In this commentary, we respond to Barth and colleagues and critique their premise that Western-based research with population-level administrative data is the best and only valid evidence on which to base child welfare policy and practice changes. We offer an alternative viewpoint on what forms of evidence should be brought to bear as we consider re-envisioning the child welfare system, highlighting the importance of lived experience and the need to consider the evidence regarding all marginalized racial and ethnic groups. We argue that evidence should represent the perspectives of those with lived experience and that collaborative child welfare research can strengthen the validity of analyses and interpretations. We hold that Barth et al. ask and answer the wrong questions. We press for deeper critical reflection, a more nuanced intersectional lens, and urgent action to address structural and institutional racism in the child welfare system.

Youth in foster care face educational disparities in terms of college access, retention, and graduation. To address this, 22 states have implemented tuition waiver programs targeting current and former foster youth. A comparative analysis was conducted of all 22 programs implemented since 2014. Similarities include student eligibility based on youth’s age upon foster care entry, university admission and time in care requirements. Differences include type of expenses covered, time limits on use, program oversight, and funding availability. No differences were found based on political party control, gubernatorial power, and state population composition. Recommendations for policy and practice reform are offered.

Court-involved, female students often experience trauma and disproportionate school discipline, complicating their academic success. This mixed-method study examines students' use of and experiences with the Monarch Room (MR), a trauma-informed disciplinary alternative. The study examines service utilization, using a repeated measures analysis of variance to explore whether students (N = 71) demonstrated statistically significant changes in time spent in the MR during the year. The study also qualitatively explores the lived experiences of students (N = 23) and perceived impact of the MR. There was a statistically significant increase in student MR use over the observation period (alpha = 0.05, F(2, 140) = 11.44, p < 0.01, eta-squared = 0.035). Students also report positive perceptions of the MR intervention. Implications for school practice are addressed.