spiritual guidance. Conversely, some followers of Christianity and Judaism believe that it is the spiritual duty of the parents to exert power and control over their children, including the use of corporal punishment, as a way of ensuring proper social and spiritual development (Gershoff et al., 1999; Mahoney et al., 2008). Interestingly, many Christian denominations do not expressly oppose the use of corporal punishment, however they believe parents should only discipline children in this manner when the parent is calm, and the discipline is purposeful (Mahoney et al., 2008). Given that discipline is more likely to cross into the realm of physical abuse when an angry parent (Vasta, 1982) delivers punishment, this prescription may be a subtle attempt at distinguishing between the parental right to discipline and the safety of the child. However, Mahoney et al. (2008) suggest that the phenomenon is much more complex. They suggest that the propensity of Christian parents to use corporal punishment with their children may be a function of the teachings of their particular denomination in combination with how deeply religious the parents are. Furthermore, the number of behaviors that parents deem worthy of such punishment is also dictated by religious beliefs and the degree to which they accept these teachings (Gershoff et al., 1999). Regardless of the specific ideology and affinity for corporal punishment, it is clear that a parent’s religion is a deeply influential factor in the decision of how and why to discipline a child, but ultimately that relationship remains sacred and exclusively between the parent, the child, and their higher power.

Legal and Legislative Precedents Related to Parental Discipline

Despite the numerous social institutions and societal constructs that bestow upon parents the right to raise their child how they see fit, there are often limits placed on those rights. The societal laws used to govern a society, implicit moral code, or the teachings of a religious text may all limit parental freedoms. The American societal desire to protect children has been part of the legal landscape since as early as 1642. At that time in the state of Massachusetts, local magistrates were provided the authority to remove children from parents that were seen as unfit (Myers, 2008).

However, it was not until 1869 that the Supreme Court delivered its first major ruling on parental rights in Pletcher v. The People. This case involved a father who was found guilty of confining his disabled son in his cellar during the winter, asserting that it was his right as a parent to raise his child as he sees fit (Myers, 2008). The Supreme Court ruling determined that while parents do have the right to raise their children as they see fit, they must do so with “reason and humanity.” Thus, the court upheld the criminal charges against the father and deemed that his actions were inhumane and unreasonable. The case of Pletcher v. The People helped to establish the precedent that parental rights do not include the right to abuse, neglect, or otherwise harm their children (Myers, 2008) and that the American government retains the legal authority to determine what behaviors constitute abuse and neglect of children.

For decades, the oversight and enforcement of child protection was left up to the jurisdiction of the individual states until the passage of the child abuse prevention and treatment act (CAPTA) of 1974. Passage of CAPTA (P.L. 93-247) marked an important cornerstone in the American legal landscape with regard to child abuse and neglect, as it required the states to have formal policies for detecting and responding to child maltreatment. Additionally, CAPTA formally established the federal government as the body that oversees and enforces child maltreatment detection and treatment. Passage of CAPTA established the societal position that children are deserving of protection from abuse and neglect such that “reporting legislation is viewed as a tool for identifying parents who mistreat children so that society may deal with them for their crime of child abuse” (H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 242). This declaration, established for the first time that nationwide, child maltreatment would be seen as criminal behavior. Senator Landgrebe further cemented the belief that children deserve protection from parental abuse by stating that the “government certainly has the responsibility to protect the right of all citizens, which means to protect them from physical force or abuse. This of course includes children” (H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 11).

However, Senator Landgrebe was also cautious of the government taking on the role of child protection through the dissolution of parental rights, as he stated that the “parent child relationship is unique and presents many difficulties in attempting to protect the rights of children” (H. Rep. No. 93-685, 1974, p. 12). The senator further elaborated that parental rights should not be easily terminated, for fear of creating a totalitarian government. Senators Landgrebe’s statements illuminate perhaps the biggest paradox within child welfare policies: how is one to protect children without limiting the rights of parents? Some public policies attempt to strike a balance between the inherent need to protect children, as pointed out by Senator Landgrebe, while limiting parental rights as little as possible.

Throughout American history, the pendulum of parental rights has continued to swing between limitation and protection of parental rights, all in an effort to ensure the protection of children. However, regardless of the pendulums current position with regard to parental rights, the value that children deserve a childhood free from abuse and neglect remains constant and clear with a specific emphasis on the best interest of the child. Therefore, the federal government, through the use of policies, legislation, and funding mechanisms, established a set of expectations regarding appropriate parental behavior. Additionally, consequences for violating those norms, including the removal of children from allegedly abusive parents, have been established, concretizing the place of the foster care system as surrogate parents when biological parents and their children become a part of the foster care system.

