“Making It Work”: Informal Language Labor In Child Welfare Services for Immigrant Families

Background and Purpose: Child welfare systems are structurally unprepared to meet the language needs of immigrant families due to institutional constraints, including limited multilingual staffing, insufficient language access infrastructure, and policies that do not adequately account for linguistic diversity. As a result, child welfare professionals–especially multilingual workers and others informally pulled into language support roles–are often expected to absorb these gaps alongside their existing caseloads, whether or not their compensation reflects this additional labor. While these workarounds are often well‑intentioned, they strain workers, introduce inequities in service access and engagement for immigrant families, and may shape case trajectories and outcomes in ways that differ from those of English-speaking families. This paper examines how child welfare professionals describe language needs in practice with immigrant families, how those needs are managed, and who bears the burden of doing so.

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with n=39 child welfare professionals (e.g., social workers, supervisors, administrators) and n=8 legal service providers (e.g., county counsel, immigration attorneys, advocates) serving immigrant families in California. Participants were purposively recruited, supplemented by snowball and convenience recruitment. Interviews were conducted virtually, audio-recorded, transcribed, cleaned, and de-identified. Each interview was coded individually and analyzed thematically across participants (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Results: Data analysis revealed three themes: 1) structural language gaps in child welfare; 2) informal labor and role expansion among workers; and 3) consequences for immigrant families. Persistent language gaps included a lack of multilingual staff and linguistically accessible materials, an over reliance on language lines, and limited institutional support for families with limited English proficiency. In response, workers described engaging in substantial informal labor that often went unrecognized, including translating court reports without training in legal terminology; serving as ad hoc interpreters across multiple agency programs beyond their assigned roles (e.g., cash assistance, housing, and food benefits); and assuming responsibility for translating and delivering mandated services unavailable in families’ preferred languages. In many cases, workers undertook these responsibilities despite lacking formal training or subject-matter expertise in order to help families meet system requirements. Participants also emphasized the consequences of these structural shortcomings for immigrant families. Respondents across counties consistently reported that when families' language needs are not systematically met, engagement declines, progress toward case plan goals slows, and reunification with children is delayed. As a result, child welfare professionals expressed concern that immigrant families may experience different–and potentially worse–case outcomes compared to their English-speaking counterparts.

Implications: Findings highlight the need for greater investment in child welfare agencies’ institutional language access infrastructure, including the recruitment and retention of multilingual staff, standardized access to high-quality interpretation and translation, and accountability for ensuring that mandated services for families are linguistically accessible. Intentional and accessible workforce support–including training, supervision, and compensation for multilingual labor–is essential to prevent burnout and turnover among workers with specialized language skills. Policy responses must recognize language access as a core child welfare function, rather than an individual accommodation, to avoid further deepening inequities for immigrant families.