Research Synthesis on Child Welfare Disproportionality and Disparities: Child Welfare Entries

2. Research Synthesis on Child WelfareDisproportionality and Disparities: Child Welfare Entries John Fluke, Ph.D. Child Protection Research Center Child Welfare American Humane Association Race & Child Welfare: Disproportionality, Disparity, Discrimination: Re-Assessing the Facts, Re-Thinking the Policy Options -Working Conference Harvard Law School , Cambridge, MA January 28, 2011

3. Acknowledgements • Supported by: • Center for the Study of Social Policy • Annie E. Casey Foundation • Co-authors: • Brenda Jones Harden, Ph.D. • Department of Human Development, University of Maryland • Molly Jenkins, M.S.W. • Ashleigh Ruehrdanz • Child Protection Research Center, Child Welfare, American Humane Association • This presentation represents the presenter’s perspective on the topic, and not necessarily the views of the co-authors.

4. Overview The Review and Definitions Explanatory Framework Incidence Enumerating Entries Explaining Entries What Research is Needed?

5. Review Scope • Roughly based on research since 2006 • Intention was to be objective • Peer review and fugitive literature • Review contains over 200 references • Over 400 documents were considered for inclusion • Definitions • Disproportionality • Disparity • Discrimination

6. Disproportionality and Disparity (Myers, 2010) • Disproportionality is the ratio of the percent of persons of a certain race or ethnicity in a target population (e.g., children who are substantiated for maltreatment) to the percentage of persons of the same group in a reference (or base) population. • Disparity is the comparison of the ratio of one race or ethnic group in an event to the representation of another race or ethnic group who experienced the same event. A disparity exists when the ratios being compared are not equal. • Discrimination is the unequal treatment of identically situated groups. Such groups can be considered identical with respect to the most important features related to the situation being analyzed; however, being able to define circumstances as perfectly identical is probably not possible. Nevertheless, the identification of disparities may be the first step in identifying possible discrimination.

7. Explanatory Framework

8. Incidence/Prevalence Studies • Dietz (2002) • Household survey /Conflict Tactics Scale • Differences (bi-variate and multi-variate) in harsh disciplinary practices between African American and White caregivers • Finkelhor, et al. (2005) • Household survey/Juvenile Victims Questionnaire (multiple forms of victimization) • No bi-variate differences between White, African American, and Hispanics • Very preliminary findings at this stage

9. Incidence/Prevalence Studies • Westat, NIS • Applies to sentinels (professionals in contact with children) and Child Protective Services • NIS 3 and Prior NIS indicated no difference in race ethnicity • NIS 4 finds differences across overall maltreatment and several specific categories comparing Whites and African Americans (no differences between Whites and Hispanics) • Explanations • Income gaps • Sample precision • Multivariate SES (> differences in not low SES), Family Structure

10. Where does this leave us? • Existence or Absence of Disparities in Incidence and Prevalence Remain Unclear • Methods are a problem • Some populations are not addressed • Tendency of research is that some disparities do exist for African Americans • Causes are subtle and explained to some extent, but research is very weak • Relationship to Child Welfare • If disparities in incidence exist for African Americans, then we might expect more African American children to be in the system regardless of what the system is doing • Underlines the importance of comparing differences using decision point based denominators

11. Incidence?

12. Enumerating Disparities and Disproportionality in Decision Points • Population Based Denominator Ratios • Based on data from one child welfare decision (e.g., new placements/population) • Easiest to obtain • Decision Based Denominator Ratios • Based on data from at least two child welfare decisions (e.g., new placements/opened cases) • Relationship Population Based Denominatork = e( ∑ ln(Decision Based Denominatori))

14. Explaining Removals at the Worker Level (DME/GADM) (Baumann, et al. 2010) - - - - + AA Only + +

15. Explaining Removals • The relationship between the case factors risk, race, and poverty may be difficult for caseworkers to understand because they are intertwined. • The perception of lower interpersonal skills, an individual factor, is related to greater disparities in the removal of African American children. • Having fewer African American or Hispanic families on one’s caseload, an organizational factor, is associated with greater disparities in the removal of African American or Hispanic children. • Removals themselves are increased when the caseworker believes the services in the areas in which they work to be inadequate (organizational). Removals are decreased when the worker believes their caseloads are too high (organizational).

16. Summary: Many aspects of the issue need to be better understood from research • Incidence/prevalence • Absence of key groups (e.g., American Indians, Hispanics) • Issues with race coding and enumeration particularly in secondary analyses • For entries Issues of Use of Population or Decision Based Denominators • Most of what we know is emergent, not planned research. • Few multivariate and multi-level analysis of explanatory factors • No experiments, except vignettes • Formulation of hypotheses: • how and when disparities are inequities (either under or over served) • how to effectively reduce inequities • Impact of resource gaps and the capacities of communities