interviews
The Uniqueness of Electrification in The United States
by Gretchen Bakke
September 10, 2021
This interview with Gretchen Bakke, author of The Grid, and visiting professor of anthropology at the Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems at Humboldt University in Berlin. , Humboldt University, Berlin Germany, was conducted and condensed by franknews. This interview was originally published in February 2019.
frank: I have your book here, it's such a great framing piece that simplifies something so complicated.
GB: Incredibly complicated.
I would love to talk about energy democracy. How people want to move forward, and what sort of policy needs to be in place.
I think when you talk about energy democracy, it's not quite the same thing as equity.
I've spoken to some people who incorporate equity into their definition of energy democracy. They say, in trying to fix certain systems, we need to also engage people who have been marginalized from energy systems in the past. But it is also definitely its own issue.
One thing that's remarkable about systems everywhere, is that there's some sort of universal electrification. Just the idea. That idea seems to be an early 20th-century idea. Places that didn't get a grid in the early 20th century have a very partial and elite system. If you look for example, at Lagos in Nigeria, what you have is rich people on the grid, and poor people on a generator system. Even poor people means middle-class people, right? There's still a grid there, but it's like two or three generators, a bunch of cables, and it runs for one building or maybe two buildings. It uses heavy fuel oil, usually diesel, so it's a much more polluting thing.
The fact that there already is universal electrification, even though it's not profitable for companies is something that in my experience, everybody wants to preserve.
I never talked to anybody, the entire time I was doing research, that thought some people should have electricity and other people shouldn't.
I did talk to people who thought it might be wise, as the system is redeveloped, overhauled, or given a new shape at the lowest levels, to think more about the quality of electricity as being matched more closely to the needs of the user. This is maybe true, but it's also a sneaky way of saying Facebook should have more reliable, more stable voltage, with no interruption whatsoever, and the home user should not.
The question is, once you open that door, how far can you go with it before you start to actually develop two parallel systems? It might be true – it might be that I personally don't need to have the same quality of electricity as the US military. But give an inch and they take a mile. You don't want that to happen. I think that's one question. I think the other thing, and this is what I would guess you're interested in talking about democracy, is thinking about the way in which the electricity systems are becoming more individualized, especially with rooftop solar, and how that sense of ownership, or control, over the electrons that you make can be produced, while maintaining this universal system.
Absolutely.
The dream version of it is that everybody has solar, everybody has some kind of small wind, everybody is connected to a big grid, and everybody has some kind of storage, and thus has the capacity to run off their own electricity when they want, when it's cheaper, or when the big system is down. But also has the capacity to feed into a public electricity system. This is perfect. It's hard to manage, and it's hard to figure out how to pay for the grid if you do that, because you still have exactly the same giant infrastructure, but the way you make money off of it is removed.
In this ideal, is it a combination of public and private sectors maintaining the larger infrastructure, and the individual running their personal solar on the home?
If it was really ideal, the individual could choose to run it or not. The only way that that kind of system can actually work is with some pretty serious AI. When I was finishing the book, people were always talking about an orchestrator. What we need is an orchestrator to make all of this complexity work together. It was still this idea that it would be a person. What I’ve found in the three years since, is now there’s an assumption that computers can do this. Computers can make it so that whatever is happening on the level of the individual, the small scale producer doesn't actually take down the larger grid. You could just have a button that said, “I'm available to go off the grid if needed”, on your phone, I guess. I always imagine a real button on the wall, but this will be on your phone.
Then if there is too much demand, the orchestrator can just flip you off, and you can run on your own system, because it's two o'clock in the afternoon and you live in Phoenix, you need air conditioning. You have your air conditioning, but you also have your solar. Solar and air conditioning are so nicely married to each other. That's the ideal, but then the question is, where are all the ways that it can go wrong? Where we lose democracy, actually, and we lose equity. Even though there's some sort of dead reckoning sense of where we want to get to.
