When Counsel Arrives: Timing, Entitlement, and Child Welfare Case Outcomes

• In Event: When Policy Meets Practice: Policies that Influence the Child Welfare Trajectory

Abstract

Following 2018 expansions in federal funding for civil legal representation in child welfare proceedings, states have substantially increased parents’ scope of entitlement to counsel, and spending on right to counsel (RTC) provisions. Changes are projected to cost the federal government $3 billion for providing counsel over 10 years. Despite such fiscal and legal expansions, no empirical research has evaluated the marginal causal effect of RTC policies on key child welfare outcomes at the national level. The few existing studies of the effects of legal representation on child welfare outcomes evaluate specific county/state-level enhancements to representation – reduced caseloads, or multidisciplinary teams – rather than the marginal effect of any counsel. Simultaneously, anecdotal evidence suggests that RTC effects may be limited or heterogeneous: child welfare proceedings are non-adversarial in structure, agencies tend to bring forward cases that they expect to win, and public defenders in family courts frequently report constrained capacity to alter case trajectories. Whether statutory entitlement to counsel translates into meaningful changes in child welfare outcomes – and under what conditions – remains an open empirical question. Using a staggered difference-in-differences design with modern estimators, this paper provides the first national causal estimates of how state-level RTC regimes shape child welfare trajectories.

We construct a novel policy dataset classifying all states into three RTC regimes: (1) discretionary appointment without clear statutory entitlement, (2) statutory entitlement at or before the first dependency hearing, and (3) statutory entitlement after the first dependency hearing. This three-regime classification allows us to estimate not only whether counsel matters, but whether the timing of appointment drives downstream effects — distinguishing early-stage mechanisms such as removal contestation and early case development, from later-stage mechanisms such as service plan tailoring and agency advocacy. We merge the policy dataset with longitudinally linked 2005–2024 AFCARS and NCANDS administrative child welfare data to estimate effects on the likelihood and hazard of reunification, maltreatment recurrence, re-entry into the child welfare system, and termination of parental rights. 

These outcomes carry high stakes for children, families, and states. Reunification, maltreatment recurrence, and re-entry must be interpreted jointly; a policy that hastens reunification may be desirable if children return home safely, but much less so if earlier reunification is followed by new reports or foster care re-entry. Termination of parental rights (TPR) is also among the most consequential interventions the state can make in family life, permanently severing the legal relationship between parent and child. Understanding the timing of reunification and TPRs together is especially important in a system shaped by ASFA timelines, under which children who remain in care for 15 of the prior 22 months move towards termination and adoption. Because poor and rural parents are more likely to benefit from RTC, experience challenges with complying with reunification requirements, and experience TPRs, evaluating how these policies alter case outcomes and reduce termination risk is critical for understanding heterogeneity in their effects. The project provides the first national, policy-level causal evidence on how state-level RTC design affects family trajectories in the U.S. child welfare system.

Author

• Nayantara Ghosh, Princeton University
  Presenting Author