1 / 92

Achieving Fairness and Equity: How Training Can Be Part of the Solution

Achieving Fairness and Equity: How Training Can Be Part of the Solution. Symposium on Fairness and Equity Issues in Child Welfare Training and Education Ruth G. McRoy, Ph.D. r.mcroy@mail.utexas.edu April 12, 2007.

indigo-cherry
Download Presentation

Achieving Fairness and Equity: How Training Can Be Part of the Solution

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. Achieving Fairness and Equity: How Training Can Be Part of the Solution Symposium on Fairness and Equity Issues in Child Welfare Training and Education Ruth G. McRoy, Ph.D. r.mcroy@mail.utexas.edu April 12, 2007

  2. Role of Training and Education in Promoting Fair and Equitable Practice within the Field of Child Welfare • Review of Disproportionality Data and Issues • Differential Impact of Services on Specific Populations • Causes, Challenges • Promising practices • Staff Training and Educational Challenges and Issues • Promoting Fairness and Equity Through Training

  3. Recognize Causes • As Courtney asked in 1996, “Do child welfare researchers, policymakers, and practitioners believe that it is ethically acceptable to be involved in improving the efficacy of a system that takes these children without simultaneously being involved in remedying the problems that bring the children to the system?”

  4. Child Welfare: Public and Private System • Intersects with and is influenced by: • Juvenile Justice • Welfare • Criminal Justice • Education • Health Care • Child Care • Mental Health • Media • Federal and State policy .

  5. Child Welfare Professionals: In Search of Answers Disproportionality in Child Welfare The history The context Definitions Evidence Theories Responses Promising practices

  6. 1959: Maas and Engler • reported that more AA children in care and less likely to be adopted

  7. 1963 • Culturally insensitive workers removing children from “undesirable family situation: and placing in foster care-- • 81% of children in out of home care in 1963 were there because parents were unmarried or came from broken homes-- • Most were African American and Indian

  8. Jeter (1963) reported that Black children were • Remaining in foster care for longer periods of time than white children • Adoption not being offered on equitable basis • Ongoing discrimination in service provision • Black children being served by public agencies and • Private agencies serving white children

  9. Billingsley & Giovannoni (1972) • The system of child welfare is failing Black children. It is our thesis that the failure is a manifest result of racism; that racism has pervaded the development of the system of services; and that racism persists in its present operation (p.3) • Is this still true in 2007?

  10. 1980’s to 2005 • Trends in Numbers of Children in Care • 1982: 262,000 children in care (52% were Anglo) • 1993: 429,000(38% Anglo) • 2000: 588,000(35% Anglo) • 2002: 532,000 (39% Anglo) • 2003: 523,000 (39% Anglo) • 2005: 513,000(41% Anglo)

  11. Overrepresentation • If a particular racial/ethnic group of children is represented in foster care at a higher percentage than they are represented in the general population

  12. Disproportionality • A situation in which a particular racial/ethnic group of children is represented in foster care at a higher percentage than other racial/ethnic groups • (I.e. If 5% of all White children are in care, then 5% of African American, Hispanic etc.)

  13. U.S. Child Population under 18(% in care) • 61% White (41% in care) • 17% Hispanic/Latino (18% in care) • 15% African American (32% in care) • 3% Asian American (1% in care) • 1% American Indian/AN (2% in care)

  14. According to AFCARS estimates for Sept. 2005 • 513,000 children in the US foster care system • White, 41% • Black, Non-Hispanic 32% • Hispanic, 18% • AI/AN Non Hispanic 2% • Asian/PI NI Non-Hispanic 1% • Unknown 2% • Two or more races 3%

  15. 2006 California Child Population (% in Care) 44% Hispanic (42% in care) 35% White (26% in care) 10% Asian American (2% in care) 7% African American (28% in care) 1% American Indian/AN (1% in care)

  16. 78,278 California children in foster Care on July 1, 2006 • 6% are less than one year of age • 25%-- 1-5 • 21%-- 6 and 10 • 30%-- 11 and 15 • 17%-- 16-19 • 1% -- over 19

  17. Good News: • In 2000 there were 108,000 in foster care. • Number in California foster care has decreased by 8% from 2003 to 2005

  18. County Data • Alameda County • 15% of child population is Black • 67% of children in care are Black • Contra Costa County • 11% of Child population is Black • 46% of children in care are Black • Solano County • 17% of child population is Black • 40% of children in care are Black

  19. Disparities not unique to California 46 states have disproportionate representation of African American children in their child welfare systems. Studies recently completed in MN, Michigan, Texas Children’s Rights Law Suit in Tennessee

  20. Calculated State by State Statistical Profile of Racial Overrepresentation in Foster Care States with Extreme Disproportion(16) Rhode Island New Jersey New Mexico Iowa Indiana Pennsylvania Arizona Montana Illinois California Oregon Wyoming Minnesota Idaho New Hampshire Wisconsin Center for Study of Social Policy

  21. Demographics of the 78,278 California children in Foster Care • Average number of months in care– 39 months in 2003 (30 months nationally) • 46% have experienced three or more foster care placements (42% nationally) • Majority of children come into care because of parental neglect

  22. California’s foster children • 47,429 waiting to be reunified • 5% or 4,852 waiting to be adopted • Avg. time foster care children have been • waiting to be adopted-- 46 months (42 months nationally)

  23. AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN IN CARE IN CALIFORNIA • African American children represent 6.7 % of the under 17 population. • But represent 28% of those in social services care • 21, 915 children in care are African American

  24. “Black kids more often taken from families by social workers” • Recent news headline • Santa Clara County—Black children represented only 2.4% of the population younger than 17 in the county, but accounted for 12.8 percent of children in the child welfare system in 2005, more than 7 times the rate of White children.

