Concluding commentary: Varied perspectives on child welfare Leroy H. Pelton ⁎ School of Social Work, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Box 455032, Las Vegas, NV 89154-5032, United States abstract article info Available online 1 August 2010 Keywords: Child welfare Parents’ perspectives in child welfare Child welfare services Child protection system A fuller understanding of the child welfare system requires its examination from multiple perspectives, as is demonstrated in this special issue. Until recently, the perspectives of mothers involved in child protection and whose children had been placed in foster care had been particularly neglected. This special issue contributes to progress in the research literature in this regard. Questions are raised about the nature of the interactions between the mothers and the child protection system, and the compatibility of those interactions with effective service delivery. This commentary concludes with the suggestions that we seek better ways to structure the child welfare system, and that a social movement composed of parents involved in that system, children in foster care, caseworkers and administrators, and researchers, all united as allies, might be necessary to effect such change. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction The examination of the child welfare system from multiple perspectives increases our understanding of that system and its inputs, processes, and outcomes. Each perspective is problematic when considered alone, because it not only reveals facts, but also contains or invites its own inferences. From what we might call the macro-perspective, often taken by social scientists (although not the only perspective that their methods allow them to entertain), Wulczyn, Chen, and Courtney (2011—this issue) find that such social structural factors as high proportions of single-parent families and African-American children in some counties relative to others are associated with slower reunification rates for children in foster care in those counties. But what sense can we make of these facts? The authors suggest that high proportions of single-parent families and African-American children might charac- terize counties with low levels of social support available to families. If indeed they do, then their association with slower reunification rates would be consistent with Garbarino's (1981, pp. 234, 237) contention that “personally impoverished families clustered in socially impoverished places” produce situations in which “the conditions of life conspire to compound rather than counteract the deficiencies and vulnerabilities of parents.” In any event, as Wells and Marcenko (2011—this issue) state in their Introduction, the Wulczyn, Chen, and Courtney findings raise the question of “the nature of the social-psychological processes through which social structural variables and child welfare outcomes are related.” Together with the social dynamics already noted, reunifica- tion rates will likely be affected by other factors, such as agency standards pertaining to whether or not it is safe to return a child, caseworkers' and agencies' perceptions and judgments of the parents, the parents' perspectives, and the services that agencies provide or fail to provide. Also in their Introduction, Wells and Marcenko point out that the vast majority of children in foster care are removed from unmarried mothers, and mothers with children in foster care are predominantly extremely impoverished. Not surprisingly, then, Marcenko, Lyons, and Courtney (2011—this issue) found in their Washington State survey of female primary caregivers in newly opened child welfare cases in 2008 that nearly half reported annual household incomes of less than $10,000. Moreover, large percentages reported having been homeless (30%); having had their utilities shut off (26%); and having lacked money to purchase family clothing or shoes (56%), to pay utility or medical bills (62%), and/or to buy enough food for their family (33%), within the past year. Furthermore, within this sample, significantly larger percentages of mothers with children in out-of-home place- ment than mothers whose children had not been placed reported having been homeless, and having incomes of less than $10,000. It is interesting to consider that this study relied on the mothers' self-reports. Are we dealing with facts, then, or the mothers' perspectives? In this case, there is no way to understand why so many mothers reported having been homeless, or why significantly more mothers with children placed in foster care reported such, other than treating them as facts, albeit also as part of the mothers' perspectives. Large percentages (ranging from 22% to 37%) of mothers in this study reported needing but not receiving help with clothing, housing, finances, and/or food. Here, their perceptions of their needs are the facts, perhaps to be contrasted with what professionals have perceived the mothers' primary service needs to be. In the early Children and Youth Services Review 33 (2011) 481–485 ⁎ Tel.: +1 702 895 1329. E-mail address: leroy.pelton@unlv.edu. 0190-7409/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.07.006 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth