Despite several complaints to the agency over the past few years about the boys’ care, their case had been closed last year. The high-profile death of Faheem Williams, and later revelations that the case worker for Williams and his twin, Raheem, may have been working on more than 100 other cases simultaneously, has sparked widespread anger and calls for major changes in the state’s child-welfare system.
New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services is certainly not the only state agency to have faced such criticism, but it is one of the most disorganized and least accountable, according to child-welfare advocates. While the Williams case may have drawn attention and sympathy from the public, advocates remain skeptical that it will prompt the necessary improvements to the system. NEWSWEEK’s Jennifer Barrett spoke with Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of the New York-based Childrens Rights Inc., which filed suit against New Jersey three years ago on behalf of the children in foster care–and has taken similar action in other states–about what can be done to fix the system. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: Have you found class-action litigation to be an effective strategy in reforming child welfare?
Marcia Robinson Lowry: Yes, we have several lawsuits that either haven’t gone to a decision–that’s the case in New Jersey–or which are postjudgment, meaning we are enforcing court orders, in 11 jurisdictions now. I think many defendants recognize these kinds of lawsuits are essential. It creates priorities for child-welfare services that simply don’t exist in state government. It creates both a political atmosphere and a fiscal atmosphere in which they can actually do things to protect kids they can’t otherwise do. Also, unlike the kinds of changes that take place in response to a horrific child abuse death, lawsuits and court orders continue. This creates the kind of pressure not otherwise available and it has sustainability. It continues the pressure, and it continues accountability over time until the job gets done.
You sued New Jersey in 1999. Where does that case stand?
It’s in the fact-gathering, or discovery, phase, and it’s going to trial next year. Experts are now doing analyses of the child-welfare system based on management documents from defendants and a review of a random sample from children’s case records. These people will be issuing reports. We represent some individual children, but we asked the court to treat the case as a class action so that the kids we have individually named are representative of other children in similar situations in the foster case system.
Have things improved in New Jersey since you sued?
There have been some very superficial changes, but the system has been spending most of its efforts trying to conceal what its problems are. The state has spent a lot of its energy trying to knock the case out of court on legal grounds and trying to keep it from going to trial. They fought this being certified as a class-action suit; they lost that. They have tried to stall the case or get it thrown out of court, unsuccessfully.
Is this a matter of increasing funding or decreasing the caseload per worker, or are we talking about a complete revamping of the system?
It’s a combination of things. New Jersey doesn’t spend enough money and also does not spend the money effectively, and the agency has enormous management problems. There is no accountability. It’s a very defensive system. They really need a total management overhaul, and they need to be serious and honest about the restructuring the agency needs. A governor-appointed task force issued a report in 1998 saying everything possible was broken in the system and it was a crisis, and nothing happened. I’m not sure how it is different this time, except for the fact that the media is paying attention. I’m concerned that when the media moves on to another story, as it must, that these kids are going to drop back down to the bottom of the priority list.
Aren’t there other options besides lawsuits to change the system?
We think it is appropriate to bring lawsuits when other efforts have failed … A better way would be for political officials to step up and make sure the system runs in a way that conforms with the law. But when the state officials charged with legal responsibility don’t protect these kids, all we have left is court.
Do you think New Jersey is an exception or the norm among child-welfare agencies nationwide?
Sometimes even a conscientious, well-trained and supportive worker is going to make a mistake. What you are looking for is whether there are profound problems that have existed for a long time and affect a lot of children–and that is certainly the case in New Jersey.
The New Jersey caseworker assigned to the Williams brothers was estimated to have had anywhere from 53 to 107 cases, depending on whom you ask. The Child Welfare League of America, a nonprofit group, recommends workers handle no more than 17 cases at one time. Is that a realistic number?
Yes, and actually, they say there should be no more than 12 cases for child-protective investigations and 17 for kids in custody. In New Jersey, the majority of workers have been on the job less than two years, so the trainees have very low caseloads, while the rest of the cases are distributed among the other caseworkers and they have very high caseloads.
New Jersey is one of six states in the country that has not yet implemented a computer system to track child-abuse cases, something mandated by the federal government since 1993. Why hasn’t the federal government stepped in here?
The federal government makes a lot of money available to states to improve the system. But it has had a loose standard, and it hasn’t exercised a lot of political oversight. In 2000, the federal government changed how it would exercise oversight. Only 17 state agencies have been audited since 2000, and all of them have failed. But little has been done.
Why aren’t these children more of a priority?
Voters tend to think, it’s not my kids, and what does this have to do with me? There is no real constituency for these kids. They are largely kids of the poor. It is not in the politicians’ political interest to pay attention to this; they are more likely to make sure the roads are paved and the snow is plowed. If you have to cut something, you might as well cut services for a group who can’t complain about it.
But the social costs are tremendous. Even if you put aside the incredible tragedy of the destruction of children’s lives, Who do you think these kids are going to grow up to be? We are going to be paying for it in one way or another.
On a national level, what would you like to see done?
There is basic public policy embodied in law about how services should be provided, but the public is not demanding that these state systems comply with the law or actually carry out our public-policy goals. You should place kids in decent supportive environments, get them back home with their parents as quickly as is safe or find new families, and give them treatment for whatever problems they have got. That’s all you have to do. How you do it will vary from case to case.
We need to set and enforce standards for care of these children, and set significant consequences if they are not met. This isn’t happening, even though the system has enormous public funding.
Are these changes feasible?
Absolutely, and we have a responsibility to make sure they happen. We either have to write off the 600,000 kids in custody, or we really have to work hard. As responsible citizens, we cannot give up on these kids. We have to do better. It is not acceptable to say it can’t be fixed. It can be fixed. Otherwise, we’re dooming these kids to a living death.
