1 / 46

Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System: An Update FCAP Seminar

Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System: An Update FCAP Seminar April 14, 2010 Marna Miller, Ph.D. Washington State Institute for Public Policy www.wsipp.wa.gov. Created by State Legislature in 1983

tallulah-glenn
Download Presentation

Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System: An Update FCAP Seminar

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System: An Update FCAP Seminar April 14, 2010 Marna Miller, Ph.D. Washington State Institute for Public Policy www.wsipp.wa.gov

  2. Created by State Legislature in 1983 Mission: Carry out non-partisan research on projects assigned by the Legislature or Board of Directors Board of Directors: Representative Glenn Anderson                Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Policy Office Representative Mary Lou Dickerson           Director Victor Moore, OFM Senator Karen Fraser                        Sandra Archibald, University of Washington Representative Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney  James L. Gaudino, Central Washington Univ. Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles                         Robert Rosenman, Washington State University Representative Skip Priest                             Les Purce, The Evergreen State College Senator Pam Roach                           Ken Conte, House Office of Program Research Senator Mark Schoesler                               Richard Rodger, Senate Committee Services Washington State Institute for Public Policy

  3. Background Disproportionality: The over-representation of children belonging to racial/ethnic minorities in the child welfare system. Always defined as comparison with White children. For example, in 2004, American Indian children comprised less than 4 percent Washington’s children, but accounted for 14 percent of children removed from their homes in that year.

  4. Today • Review findings from our earlier study on racial disproportionality • Update on racial disproportionality in the period between 2004 and 2008. • Ongoing work on effects of Structured Decision Making on racial disproportionality

  5. Study DirectionESSB 1472, Laws of 2007 Established the Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee: “to analyze and make recommendations on the disproportionate representation of children of color in Washington's child welfare system.” Directed WSIPP to: “… serve as technical staff for the advisory committee.” 2 of 26

  6. Study DirectionESSB 1472, Laws of 2007 To Examine: • Level of involvement of children of color in the child welfare system (CWS) at entry, exit, and all points at which treatment decisions are made • The number of children of color in low-income or single-parent families involved with the child welfare system • The family structures of families involved in the state's child welfare system • Outcomes for children in the existing child welfare system

  7. Measuring Disproportionality Disproportionality Index: The rate of occurrence of an event for children in a racial group divided by the rate of the same event for White children.

  8. Measuring Disproportionality Example: 5,612 American Indian children were referred in 2004 55,872 Indian children in Washington in 2000 Rate of CPS referrals for Indian children: 5,612 ÷ 55,872 = 0.100 Or 100 children referred per 1,000 Indian children in Washington

  9. Measuring Disproportionality In the same year, 2004, the rate of referral to CPS for White children was 34 per 1,000 children. Disproportionality Index: Rate for Indian children ÷ Rate for White children 100 ÷ 34 = 2.92

  10. Defining Race WSRDAC specified the hierarchical rules for classifying multi-racial/ethnic children. American Indian: Any Indian heritage Black: Any non-Indian Black heritage Asian: Any non-Indian, non-Black Asian/Pacific Islander heritage Hispanic: Hispanic heritage, not in any of the other racial groups White: Non-Hispanic, White only

  11. Decision Points In Child Protective ServicesAnd Time in Care, 2004 Cohort Referral to CPS 58,005 Accepted 43,423 Initial High Risk 35,474 Removed From Home 4,744 Over 60 Days 3,194 Over Two Years 1,476

  12. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : American Indian Children 7 6.29 DI DI After Referral 6 White children 4.96 This means that Indian children are 2.92 times as likely to be referred to CPS as White children 5 4.56 4 3.31 Disproportionality Index (Indian vs White) 3.05 2.92 3 2.15 1.70 2 1.56 1.13 1.00 1.04 1 0 Referrals Accepted Initial Placed Over Over High-risk 60 days 2 years

  13. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Black Children 7 DI DI After Referral 6 White children 5 4 Disproportionality Index (Black vs White) 2.79 3 2.29 2.24 2.17 2.02 1.89 2 1.48 1.21 1.18 1.15 1.07 1.00 1 0 Referrals Accepted Initial Placed Over Over High-risk 60 days 2 years

  14. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Hispanic Children 7 DI DI After Referral 6 White children 5 4 Disproportionality Index (Hispanic vs White) 3 2 1.48 1.34 1.44 1.45 1.41 1.37 1 1.07 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.00 0.92 0 Referrals Accepted Initial Placed Over Over High-risk 60 days 2 years

  15. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: Asian Children 7 DI DI After Referral 6 White children 5 4 Disproportionality Index (Asian vs White) 3 2 1.06 1.05 1.02 1.00 0.86 0.85 1 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.49 0.41 0.41 0 Referrals Accepted Initial Placed Over Over High-risk 60 days 2 years

  16. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: All Races 7 Indian Children Black Children 6 Hispanic Children Asian Children 5 White children 4 Disproportionality Index (Compared to White) 3 2 1 0 Referrals Accepted Initial Placed Over Over High-risk 60 days 2 years 16 of 26

  17. Who Refers to Child Protective Services? • Mandated Reporters: Certain professionals are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. These include: • Medical professionals • School personnel • DSHS employees and other social service • professionals • Child care providers • Law enforcement • Non-mandated Reporters: • Relatives • Friends/Neighbors • Parent • Other

  18. Who Refers to Child Protective Services? CPS Referrals 100% 80% 60% Percent of All Referrals 40% 20% 0% American Black Asian Hispanic White Indian WSIPP, 2008 Mandated Not Mandated