We tend to think of renewable energy as good, but eventually those companies will accumulate the same amount of wealth and power as coal or oil. The question becomes, like you said, what are the challenges and how do you move forward?
And how does democracy need to be reformed? Because if you think of it as kind of old school democratic, then a house can be an entity that can vote somehow forward into a management structure, which then represents it up. Along the way, you can do that with little company forms. Like I have my own little electricity company, and this is how much I make. My block is represented by this other kind of electricity company, and that goes up. It's not rocket science, we know how to do democracy in that way.
The question is, does democracy in that way work? Does it only produce a trickle up of funds and a trickle down of responsibility and risk?
As we move forward do you think we continue to use the grid as our primary infrastructure? Or do we move away from it?
The premise is, and the fact of the matter is, it's not replaceable at this point. It's simply not. We are replacing little tiny bits of it all the time, but the bigger system, you can't just build a parallel system next to it. It's too expensive to do that.
The thing that I really understood about the grid when I was writing the book is that nobody understands it.
There isn't any one person who understands how it all fits together. People understand their tiny little piece of it, and they understand the thing on either side of that tiny piece, and that's it. The expertise and the technology has the same structure. If we have 80% solar feeding into this grid, here's what happens when a cloud goes over at the level of five seconds. Now, this is a giant problem, and there's electrical engineers working on figuring out how to make the grid function in this case. There's a push behind the expert. At the expertise level, people are interested actually, in the larger infrastructure. And nobody else knows enough to get around it. It might just be like inertia when you sit there. One thing that I really have seen is that the way in which reforms are happening in the western part of the US, and the way that they're happening in the northeast are quite different. There are different logics at work that might actually, in 100 years, if we're still here, and not completely roasted to death, produce two systems with fairly different underlying structures.
What is the difference?
The west is inter-regional cooperation. The west is really like, how do you deal with the fact that you have hydro in the Pacific Northwest, and you have wind in the Dakotas, and you have all this solar on the south. It turns into this regional balancing of renewables that then depends a lot on people being able to take themselves off the grid in order to manage that in a reasonable way, but it's huge. That's why you have all these fights in California saying, we don't want to import any coal power from Idaho, and Idaho is saying, "We don't want to be part of this thing. You're going to force all of your renewables on us." The reason those fights are happening is because what's developing is, in fact, a very large regional balanced, renewable system.
What's happening in the northeast, because it's so much denser is, micro grids that can island themselves, but for the most part are interoperable. It's a very different shape. It's like a foam in the northeast, all these little bubbles that are stuck together. If this will happen, we'll see, but that seems to be the direction it's going. Whereas there's very few little bubbles developing in the west. What happens in the south is up for grabs.
Is one better than the other?
The grid is always about geography. It's always a local system. What you have available to you geographically determines what you're capable of doing. You can have pumped air storage in Alabama or Mississippi. The way in which the weather affects the grid is interesting. During Hurricane Harvey, one of the things they learned was that the solar panels stay on the house if the roof stays on the house. Really the weaker link is not how a solar panel connects, it's how the roof is connected to the building. These are things that in the West Coast, with the possible exception of the Pacific Northwest, are just not problems. The storms aren't that ferocious, but on the East Coast they are. There needs to be a reaction to that, that provides the resilience they all like to talk about. What they also found after Sandy, is that communities that had one house on a block that had electricity came back much more quickly. They had a sense of cohesion, of social cohesion, of neighborliness, and there was less sense of trauma, things will rebuild quickly, and everything worked better. In that in that case, you want to be able to have a micro-grid even if it's at the level of the home.
The idea of being islandable seems like a very good thing. People like to point to Wall Street during Sandy, which seemed islanded off.
They actually had generators in the basement, so everything was out except this one building, and people were really mad because they saw the lights on, and they're like, "Why do those guys have it?", assuming that they were prioritized to get electricity, but they actually had a generator system in their skyscraper, and on the ground floor in that skyscraper were all kinds of shops and restaurants that then served everybody. Everybody talks about this like, "We could go there, we could have kebabs."
