Copyrighted Material
Introduction
is currently facing a crisis involving race and poor outcomes for children and families of color. As a result of this crisis children of color continue to enter the system in disproportionate numbers and encounter extreme difficulty exiting the system. Racial disproportionality is evident when the percentage of children of color in any system, including the child welfare system, is higher than the percentage of children of color in the general population. Racial disparity occurs when the rate of disproportionality, poor outcomes, or deficient services of one group (e.g., African Americans) exceeds that of a comparison group (e.g., European/White Americans). Data have repeatedly shown that children of color are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system in the United States. For example, according to the Annie E. Casey Foundation (2007), African American children comprised 15 percent of the total U.S. child population under the age of eighteen; however, African American/ black children accounted for 32 percent of the children placed in foster care. Although racial disproportionality is most severe and dramatic for African American children, American Indian children also experience higher rates of disproportionate placements in foster care than do children of other races or ethnicities. In 2004 American Indian children represented less than 1 percent of the total child population in the United States; however, 2 percent of children in foster care were American Indian. Hispanic/Latino children are 19 percent of the child population and 17 percent of the children in foster care. Race is a significant factor in the decision to place a child in foster care. Research has shown that children of color, when compared to white
t h e u . s . c h i l d w e l fa r e s ys t e m
Copyrighted Material
x v i I n t r o d u c t i o n
children, are more likely to be removed from the care and custody of their birth parents and placed in foster care. Once in foster care, they remain longer, and they receive fewer services; they also have less contact with child welfare caseworkers while they are in care (Barth 1997; Child Welfare Watch 1998; Harris & Skyles 2005; Harris & Hackett 2008). According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2009), there were 463,000 children in the foster care system on September 30, 2008; the race/ethnicity of these children is as follows: Alaska Native/American Indian 8,802; Asian 2,631; black 142,502; Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 877; Hispanic (of any race) 92,464; and white 183,149. Children of color continue to exit the system at slower rates than white children. In fiscal year 2008, 124,688 white children exited the system compared to 5,605 Alaska Native/American Indian children, 2,316 Asian children, 75,441 black children, 763 Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander children, and 56,741 Hispanic (of any race) children (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2009). Children of color have suffered for decades from racism that exists in the child welfare system. Addressing and reducing disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system were placed on the national agenda several years ago. In September 2002 the U.S. Children’s Bureau convened a research roundtable of national experts/researchers in Washington, D.C., to explore the extent and ramifications of “Racial Disproportionality in the Child Welfare System.” Seven papers were commissioned for the roundtable and subsequently published in the May/June 2003 issue of Children and Youth Services Review. The papers explored explanations for racial and ethnic disproportionality and examined the ways in which children enter and exit the child welfare system. Among the findings are the following: • Disproportionality may be more pronounced at some decision-making points (e.g., investigation) than at others (e.g., substantiation) (Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson, & Curtis 2003). • Family structure is significant. Race and ethnicity have a different effect on family reunification rates in two-parent families than in single-parent families (Harris & Courtney 2003). • Changes in policy and practice may be effective in reducing racial and ethnic disproportionalities, particularly those arising from differences in duration of out-of-home care (Wulczyn 2003).