  25. Needell, Brookhart, & Lee (2003) • Needell, Brookhart, & Lee (2003) found that Black children in California are more likely than White or Hispanic children to be removed from their caretaker and placed in care, even when age, reason for maltreatment, neighborhood poverty are taken into account.

  26. Annually about 11% or 4,535 California children exit care at 18 or older • Another 7% (2,877) leave for other reasons • Including running away, transfer, or death

  27. Nationally, about 20,000 children age out of foster care with no place to go. • Former foster children are 22 times more likely to be homeless than peers and one-third end up poor.

  28. Child Welfare Decision Point Analysis • Identify points where change in representation occurs • Report/no report • Investigation/no investigation • Substantiation/no substantiation • Case closed/no services/in home services/out of home care (kin,foster) • Reunification/adoption/remain in care or age out

  29. Percent of African American vs. White Children: in population, victims, entering foster care, in foster care, and waiting for adoption Child Maltreatment 2002: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/index.htm, p. 23 National Adoption and Foster Care Statistics: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.htm Estimates based on AFCARS data 3/04

  30. African American children in California • Are more likely than White or Latino children to be reported for abuse, and more likely to be placed in foster care, particularly if they are infants. They are less likely to be reunified and adopted than children of other races (Needell, et al, 2004).

  31. Questions • Why are children of color reported to the system at such a high rate? • What is the relationship between poverty and disproportionality? • Do children receiving a greater level of publicly funded services get referred to child welfare more often, due to visibility? • What is the relationship between neighborhoods and services? • What is impact of children who live in resource poor neighborhoods? • (Crystal Ward Allen-Public Children Services Association of Ohio 2005)

  32. Possible Explanations • Disproportionate need • Societal discriminatory practices over which the child welfare systems have little or no control. • Discriminatory practices within the child welfare system (Needell, et al. 2003).

  33. Courtney (1996) reported inequities in • child maltreatment reporting • service provision • kinship care • family preservation

  34. Courtney (1996) reported inequities in • exit rates • length of care • placement stability • adoption • Majority of racial differences reported were between African Americans and Anglos rather than any other group

  35. Links to Child Welfare • Poverty • Domestic Violence • Growth of single parent families • Impact of welfare reform • Child support • Neglect is often product of poverty/high visibility • Child maltreatment • Judicial system • Homelessness • Substance Abuse • Oppression/Racism

  36. Considerations in Disproportionality Poverty • Lindsey (1991) and Pelton (1989) • Parental income is the best predictor of child removal and placement • Majority of children in care from single parent, low-income households.

  37. (Pelton, 1989, pp. 52-53) • The reason for placement is that the family, frequently due to poverty” does not have the resources to offset the impact of situational or personal problems which themselves are often caused by poverty, and the agencies have failed to provide the needed supports, such as baby sitting, homemaking, day care, financial assistance, and housing assistance.

  38. In California • 1 in 5 children lives in a household that earns less than the federal poverty level ($16,600 per year for a family of three). • 1 in 3 African American, Latino and Native American children, ages 5 and younger, lives in a very low-income family. • One in 12 White children lives in a very low income family.

  39. The State of Black California: Racial Inequality • Blacks’ economic standing is a little over half that of Whites • Blacks’ housing quality, health index, education, criminal justice index • is about two-thirds that of Whites. • Only index in which Blacks scored higher is civic participation.

  40. According to The State of Black California • Black poverty rate is 22.4% compared to the White poverty rate at 8%. • 33.9% of Black children live in two parent families as compared to 72% of White children. • Blacks higher in felony arrests, misdemeanor arrests, homicide rates for males and females; higher in school dropout rates

  41. Neglect • Often product of poverty • Parents under scrutiny/more likely to be reported

  42. Theories of Disparities • Spatial concentration of child welfare supervision in communities of color. • Lindsey (1991)—parents’ income level was best predictor of child’s removal (national survey data analysis of those who received supportive services and those placed in care)

  43. Possible Explanations • Disproportionate need • Societal discriminatory practices over which the child welfare systems have little or no control. • Discriminatory practices within the child welfare system (Needell, et al. 2003).

  44. Barth (2001)suggests multiplicative model • “There are small to medium increases in the disproportionality by population experienced by AA children as they move through the child welfare system, which results in substantial differences in their representation in child welfare compared to their representation in general population” • Argues greater risk for child abuse and neglect in AA families • Reentry rates highest for AA children

  45. Garland, et al (1998) • Reported that race/ethnicity is a factor in determining placement of African American children and not simply a confound related to socioeconomic factors

  46. Jenkins and Diamond (1985) • –Higher probability for minority children to be placed in foster care when living in a geographic area where they are relatively less represented (more visible).

  47. Visibility Hypothesis • Garland, et.al (1998) tested this hypothesis using population of minors referred to receiving facility in San Diego. • More visible a child was in community, more likely child would be placed in foster care. • Pattern only present for African American children—not Hispanic or Asian children. • Pattern not related to socioeconomic characteristics, as these were equal among AA and Hispanic

  48. Unintentional Bias • Robert Hill (2004) suggested that many caseworkers are looking out for the best interests of children, but many may be culturally insensitive to minority groups.

  49. Differential attributions and labeling bias • Physicians may be more likely to attribute injury to abuse in lower income homes.

More Related