At least we have kebabs!
They weren't islanded properly speaking, it's just that they had giant diesel generators in their basement.
They weren’t on their own grid.
Problem with that is, of course, you run out of gas.
Now, there's a race in the technology sector to figure out how to store renewable energy. I mean, we have batteries –
People love batteries. There's a lot of ways to store electricity that are less detrimental to the environment, but people do love batteries.
What was your initial motivation in writing The Grid?
The original motivation is kind of twofold, but they go together. One is that I felt like I saw a lot of people trying to intervene in the system who didn't understand what that meant, didn't understand what it was as a system. Those interventions were people putting solar on the roof, and then they're super mad that when their house blacked out. I know a lot of people who have bought diesel generators instead because during a blackout you get to have power.
It was also just this idea that you could make electricity into a commodity and make money off of it like anything else that has been so damaging to the system. There were a lot of interventions happening in the grid, and I just thought well, we need a primer. That's a super practical side of it.
The other side was this desire to try to tell the history of America in a different way. I was surprised how much the book ended up being a business history. I did not intend it to be that way, I was really like, "I'll have a technology history chapter, a business history chapter, legislative history chapter, and then we'll just sort of go forward.”
But the uniqueness of electrification in the US is that it's always been for profit.
There are pockets that are not that way for historical reasons, and ideological reasons. The fact that the business community has been so interested in the book, I think it's been really good, I hope. I hope it's really good. Those were the two pieces. It really is this American story of a battle between freedom, independence, self-reliance, big money, and big government.
How do we determine what energy is worth? As you wrote, it's not tangible. It's not a banana.
One of the problems I have with the way these arguments are happening in the US is that what is it worth always, somehow only has one metric, and that metric is money.
But what is it worth to you that you have energy security? If there's a way you can have solar and not lose your power, which is not that complicated, what is that worth to you? A lot. What is it worth to stop carbon emissions? If you just get a lot of solar up, all you've got are the emissions that go into making those panels, and getting them on your roof, from China or wherever they come from. The singular metric is a part of capitalism – that we're not allowed to measure anything any other way. That's not true everywhere.
Not to glorify China because it does not need to be glorified at this moment, but I did see one talk by a Chinese electrical engineer, whose job was to make a new green city from scratch. Everything he presented had two metrics, how much it costs, and what the carbon emissions were. I was just like, "Okay, great, I don't care what the metrics are, but I'm so happy you have two of them so that then there's this possibility of saying, "Okay, how do I, in fact measure worth?"
Right. It's actually a much deeper conversation than just what technology is available, how much does it cost, and how much money can you make?
I think you really see that with the fires in California. How can you maintain a system that doesn't spark? What is the cost of that? It's not about just money.
I was thinking about how relevant The Grid is in relation to these California fires.
I think the thing to look at is the difference between the way in which Southern California Edison has been upgrading their system, and the way in which PG&E was not upgrading their system. At this very basic level of how a wire connects to a pole, how a wire connects to a transformer, if you're in a situation where any spark creates a fire, what's the necessary technology to not have any sparks at all, ever?
PG&E was just neglecting that sort of upgrade?
I don't know if they were neglecting it, but they weren't prioritizing it to the same degree that Southern California Edison has, and I would say at this point, it might be interesting to talk to Southern California Edison. Because there should be fires in Southern California too. It's not just bad luck that they're all happening in PG&E territory. There are sometimes fires in Southern California, but it's not the same. With the same frequency.
This is where energy democracy becomes a question. This is a public thing, this grid. I embrace this, the infrastructure, but also what it gives us, what it affords us, and if I'm the master of my house and I have my solar panels, and I live in Southern California or Northern California, I do not want to be the one responsible for hooking that system up, because I'm going to burn down everybody.
It's not like this Occupy Wall Street movement of electricity independence, we'll just destroy the entire country. One spark at a time. Even the companies do it wrong, and they're well trained people. I think there's a place for expertise in the future. If you want universal electrification, there's a place for expertise in there.