  19. Who Refers to Child Protective Services?Disproportionality Index by Type of Referrer 4 3 Disproportionality Index (Compared to White Children) 2 1 0 American Black Asian Hispanic White Indian WSIPP, 2008 Mandated Not Mandated

  20. Outcomes For Children Following a CPS Referral2004 Cohort Referral to CPS 58,005 Accepted 43,423 Initial High Risk 35,474 Removed From Home 4,744 Reunification Guardianship Over 60 Days 3,194 Adoption Over Two Years 1,476 Age Out

  21. Outcomes for Children Following a Placement Linked to a CPS Referral(As of November 1, 2007) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Indian Black Asian Hispanic White WSIPP, 2008 Reunified Guardianship Adopted Reached Majority Placement Still Open

  22. Permanency for Children in PlacementsLinked to a CPS Referral (As of November 1, 2007) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Indian Black Asian Hispanic White WSIPP, 2008 Permanency Reached Majority Placement Still Open

  23. Children Living with Single Parents 100% 80% 60% Percent of Children 40% 20% 0% Indian Black Asian Hispanic White All Races All Children Children In Out-of-Home Placements

  24. Legal Outcomes Children Removed from HomePlacements Linked to CPS Referrals in 2004 If dependent

  25. Other Factors Affecting Referrals and Placements for the 2004 Cohort • Poverty: • Children in families receiving food stamps were more likely to be referred to CPS and removed from home • Geography (DSHS Administrative Region): • Some regions placed more children than others. • Region 4 (King County) had markedly greater disproportionality than other regions for American Indian children. • Type of Reporter: • For example, removals were more likely if law enforcement reported the alleged maltreatment

  26. Other Factors Associated with Referrals and Placements • History of the Intake Worker: • Regardless of race, the average risk tag assigned by a worker over the previous two years was the strongest predictor of: • Whether the referral was accepted • The risk tag assigned to the referral • That is: Some workers appear to be “harder graders” than others. Given similar case characteristics, some workers will assign higher risk tags than others.

  27. Regression Analysis Regression analysis is a fancy algebra that allows us to take into account many factors simultaneously. We can ask the question: All things equal EXCEPT for race, is race a significant factor?

  28. Regression Analysis • Controlling for other case characteristics: • For Indian children, about 30 percent of disproportionality after referral could be explained by known case characteristics. • Disproportionality was unexplained by case characteristics for other races.

  29. Main Conclusions from the 2004 Cohort • Disproportionality exists in WA’s child welfare system: • Greatest for Indian and Black children • Most of the disproportionality occurs at the point of referral to CPS • Mandated reporters are only part of the story • Disproportionality for Indian children can be partly explained by different case characteristics

  30. Current Study

  31. Current Study DirectionESSB 5882, Laws of 2009 “…the Washington state institute for public policy shall evaluate the department of social and health services' use of structured decision-making practices and implementation of the family team decision-making model to determine whether and how those child protection and child welfare efforts result in reducing disproportionate representation of African-American, Native American, and Latino children in the state's child welfare system.”

  32. Study Approach for SDM Analysis Structured Decision Making: • Actuarial risk assessment tool. • In Washington, it is used with CPS cases only, after the investigation If SDM can affect disproportionality, we should observe less disproportionality at the point of removal from home.

  33. SDM Statewide 27 - Oct - 07 Pre - SDM CPS Referrals Post - SDM CPS Referrals Pre - SDM Placements Post - SDM Placements Study Approach for SDM AnalysisTimeline Jan - 07 Jul - 07 Jan - 08 Jul - 08

  34. Comparing Referrals2007 to 2008

  35. Comparing Referrals2007 to 2008

  36. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After ReferralReferrals January through June

  37. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After ReferralReferrals January through June

  38. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After ReferralReferrals January through June

  39. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After ReferralReferrals January through June

  40. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality IndexReferrals January through June

  41. Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality IndexReferrals January through June

  42. Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis Effect of SDM on removal from home Referrals from Jan through June 2006, 2007 and 2008 Beta P-value Odds ratio All children -0.0306 0.3138 Indian children -0.0816 0.3504 Black children 0.3054 0.0003 1.36 Asian children 0.0053 0.9753 Hispanic children -0.0523 0.541 Controlling for child age, sex and race, alleged CAN type, risk tag at intake, CPS history, DSHS region and reporter type (mandated or not), intake worker history

  43. Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis Effect of SDM on removal from home Referrals from Jan through June 2006 and 2008 (omit 2007) Beta P-value Odds ratio All children -0.00108 0.9755 Indian children -0.0652 0.5178 Black children 0.2599 0.0073 1.30 Asian children 0.3183 0.1311 Hispanic children -0.0211 0.8298 Controlling for child age, sex and race, alleged CAN type, risk tag at intake, CPS history, DSHS region and reporter type (mandated or not), intake worker history

  44. Conclusions • The pattern of disproportionality for Black children varies markedly from year to year • Apparent effects of implementing of Structured Decision Making in October 2007: • No effect on overall rates of removal, except for Black children • Following implementation of SDM, increased rates of placement for Black children leading to greater disproportionality at the point of removal from home. • The story is not over.

  45. What’s Next • Obtaining additional information on families, particularly receipt of food stamps in the year of the referral • Refine our estimates for the effects of SDM • Analyze effects of Family Team Decision Making • Report due in September 2010

  46. Thank you! Questions?

More Related