The Foster Care System as a Surrogate Parent: Bureaucratic Neglect

Unfortunately, the foster care system as a surrogate parent has not been immune to parenting problems when adopting the role of legal surrogate parent. The most noted issue that has plagued the foster care system, a phenomenon named “foster care drift,” occurred throughout the 1970s and 1980s (Hartley, 1984). During this time, public attention was drawn towards the amount of time that children were spending in foster care, as well as the lack of oversight for foster care services in general. In response to these concerns the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1979 (CWA) (P.L. 96-272) was enacted.

In congressional hearings prior to the enactment of the CWA, several people, including Senator Cranston (D-CA), Mr. Levine the head of the Children’s Defense Fund, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all commented on the fact that children are being lost in the foster care system. Furthermore, they all recommended that specific actions, such as the creation of a tracking system, be undertaken to ameliorate the drift and loss of children in foster care (Proposals Related to Social, 1979a, b, c). As such, The CWA expanded CAPTA by establishing that each child must have unique identifiable tracking information, goals for family reunification, and limited the amount of time allowed for a child to achieve a permanent placement (either with family or substitute care) (Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 1980). This, theoretically, limited the amount of time a case could flounder as well as expedited the path to permanency for children in foster care.

However, even after enacting the CWA, changes were slow to take hold and many children were still languish in care, in the very system that was designed to protect them from maltreatment and harm. In 1990 in a report to the House of Representatives, Representative George Miller provided testimony about how the state of child welfare remained bleak at best. Representative Miller stated that he was aware of more than 45 lawsuits that had been levied against child welfare agencies because children had been abused or neglected in care either through abuse or neglect of a foster parent, failure of an agency to respond to the needs of a child, or failure of an agency to comply with the provisions of the CWA (Federally Funded Child Welfare, 1990). One example is the case, L.J. v. Massinga (1988), which alleged that the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (BCDSS) foster care program was out of compliance with the CWA and that children were not being properly cared for while in their care. Despite the fact that the case of L.J. v. Massinga (1988) was filed in 1984, as recently as 2007 the BCDSS was still attempting to comply with the injunctions imposed as a result of that court case.

Despite the plethora of negative attention that child welfare agencies attracted in the 1970s and 1980s, the implicit consensus is that the foster care system in and of itself exists as a ‘good’ entity (Balmer, 2004). Despite the assumed good intentions of the foster care system, there are a multitude of examples of neglectful behavior by the system such as a failure to address abuse and neglect of children while in care (Balmer, 2004) and inattention to negative outcomes experienced by youth in care. However, the numerous lawsuits filed against child welfare and foster care agencies since the 1980s speak directly to experiences of maltreatment while in care. Furthermore, the rampant workplace stressors child welfare worker face combined with working in environments for which they are chronically undertrained and under supported, only exacerbates the likelihood of experiencing abuse or neglect while in foster care (Balmer, 2004). Essentially, the public foster care system, in charge of protecting children, has a history of neglecting the needs it has been assigned to guard and engaging in bureaucratic neglect.

Additionally, it would behoove one to consider the negative outcomes experienced while in care as expressions of bureaucratic neglect. Many of the negative outcomes experienced by youth in the foster care system can be attributed to placement instability while in care (Chou, 1993). Placement instability in and of itself is not neglectful. However, when the decision to move or place a child is made on factors that are contrary to the child’s best interest such as the cost of the home, the convenience to the worker, or the first available bed, the focus shifts from the interest of the child and moves closer to neglectful behavior on the behalf of the system (Chou, 1993). Because of these numerous moves, the wellbeing of children in foster care including their medical, emotional, and educational needs often suffer (Chou, 1993).

One specific negative outcome due to placement instability is the fact that children in foster care are more likely to have more school absences than are allowed under truancy laws (Zetlin, Weinberg, & Kimm, 2004). These numerous moves result in delays in enrollment, disruptions to learning, increased risk of a failure to graduate and many other experiences that culminate in the overall lower educational attainment of foster care alumni (Vacca, 2008). Furthermore, these numerous moves can result in disrupted social relationships that reduce support later in life and increase risks of homelessness, poor independent living skills, and a host of other negative experiences (Dworsky & Courtney, 2009; Perry, 2006). The foster care system is rarely, if ever held accountable for high rates of absenteeism.

