New York City's Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) is doubling down on its approach to child welfare, focusing on a citywide Racial Equity Plan that critics contend misdiagnoses the core issues and jeopardizes the safety of children across all races.
The plan, released Tuesday, asserts that "racism and biases" disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic families, influencing reports made to the Statewide Central Register (SCR). According to the plan, Black and Hispanic families accounted for 36.1% and 46.2% of SCR intakes last year, respectively, compared to 6.3% for white families and 3.6% for Asian families.
However, critics argue that these disparities in reporting rates do not inherently indicate racism. Nationwide data suggests Black children are more than twice as likely as white children and 12 times as likely as Asian children to be victims of maltreatment. Furthermore, Black children die from abuse and neglect at more than three times the rate of white children. This higher incidence of abuse and neglect, proponents of this view argue, would naturally lead to higher reporting rates among affected populations.
In response to these disparities, ACS plans to make race and ethnicity a central focus, disaggregating case data by race. Notably, the agency does not intend to disaggregate data on child victims of abuse and neglect by race. The agency's "Racial Equity Goals" do not include specific targets for reducing child maltreatment rates, leading to accusations that reducing racial inequity is prioritized over protecting children.
The plan outlines a cultural shift among mandated reporters, such as teachers and nurses, moving away from a "when in doubt, call the SCR" approach to "you can support a family without having to report a family," specifically when a child is not in danger of maltreatment. Critics question the agency's ability to accurately determine when a child is in danger, citing past tragic cases involving families known to ACS.
By 2034, ACS aims to divert more than 30% of cases to its "CARES" program, described as a "non-investigatory" pathway intended to reduce racial disparities by offering collaborative, less intrusive responses to families with low-to-moderate risk cases. Critics express concern that the agency may not reliably distinguish between low-risk and high-risk cases, and that by discouraging reports of issues like chronic absenteeism or children attending school hungry, ACS may be overlooking signs of serious family dysfunction, potentially stemming from addiction or untreated mental illness.
Instead of focusing on investigations, ACS plans to expand "concrete supports" and open more Family Enrichment Centers offering resources like laundry facilities. The article suggests that parents engaged in severe abuse or neglect are unlikely to seek out these services voluntarily, and that such resources may not address the root causes of their behavior.
Regarding the juvenile justice system, ACS intends to strengthen "restorative justice" practices in secure detention facilities, which involves perpetrators discussing their actions with victims rather than facing traditional consequences. The stated goal is to reduce racial disparities in punishment, though the article points to data indicating that juvenile recidivism rates have remained stable or increased over the past five years, coinciding with the use of these restorative justice techniques.
The agency's approach has been criticized as "woke and ineffective policies" that are now being embraced by the current mayoral administration.