In terms of policy in the U.S., what do you think we need in order to move towards a more ideal scenario?
We need to stop using fossil fuels. I think what Governor Brown did wasn't little. It will be interesting to see if it sticks, but it was an interesting first trial, which is just, here's the date we'll be done. We're not going to put it in our cars, we're not going to put it in our electricity system, we're not going to extract it, we're not going to burn it, we won't import it. The fossil fuel businesses will be gone.
I recognize the current government does not want to do this, but the reason I say it has to happen at the level of policy, is that as soon as that kind of thing gets said seriously, there's a lot of innovation that starts to be funded. Things begin to change. I don't know if you've seen this yet, but you should, you will – you stop seeing a house with like two solar panels on the roof. Every single rooftop should have solar. Where you're moving away from private decisions about household electricity use being mimicked in the infrastructure into a larger, statewide decision. For example, if the car becomes electric, how do you deal with that? You need some people who conceptualize it, but you also need a lot of tiny little machines that are going to make these things interoperable with each other. This is a wonderful thing, you have the car, it can store electricity, and then it can charge at work, and then you drive it home, blah, blah. But it turns out that the cars are using their own electricity at precisely the same moment the sun goes down. Actually they are not a storage resource to a solar power grid, not at dusk at least. These little things, where you're like, "Oh, weird, that's not going to work." It was a great idea, it won't work. But those kinds of studies, and the kind of investment, if we're keeping capitalism for right now, that's necessary to make major change happen, will only happen when there's laws in place.
Right. And laws that say no fossil fuels?
I think law saying no to fossil fuels. That's what I think. The issue is, does it need to be across the board, like what California did? I find that interesting, in a good way. Does it need to be sector by sector? If there was no global warming, I think by 2100, we'd have renewable electricity anyway because once you build it, it's free. This is something that has been a shock to everybody that I've talked to. That the price per kilowatt hour is coming down to about zero. You still have to build the thing and there is some maintenance, but essentially, what you're paying for is the labor power to make it, and continue to make it work. I think that transition would happen, we'd figure out how to do it, we'd be at 100% renewables, people would start having electric cars because it's cheaper to use free electricity than it is to pay for gas. The shift would happen slowly.
Without global warming, we will be doing this anyway. The question is if we need legislation to make it happen, because we need it to happen faster.
That's a really interesting way of framing it because that doesn't seem to be the debate. The debate seems to be why should we do these things? Is global warming real? Who cares? This is how things function, any alternative seems impossible, new policy that’s ambitious is wild idealism, etc. etc. But framing this as what is already happening, climate change or not, is really interesting.
I guess the problem is just like when we lose coal – we should all be super attached to coal. But industries change.
Everything is an issue of perception. I like your idea of working backwards.
I think we'll move that way with capitalism completely intact. There's a lot of reasons to challenge the current world order, but we don't even have to challenge it.
It's like getting ready to go to the airport. Your flight is at 10, you need to be there at 8, so you leave your house at 7. If we're going to move to renewables by 2050, what are the steps that need to take place right now?
Exactly. But something needs to happen, and that's the thing, any kind of law is going to make a giant difference, but it seems to be very difficult to make a law.
Do you find one argument most compelling after all this research?
Of why we should have a law?
Of why laws should change? Of why our energy systems are important to focus on period.
No. I feel like I don't talk about things in terms of climate very much. Sometimes because I've been explicitly told not to, but sometimes because everybody gets really anxious. When you're talking about transforming the electricity system, people are like, "That's a funny problem". Engineers are all super excited, because they have a good job again, and they used to have a boring job, and the utility people are kind of scared, but they're also excited, because maybe they can change the way the company works.
The transformation of the electricity system is producing all of these very exciting problems for people who are in the industry. I think it's producing a lot of exciting opportunities for people outside the industry. There's a kind of hopefulness.
It hits the desire to tinker, that a lot of people have. There's not an ideological argument in it.