Presently, the authors are unaware of any lawsuits, court actions, or other instances where child welfare agencies were found culpable for the educational neglect of children in foster care. Conversely, parents and children are brought before judges in juvenile court every day all across the country due to violations of truancy laws, even when the absences were due to medical or social-emotional needs, as this behavior would constitute educational neglect in many states (Gleich-Bope, 2014). This example highlights the disturbing differing expectations of the foster care system as a parent. However, the foster care system should be held to the same minimum standards of accountability as the legal guardian of a child, just as parents are held to a minimum standard as a legal guardian.

In Who’s Best Interest: An Exploration of Policy, Power, Oppression, and Bias

Street-Level Bureaucracy

In much the same way that CAPTA and state level criminal codes establish guidelines for parents with regards to discipline and appropriate child rearing practices; foster care policies provide guidance about how foster care workers should attend to the needs of children in their care.

The foster care system is complex and functions at many levels of government, however, accountability for foster care policies are largely enacted at the federal and state levels. Conversely, individual caseworkers, who are associated with limited geographic areas, implement these policies (Hagedorn, 1995) and therefore represent the needs of a specific decision making context. Because of gap between who is writing policy, and who is implementing these policies on the ground, there is often a great deal of mismatch between the policy as it is written, and the policy as it is implemented.

Within many child welfare agencies, workers are often functioning in an environment where they are overworked, undertrained, and underqualified to provide the quality of care to foster children outlined in policies like the CSW or ASFA (Balmer, 2004). While many workers philosophically agree with the provisions of acts like the CWA or ASFA, they often find themselves under an immense amount of pressure in terms of time, policy requirements, and expectations of the court (Lipsky, 1980; Smith & Donovan, 2003). In response to these overwhelming and sometimes competing demands, they employ discretionary decision making as a means by which they can control their workload and work demands (Smith & Donovan, 2003).

In Lipsky’s (1980) seminal work, he describes this phenomenon as street-level bureaucracy, and discusses how public service providers, such as foster care workers, must make discretionary decisions in order to cope with the high demands of their work. In the moment, these street-level decisions may seem innocuous to workers, however, overtime these small decisions mount, and ultimately shift the implementation of a policy away from how its original intent (Lipsky, 1980; Smith & Donovan, 2003). Furthermore, these case-by-case basis decisions serve to establish a precedent for future cases (Lipsky, 1980) and can shift the implicit expectations of the work environment (Smith & Donovan, 2003). For example, research now indicates that social workers cope with their work environment by engaging in decision-making processes that are more punitive towards families and adhere to stricter rules when engaging with families (Tummers, Bekkers, Vink, & Musheno, 2015). Often these punitive views are detrimental to families as these workers are less likely to engage with families in order to promote reunification, resulting in longer tenures in foster care (Smith & Donovan, 2003). This stands in direct opposition to the philosophies embedded with ASFA whereby families should be maintained if possible and child welfare agencies are to provide services to promote reunification in the event that foster care is a necessary intervention (Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 1980). This is but one example of how decisions that foster care workers make on a day-to-day basis directly alter the implementation of a policy over time. This deviation from policy is concerning given that these policies were implemented in direct response to concerns of neglectful behaviors by foster care agencies in order to protect children in foster care from additional maltreatment.

Examining Power, Oppression, and Bias with Regard to Best Interest

The implicit assumption behind the entire American foster care system is that when parents are unable to care for their children the government should assume care of the child, as doing so would be in the best interest of the child (Anyon, 2011; Balmer, 2004). The roots of this assumptions is deeply entrenched in our society, and is linked to the medieval doctrine of parens patriae (Rendleman, 1971). The application of this doctrine in American case law extends back for centuries. Interestingly, the history of parens patriae is inextricably linked to the inability of poor parents to properly raise their children and the need for local governments to intervene in order to ensure the proper upbringing of these children (Rendleman, 1971).

Modern society is not as brazen in its condemnation of poverty in relation to one’s ability to parent. Explicit discussions of parental attributes and circumstances have now shifted to discussions of how to promote the safety and the best interests of the child. The idea that child welfare policy at all levels should function to promote the best interests of children with regard to safety and permanency is a noble one, however it is highly subjective and exposed to bias (Anyon, 2011). Using a Critical Race Theory lens, one can see how the norms and expectations about appropriate child behavior embedded in child welfare and foster care policies greatly align with those of the White middle class community (Hanna, Boyce, & Yang, 2016; Nadan, Spilsbury, & Korbin, 2015). When considering the markers for parental behavior deemed as child maltreatment, disturbingly, research now suggests that simply being a member of a marginalized community may be used as a litmus test for determining if maltreatment occurred, or if parenting approaches were unacceptable (Nadan et al., 2015). Furthermore, once a child is in foster care there are substantial disparities with regard to the rates at which children of color enter foster care, how quickly their parental rights are terminated, and once terminated the length of time it takes to achieve permanency (Anyon, 2011). These disparities and the reliance on culturally bound expectations of parenting practices highlight marginalization and oppression of communities of color who may ascribe to different beliefs about parenting or be evaluated differently by workers. Furthermore, the assumption that the foster care system is better equipped to parent children who have been maltreated despite issues with bureaucratic neglect promotes feelings of powerlessness in families served by the foster care system.

