Two newly proposed bills related to child welfare were described in an article published to the New York Post on January 24th. The bills have been passed by the state senate in New York and are on their way to the state assembly now. The first bill limits child welfare workers in New York to no more than 15 cases a month so that each child served can get a reasonable degree of attention and care. The second bill details a system where children under 3 in New York whose parents have been arrested for drug use must receive a follicle test for drugs. Those for the bill argue that the State Office of Children and Family Services recommend no more than 12 clients per child welfare worker, while in reality, caseloads are larger, often reaching to and above 25 clients. As far as the follicle test bill goes, advocates point to a case in which a 13 month old girl died as a result of her parents feeding her "heroin and cocaine for nearly her entire life" (Calder, 2017, para. 7).

While both of these bills make sense in many ways, I have a hard time wrapping my head around some of the reality that lies beneath. If NY child welfare workers often have well over 15 clients, who will take on the clients that they need to drop should this bill pass? Will more child welfare workers need to be hired? If so, what does this mean for the workers? Social workers are already paid very little, and if these agencies are forced to take on more staff as well as provide them with proper equipment and training, I worry whether it is possible to make ends meet. Also, as someone who works with CPS caseworkers, I know that some are reliable and calibrated toward advocacy of their clients and their families while others are very difficult to reach and/or less focused toward the well-being of said clients and families. I have a hard time believing that these differences lie only within the number of cases that a worker has. I worry that adding an influx of inexperienced and not necessarily "quality" workers may worsen matters for some children, even as it improves them for others.

As far as the follicle bill goes, I am also doubtful. What is the cost of doing these tests? In executing these tests are we undermining the NASW ethical principle of "dignity and worth of the person"? It seems somewhat accusatory to perform a mandatory follicle test on the infant of a drug addicted parent. Again, at my agency I work with some of these families, and I think many of the parents would see it as a slap in the face that anyone would suspect them of feeding drugs to their children. I have to wonder whether the case with the 13 month old girl was an isolated event, or an epidemic that requires measures as drastic as this bill.

Again, I can understand why these bills would be put forward, I just have a difficult time understanding how they would be implemented logistically without bringing up an entirely new set of problems. I would be interested to read any input from the class.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/24/new-bill-would-limit-child-welfare-workers-to-15-cases-a-month/