Part of that is, we need to retire all of our coal fired power plants for 2050 anyway. They've been retiring for a while, we've been replacing them with natural gas for a while, natural gas works differently than coal fire plants. We've already had to adapt the system to that, now we're not building as many, and we're building more renewables. But it's all outside of a conversation about good and bad people.
I feel like 2018 has made climate change a much more mainstream conversation than it was before. The weird weather piece of it, like, "Okay, we don't know about climate, but weather", we can tell you that it's weird. That might be just the beginning of a way in, where it stops being about having this abstract conversation about what lefty people believe rigthy people should do.
I feel like there is a holier than thou attitude that gets rolled in. People have a lot of other problems and desires, so for now, how can an energy transition not be about climate change? That's the slow path. But if we want to speed it up, then it has to be about climate change, and after that, it just turns to politics, and that's hard. I don't have a solution for that one.
We'll talk in five years.
Who knows what anything will look like in five years! The slow way is avoiding climate change in conversation, and the fast way is folding it into the conversation, and risking politicizing everything.
Really. I think what you said about the airport is really nice because there is the sense that the airplane will leave if you're not on it. That's essentially what the IPCC's latest report was – we have 12 years to do this. What do we do?
Do you feel optimistic?
I have decided that being optimistic is a more interesting story. I think it's really easy to talk about how you would fold up your life and future generations of your family and call it the death of humanity and all that. That may be where it all ends up, but at least for now it's not the more interesting story to tell or to investigate. Until it's hopeless, I would say I'm kind of in the, what are we doing? What is working? What is stopping us? How can we get around that? I feel like there are people who have believed that climate change is happening for a while, and now what they really want is action, and that group is growing every single day. People are just like, "Could somebody do something, please? Someone."
Anything.
Anything. Anything will be fine. I believe that each of those anythings, if they can be done, then opens up a whole new world of possibility. I can say, "Yes, we just need to get rid of fossil fuels, no extraction, no sale, no trade, no use." You can say that. I would be fine with just, we're going to stop having cars with engines in them.
Yeah.
I mean France said that. France is all nuclear, so they can. I guess it's still kind of how do we knock down a giant fireball, and while, by the way, we're doing that, try to make the world a little more equitable. The number one thing I would say needs to happen at the small level is that people with rooftop solar or small wind, need to be able to keep their lights on. That just has to happen.
How does that happen?
Essentially the problem is that if there's any electricity feeding into the system, when the men working on the system try to bring it back up, they get electrocuted. There just needs to be a switch, essentially, that automatically takes anything generating electricity off the system. There are places where this is being discussed more seriously, but if you have a diesel generator that already happens. You can do it with solar.
You can do it...
Yeah. To run a microgrid with solar power is more complicated technologically than with a diesel generator. With diesel, you actually have to go turn it on, and in that act of turning it on, you make a signal that says this house is an island. But with solar, it just stays on, there isn't any break. There would have to be some sort of artificial break put in, like maybe your power goes out for 45 seconds and then comes back on again. I don't know how it would work, but I could tell you that it's not so complicated.
It's a legislative problem, and it's a systems engineering problem, but it's not a technological problem.
I think the argument that everybody starts with is the good one, which is that electricity is everything – it's money, it's information, it's family, and some ways it's communication. It's the sense of how you're connected to the world. Just the idea of a blackout is a ridiculous misnomer, because the lights are not what matters anymore. If the electricity goes out you don't have running water anymore in your house. It's become this completely essential substructure of everything that we are and do.
Of course we should be interested in it.
We can't remove it anymore.
interviews
Systems Built on Good Intentions are the Most Dangerous: Pt. 1
by Emma Ketteringham on how ACS surveils and controls pop
August 19, 2020
This interview with Emma Ketteringham, managing director of the family defense practice at the Bronx Defenders, was conducted and condensed by franknews. The second half of this conversation on the child welfare system can be found here.