Once a child has entered into the foster care system, agencies are tasked with joining with families in order to provide services to reunify a child with their parents. However, many agencies are understaffed, underfunded, and overly bureaucratic, and children and their families often get lost in the system (Hagedorn, 1995). Additionally, dynamics of street-level bureaucracy, such as discretionary decision-making practices, such as working with the ‘easy’ families as reunification is less difficult or providing services in a routine fashion rather than in response to the needs of the family (Brodkin, 1997) highlight power differentials between foster care workers and parents. For example, when foster care workers behaviors that promote neglectful environments for foster children such as cutting corners, providing services that are easily documented rather than what may be most useful, and failing to follow up with biological families or service providers are seen as survival behaviors (Smith & Donovan, 2003). However, if biological parents engage in these same behaviors when their child is in foster care, they are viewed as uncooperative, unwilling to do what is best for their child, or simply labeled as difficult (Brodkin, 1997; Smith & Donovan, 2003).

In order for a child to exit foster care and return home, the factors that prompted the removal of the child must be ameliorated, however addressing the factors that lead to the entry into foster care are complex, especially for families of color. Systemic issues related to child maltreatment such as poverty, unemployment, and unsafe neighborhoods are all but impossible for individual families address. Additionally, lack of social capital and access to resources and services, such as mental health services and substance use treatment, to ameliorate maltreatment issues greatly impacts more families of color (Anyon, 2011; Nadan et al., 2015). In light of such overwhelming odds as well as a lack of understanding about the child welfare process, many families prematurely give up and disengage from the reunification process (Darlington, Healy, & Feeney, 2010). Additionally, the social worker often has support for the case plan in terms of enforcement from the court, and as such the family does not have support to or feels powerless to challenge the worker’s case plans (Hagedorn, 1995). Moreover, one study found that foster care social workers do not feel as though working with biological parents is part of the purview of their job, and they create case plans as a means to test the willingness of the parent to partner with the agency to get their children returned to them (Smith & Donovan, 2003). When the foster care system is presented as an entity that knows what is best for the children, despite the fact that ongoing bureaucratic neglect is occurring, families who are savvy enough to understand how to work the system and advocate for the needs of their family and their children are often viewed very negatively (Ayón, 2009).

Even the youth themselves are relatively powerless when it comes to advocating for themselves within the foster care system. Youth in general are considered to be a relatively powerless group in that they do not vote, and that they are dependent on adults, but foster youth are considered by some to be the most powerless group in society (Chou, 1993). Foster youth who experience maltreatment while in care have little recourse to confront the agencies. Tort laws and a lack of formalized protected children’s rights make legal action against foster care agencies difficult. Presently, case law is divided on the issue and the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the rights of foster children (Balmer, 2004). Beyond legal recourse, many youth are unaware of even who to contact in the event of a grievance. One study reported that youth often do not know who their worker is, and in some cases, youth were notified of their discharge from the child welfare system with nothing more than a letter (McCoy, McMillen, & Spitznagel, 2008).

Potential Interventions to Mitigate Bureaucratic Neglect and Oppression

The child welfare system, while flawed, is not without hope for change. It may seem as if the problems of oppression and bureaucratic neglect within the system are too large to overcome. However, we believe that outcomes for children and families involved with the foster care system can be improved through the development of critical consciousness, implementation of anti-oppressive practices at the agency level, as well as paradigm shifts and new legal precedents.

