BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Child protective services (CPS) contact is consistently linked with poverty in the US, and empirical evidence is mounting to indicate that disparate exposure to income poverty explains a substantial portion of racial inequities in CPS involvement. Evidence about the different distributions of income poverty and material hardship also suggests that income poverty may not sufficiently capture economic wellbeing among families. This paper assessed whether differences in exposure to income poverty and/or material hardship explain racial inequities in CPS contact and further examined whether income poverty and material hardship predict CPS contact differently within racialized groups. METHODS: We used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS), an urban cohort representative of births in large US cities in 1998–2000. The FFCWS data are ideal for this study in capturing each of the key constructs: racialized group membership, income, material hardship, and CPS contact. We measured income poverty and material hardship when children were age 1 and measured any CPS contact by age five. Our final sample included 3,517 families, including 1,848 Black, 614 white, and 1,055 Latinx families. We employed logistic regression to assess the associations between income poverty and material hardship, independently and jointly, and CPS contact. We conducted analyses in our full analytic sample and among subsamples of the Black, white, and Latinx families. RESULTS: We found that differences in income-to-poverty ratio account for differences in CPS contact between Black and white families. Differences in CPS contact between Black and Latinx families were not explained by economic wellbeing measures alone but were ameliorated when differences in income poverty, material hardship, and a full set of family characteristics were considered. Additionally, we found that material hardship was a consistent predictor of CPS contact in the full sample and within each of the Black, white, and Latinx subsamples, even accounting for differences in income and other family characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The clear role of income poverty in explaining inequities in CPS contact between Black and white families and the consistent importance of material hardship in predicting CPS contact across all families underscore the critical importance of reducing income poverty and hardship and of distinguishing material need from maltreatment in the context of CPS. Our findings offer clear implications for policy intervention to reduce income poverty and material hardship. Such interventions might include extending the temporarily expanded Child Tax Credit and expanded food and housing assistance benefits, toward the ends of supporting child and family wellbeing and reducing economic and racial inequities in CPS contact.

Child protective services (CPS) contact occurs at substantially higher rates among Black than White families. The present study considers systemic racism as a central driver of this disparity and emphasizes racialized poverty as a possible mechanism. We used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study and logistic regression analyses to assess the associations between income poverty, a racialized experience, and CPS contact, separately among Black and White families. Results indicated that income poverty was a significant predictor of CPS contact among White families, who were protected by higher income. In contrast, income per se was not a significant predictor of CPS contact among Black families, who were instead impacted by racialized family regulation and consequences of poverty, such as poor health and depression. Refundable state Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) policies were protective for Black families, and more expansive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs decreased CPS contact for Black and White families. Implications include centering systemic racism and specifically racialized poverty as causes of racial inequities in CPS contact and rethinking the role of CPS in protecting children.

To reduce child poverty and income instability, and eliminate extreme poverty among families with children in the United States, we propose converting the Child Tax Credit and child tax exemption into a universal, monthly child allowance. Our proposal is based on principles we argue should undergird the design of such policies: universality, accessibility, adequate payment levels, and more generous support for young children. Whether benefits should decline with additional children to reflect economies of scale is a question policymakers should consider. Analyzing 2015 Current Population Survey data, we estimate our proposed child allowance would reduce child poverty by about 40 percent, deep child poverty by nearly half, and would effectively eliminate extreme child poverty. Annual net cost estimates range from $66 billion to $105 billion.