Emma | The Bronx Defenders is a public defense nonprofit located in the South Bronx. It was founded in 1997 by a group of public defenders who were committed to really redefining how people in criminal legal proceedings were represented. They were some of the thought leaders in a practice called holistic defense.
Is it affecting their employment? Is it affecting their housing? It also asks, why was there this contact with the criminal legal system in the first place? Is there a way to address whatever drove a person into the system?
frank | How did you get involved with the family practice specifically?
When I started, I began to talk to my clients about the impact contact with the criminal system had affected their families and I learned some pretty harrowing facts. Even if I was able to resolve someone’s criminal case favorably, without a criminal record or without jail time, I would learn that as a result of that arrest, the family had come to the attention of the so-called child protection system - and I say so-called because I think whether they actually protect children deserves interrogation, but just to use a more recognizable title. Every state has such an agency charged with investigating families for abuse or neglect of their children. In New York City it's the Administration for Children’s Services or ACS. I began to learn that the arrest, although that had been resolved quickly, had ignited an absolute nightmare in family court with ACS. It had led to intrusive surveillance of their family and for many, the removal of their children from their care. So I started representing my clients in family court.
We found a broken system. We found parents there who were not being advised of their rights or given the necessary information to get their children back. We found children who were languishing in foster care unnecessarily as a result. The city itself was looking at family courts at the same time and finding some of the same things. In 2007, New York City created family defense providers - institutional public defender offices to represent parents in family court proceedings. The Bronx Defenders then expanded to also represent parents in these cases, and since then I have been involved in the practice.
How many people are you working with at one time?
Today we have a practice that consists of about 50 lawyers, and about 25 social workers and parent advocates. One key facet of holistic defense is that our clients don't just get a lawyer assigned to their case. They also work with a parent advocate or a social worker who does a lot of the advocacy and work with the family outside of the court system. We work in those holistic teams and we represent about 2,300 parents at any given time. We pick up about a thousand new parents each year - there are cases that resolve and cases that come in.
It is up to the states whether or not you have the right to a lawyer when the custody of your children is at stake. Most states do have that right, but New York City is really one of the rare places that has an institutional holistic model of representation for parents. The implementation of institutional holistic defense providers has had an incredible impact. Children are spending fewer months in foster care in the cases where we represent the parents, as compared to cases that don't have us as their lawyers.
Can you help me understand how ACS works?
Sure. So, a call is made to the state central registry to report a family for child abuse and neglect. You have probably heard the term “mandated reporter” - the folks who, by law, have to report suspected abuse or maltreatment - doctors, teachers, social workers, nurses. But you don't have to be a mandated reporter to call in a report. In New York City, neighbors can call and report, exes can call and report, reports can even be anonymous. Then, if the report is accepted by the state central registry, it is dispatched to the child protective agency in the area where you live. In New York City, that's ACS. They are then mandated to go out and investigate.
ACS does not get to pick and choose which families they investigate. If they get a report that was accepted by the SCR, they must go out and investigate. Once they go out and investigate, however, they have a range of responses and they have very broad discretion. Investigations are very intrusive.
Essentially, these cases begin with a knock on your door at any time of day or night. The ACS case planner can go accompanied by a police officer, they don't always go accompanied by a police officer. They gain entry to the home and then they start their investigation. They do not have to disclose to the parent who made the report. In fact, some reports can be anonymously made to ACS. They do an extensive investigation, which varies a bit depending on what the allegations are, but those investigations will involve speaking to the parent, doing a house inspection, asking to see all the rooms of the house, asking to see if there's sufficient food in the cupboards and in the refrigerator - and that's regardless of what the allegations are, an analysis of food. Then they will also ask to speak with the children, and they will speak to the children alone and separate from the parents. The people speaking to children are not social workers, because they are not required to be.
And the investigation can also include body checks. And the way it's written about in ACS training manuals is, "observe the parts of the body that are normally covered by clothes." So these can be extensively intrusive investigations.
What happens next? What happens if they find evidence of abuse or neglect?
They can do one of four things.