Copyrighted Material
Introduction
xvii
The impetus for this book emanates from the strong need to take a hard look at the complex and ongoing problem of racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system. Research studies in other countries have demonstrated the extent and ramification of this problem; yet the child welfare field is still perplexed about what needs to be done to eradicate the problem. This book illuminates a serious problem that continues to prevail in the child welfare system. CHAPTERS OF THE B OOK
Chapter 1 (Social Welfare Policy and Child Welfare) provides a succinct overview of existing social welfare policies that have a direct impact on children and families in the child welfare system (the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, and the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2011). Included are a critique of each policy and a discussion of how these policies affect disproportionality. Chapter 2 (An International Exploration of Disproportionality) examines disproportionality from an international perspective. This chapter looks at the disproportionate number of children of color in the child welfare systems in Australia, England, New Zealand, and Canada. Chapter 3 (Best Practices/Promising Practices) consists of four sections. The first section examines five key decision points in the child welfare process: (1) reporting child abuse and neglect; (2) referring the report for investigation; (3) investigating the referral; (4) removing the child from the home, including the court process; and (5) exiting the system. Research has demonstrated that European American/white children fare better at each of these decision points than children of color (Caliber & Associates 2003; Bowser & Jones 2004; Lemon, D’Andrade, & Austin 2005; Harris & Hackett 2008; Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee 2008). The second section discusses what children need for optimal growth and development. The third section focuses on ecological systems theory and attachment theory, as well as factors in the microsystem that
Copyrighted Material
x v i i i I n t r o d u c t i o n
impact outcomes for disadvantaged children of color in the child welfare system. Best practices/interventions that are needed at key decision points when working with children and families of color are explored. There is also a discussion of risk factors, particularly the risks for those children of color who enter the system with histories of insecure attachment, severe maltreatment, and early trauma and loss, and what these families don’t have and need vis-à -vis policies and interventions; in addition, protective factors are examined. Section four focuses on the significance of ongoing cultural sensitivity and competency training for child welfare practitioners, supervisors, administrators, and child protective services workers. Examples of a cultural competency training module and cultural competency self-assessment instruments are included. The cultural competency continuum is also discussed. This section culminates with the presentation of a best practice case scenario. Chapter 4 (Child Welfare System Change) critiques the child welfare system and provides proactive steps that can be taken to address institutional racism, resulting in disproportionality and disparities, in any child welfare organization/agency whose goal is equitable treatment for all children and families. A measurement instrument is included to assess disproportionality in child welfare organizations/agencies. Narrative interviews from a variety of individuals who discuss their experiences with the child welfare system conclude this chapter. Interviewees include a birth mother, a birth father, a former foster parent and kinship caregiver, a former juvenile court judge, an executive director of a private child welfare agency and adoptive mother, an adoptive mother, and two alumni of the foster care system (one female and one male). In Chapter 5 (Social Work Curriculum) the reader learns why curriculum is significant for students planning to work in the child welfare system. Syllabi for five courses are presented. These courses should be required in schools of social work that are training students to work in child welfare organizations/agencies. Information for field instruction, including the importance of home visits and respect for family cultural practices, is also explored. Chapter 6 (Future Directions for Research and Policy) highlights areas of research that need to be explored, including referrals by mandated reporters. Future research is especially important in this area because the largest percentage of children of color continues to enter the child welfare
Copyrighted Material
Introduction
xix
system because of child neglect; however, the definition of child neglect continues to be quite nebulous. Changes to current social welfare policy that are needed, as well as new policies that appear to be warranted, are also addressed. It is my hope that Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare will be a powerful resource for social work educators, students, practitioners, policy makers, and researchers, as well as others in communities across the country, who are working/advocating to end racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system in this country, as well as in other countries, and to achieve equitable treatment for all children and their families who become involved in the child welfare system. RE F EREN C ES
The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). The 2007 kids count data book. Baltimore, MD: Author. Barth, R. (1997). Family reunification. Child Welfare Research Review, 12, 109–122. Bowser, B. P., & Jones, T. (2004). Understanding the over-representation of African Americans in the child welfare system: San Francisco. Hayward, CA: Urban Institute. Caliber & Associates. (2003). Children of color in the child welfare system: Perspectives from the child welfare community. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Child Welfare Watch. (1998). The race factor in child welfare. New York, NY: Center for an Urban Future. Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. Y., Hedderson, T., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 359–373. Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family structure with respect to the timing of family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 409–429. Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 199–215. Harris, M. S., & Skyles, A. (2005). Working with African American children and families in the child welfare system. In K. L. Barrett & W. H. George (Eds.), Race, culture, psychology, and law (pp. 91–103). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copyrighted Material
x x I n t r o d u c t i o n
Lemon, K., D’Andrade, A., & Austin, M. (2005). Understanding and addressing disproportionality in the front end of the child welfare system. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009). The AFCARS report. Washington, DC: Author. Washington State Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee. (2008). Racial disproportionality in Washington State. Olympia, WA: Author. Wulczyn, F. (2003). Closing the gap: Are changing exit patterns reducing the time African American children spend in foster care relative to Caucasian children? Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 431–462.