UCLA

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.