One, they can find no evidence and close the case and say, I'm very sorry. I just completely traumatized your family, but now I'm going to close the case. That would mean that you're not listed anywhere on any sort of state registry as a child abuser, you are not brought to court, and you do not have to engage in services.
The second thing that they could do is say there's some evidence here of abuse or neglect and we do have “concerns” - “concerns” is a big word in the family surveillance system. And then they might say, we'd like to send you to treatment. Maybe we'd like you to go to a drug treatment program. Maybe we'd like to connect you with mental health services, but we're not going to file a case against you in court. We would just like to surveil you outside of court - they say “supervise” - but basically what they're saying is, if you do what we say, this won't get worse. And many parents opt for that. They comply because they're so fearful of what might come if they don't. And so often all this surveillance and additional services just burdens families and utterly fails to actually strengthen them.
The third thing that ACS could do is say, we're not going to take your children away from you, but we are going to file a case against you in court, and that's because we think we need an extra layer of supervision over your family. This involves a more intense level of surveillance, and if you don't do what the agency says, the court is there to enforce the agency demands by either ordering you to do it or taking your children away from you if you fail to do it.
And then finally, the most powerful and harshest thing that can happen is that ACS can remove your children from your care right then and there when they investigate. Every child protective agency in every state has what are called emergency child removal powers. They can take your children out of your home, place them with strangers if you have no relative to take them, and then give you a date to appear in court.
And remember, the vast majority of parents don't have access to a lawyer until they're brought to court. People who hear about this process for the first time and perhaps have never had to deal with this agency themselves will say, "Oh my gosh, I would call a lawyer right away." And it's like, right, because you can afford to, and you might have one that you know to call. But if you have to rely on the system to assign you a lawyer, because you can't afford to retain one privately, you're not going to get that lawyer until your first appearance in court.
One of the major innovations that we made in our practice over the last couple of years was to create a hotline so that parents could call us at that moment. I think this has been the most effective in changing the trajectory for these families. When I first started doing this work, I was meeting parents whose children had been taken and they hadn't seen them in weeks. Now, when they file against you in court, if you're assigned to our office, the first thing we are going to do is figure out if we can ask for a hearing to get the children either immediately returned or returned soon. I think that's where we have had the most impact – we litigate those hearings often and we often win them.
Most people assume that if a child has been taken away by the government from their parents, that they must be experiencing incredible abuse at the hand of that parent. But what we have found is that about 24% of children who are taken, go right back home once the judge reviews that decision and almost all children go home eventually. And that's because that is when the parent finally has a lawyer and the case is heard by a judge and the parent can put forth their side of the story.
I wonder what sorts of things they look for when they decide to remove children - and how poverty plays a role in determinants.
I think that when we look at drugs, we can see what the system is truly about. We know that if all the children were taken away from all the parents who use drugs, there'd be a lot more white, wealthy children living in the foster system than there are right now. So there's something else going on here than keeping children safe.
When it comes to who is investigated and for what reasons, what we see is that the vast majority of the parents of children in the foster system have not abused or abandoned their children. They are often not even charged with abusing or abandoning their children.
In New York, it's defined as the failure to provide your child with the minimum degree of care. Well, what's the minimum degree of care? To one judge, strict parenting with a spanking does not fall beneath the minimum degree of care. To another judge, it might. To one judge, using marijuana, might not fall beneath the minimum degree of care. To another judge, that might. The problem is that it is such a subjective standard. It's not like the criminal legal system where you have crimes that are defined by a penal code - these child protective cases leave much more room for discretion. It often comes down to the subjective child-rearing views of the observer - first the caseworker, then the prosecuting attorney, and then the judge. That's one problem.
The cases we see are mostly about food insecurity, housing insecurity, not having safe, and adequate childcare- all the things that we've decided, as a country, to not provide to struggling families. This reflects our country’s unwillingness to provide true support to struggling families- the support they need to raise healthy children and to rectify past and present racism in how certain families have been supported while others have not.