Given the innumerable issues of power and oppression families face perhaps the least intensive intervention to combat power inequities within the foster care system, is a shift in personal values and beliefs related to power and inequity. The development of a critical consciousness at the worker level could be highly beneficial as it would encourage workers to consider the ways in which their practice is influenced by class and race bias and thus reproduces oppression and is limiting to those they serve (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). There are many specific strategies that can employed to facilitate the development of a critical consciousness, however the key element is the development of individualized reflexive thought to specifically examine power, oppression, and intersectionality in their daily work. This process is highly individualized and requires a great deal of buy in from individual level practitioners. However, schools of social work as well as agencies employing social workers can make a commitment to instilling the value of lifelong learning to encourage the ongoing work necessary to develop a critically conscious approach to social work (Sakamoto & Pitner, 2005). Additionally, creating environments where inter-group dialogues can be used to raise issues of power and oppression at the student and professional level can be particularly effective (Nagda & Zúñiga, 2003). It is noteworthy that social work educators have already expressed commitment for this idea in their support for addressing power, promoting lifelong learning, and encouraging the use of evidence and research in practice (National Association of Social Workers, 2008). Furthermore, other helping professions such as nursing and counseling have shown that promoting university and agency partnerships can be helpful in promoting social justice by infusing education and real world application for students and workers (Constantine, Hage, Kindaichi, & Bryant, 2007; Redman & Clark, 2002). Continuing to promote such partnerships will be important in shifting worker paradigms and awareness about issues of power and oppression for families served by the foster care system.

At the agency level, a firm commitment to engaging in anti-oppressive practices are particularly salient as these practices are designed to address issues of structural inequality (Dominelli & Campling, 2002). Additionally, considering issues of historical mistrust in context of specific foster care policies may be helpful in understanding dynamics related to power, oppression, and marginalization (Hanna et al., 2016). However, complex workplace issues also contribute to the phenomenon of bureaucratic neglect in child welfare. In many states, the demand for child welfare workers far exceeds the number of available workers. In an effort to find people for the job, states like California have declassified child welfare work, and now anyone can work in child protection rather than formally trained social workers (Wong, 2001). Consequently, scholars are now calling for a re-professionalization of foster care whereby social workers and specialized attorneys are used to ensure high quality work, and prevent bureaucratic neglect (Balmer, 2004). However, states are also having trouble retaining workers due to issues of burnout and overall feelings of ineffectiveness and inadequacy (Lizano & Barak, 2015). Given that workers report feeling they don’t have enough time to do their jobs, and the laws and policies are unclear (Smith & Donovan, 2003), it seems that policy reform to address issues of title protection, and foster care policy would be highly beneficial. Specifically, clarifying foster care policies, providing additional levels of oversight (at the worker, agency, and judicial levels) (Chou, 1993), and designing mechanisms for worker and agency level accountability (Balmer, 2004) could all address power, oppression, and bureaucratic neglect.

Oversight and accountability are not simple issues to address as judicial autonomy and governmental immunity make reform in foster care agencies immensely difficulty. However, if policies regarding the structure of child welfare decision making, the creation of outside review boards could be helpful in reducing judicial autonomy and promoting fair and equitable foster care practices (Chou, 1993). Additionally, examining the rationale behind governmental immunity, tort law, and individual worker culpability could go a long way in addressing practices that are inherently neglectful (Balmer, 2004).

Over time, as advances in the understanding of the impact and significance of bureaucratic neglect increases, interventions can be developed and tested with regard to efficacy and reliability. In the meantime, this issue is affecting the lives of foster children daily, and as such cannot be left without attention. The solutions addressed above provide places to start, but more importantly they will draw attention to the issue of bureaucratic neglect and its consequences, thus sparking a fire for change and ensuring that oppression and neglect of children and families served by the foster care system continue to garner attention, research, and intervention.

Conclusion

Throughout American history, child welfare legislation has been part of the political landscape. While child welfare policies have waxed and waned over time, the overall goal of child welfare legislation is to illuminate the line between acceptable and unacceptable parental behavior. Furthermore, the expectation that the child welfare system is that it functions as an appropriate substitute parent. This expectation has remained constant since the passage of P.L. 96-272 in 1974. However, the child welfare system, as a surrogate parent has failed many children since its inception. Large systemic issues such as foster care drift and poor worker practices are commonplace problems and are only addressed through patchwork legislation. These changes provide some immediate relief to a broken system, but do little to address the larger systemic issues. Furthermore, differing expectations exist between biological parents and the child welfare system in that behavior that is acceptable for one group, is grounds for removal for the other. These differing expectations are allowed to exist due to the power enjoyed by the child welfare system, and its oppression of poor families as poor families continued to be viewed as not worthy. Sadly, it is becoming evident that children served by the child welfare system are not enjoying childhoods free from abuse, but merely childhoods with less abuse. Radical changes to the child welfare structure are needed to address inequalities within the system in order to better serve families and reduce negative outcomes for children served by the child welfare system.