Right now, our country is calling to defund the police. That is because we understand how they are hurting and harming people who live in poor communities and who are predominantly Black and brown. The so-called child protection system can be understood as delivering the same harm. The same communities that are overly surveilled by the police, that experience higher rates of arrest, are the same communities that experience disproportionately concentrated surveillance by the so-called child protective system and experience harmful family separation at the hand of the government.
You can take maps of neighborhoods and where you will see higher arrest rates, you will also see greater child protective case concentration.
Both systems are used to surveil and control classes of people.
Do you think there's part of ACS operating in good faith?
I think that ACS is full of people with very good intentions.
What is the disconnect between ACS’s stated mission and what happens in practice?
When we start to find answers to why we have a system of mass incarceration, we uncover the same reasons that we have a foster system that looks the way it does. To say "Oh, but there are children who are abused. So this system is necessary” is the same thing as saying that, well, there are folks who commit crimes, so the industrial prison complex is necessary. I don't think that's true. I think we can reimagine a completely different response to families that are struggling with caring for their children. And we have never done that. While I think that ACS and other child protective systems across the country might be made up of many highly motivated people to do right by children, they are still playing a role in a system that is the product of racism in this country. It is a system that keeps certain populations controlled and down.
The reason why I think people have a much harder time understanding this system that way is because they don't really understand exactly how it operates. We're waking up to the fact that putting someone in prison for the third time, caught with marijuana in their pocket, is not the response of a civilized community. Well, why then is separating children from their mother because she needs treatment for a mental health issue imaginable? It would be unimaginable for families of privilege to be separated from their children and to have that relationship legally severed forever because the parents are experiencing an issue.
It is unimaginable. I keep coming back, thematically, to paternalism, and this weird game of morality – which immorally devastates children in this case.
And then you have it left up to individual subjective discretion to determine whether the situation before them falls within it, that leaves an incredible amount of room for one's own bias, and one's own prejudice to seep into those decisions.
The kinds of allegations they bring against, predominantly mothers, mind you, are infused with judgment, and infused with ideas of what is suitable and what is not. One of the challenges that our lawyers, social workers, and advocates have while doing these cases is trying to address that before a judge - like, are you really raising the fact that she uses marijuana? We know that the parents in these other higher-income neighborhoods are also using marijuana and no one would dream of knocking on their door and dragging their child out of the house. It just would not happen. So how do you justify this as to why?
We know that abuse and neglect are equally likely in all income brackets, among all races. Yet this system has profound race and income disproportionality issues. Part of the reason for it is that our country has always equated being poor with individual failure or personal deficit, rather than the failure of our government to support all people equally.
Poverty has always been viewed as an individual fault. That gets us to another piece of the system that is so irrational when you actually interrogate it. You meet a family and you learn that the mother doesn't have childcare, so she's going out to her back to work welfare appointments, and leaving her children home alone in the apartment. And she's doing that because if she doesn't make those appointments, she will lose her benefits, which then would hurt her entire family. So she's taking a calculated risk. The response then to her is not to get her the childcare, it is to send her to a parenting class, to teach her not to leave her children at home, which guess what? I think she knew that. Second of all, she'll probably end up, because her children have been removed from her, losing the very benefits she was working so hard to preserve because now her household has been reduced, so she no longer has the children in her care. And then we then give the money to the foster parent so that the foster parent has money for childcare. That's why it is a punitive system, even though it claims not to be. It claims to be a therapeutic system. It claims to be a system that's helping families take care of their children. But how? How is that response therapeutic? The trauma to those children who then have to go live with a stranger, maybe transfer out of their schools, maybe only see their mother once a week at a foster care agency in a room under the watchful eye of a case planner, where she can't naturally parent them and love them, that digs a wound that never heals.
And yet we're talking about a situation where someone needed a babysitter. They need to believe there's something so fundamentally flawed about this woman for not having the resources for childcare that that's the response. And it's so infused throughout the entire system from case planner right up to judge that it's hard to understand quite frankly, how it still exists.