racial disproportionality in washington’s child welfare system: an update fcap seminar april 14,...
Post on 20-Dec-2015
217 views
TRANSCRIPT
Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System:
An Update
FCAP SeminarApril 14, 2010
Marna Miller, Ph.D.Washington State Institute for Public Policy
www.wsipp.wa.gov
WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY
• 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, OFMSenator Karen Fraser Sandra Archibald, University of WashingtonRepresentative Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney James L. Gaudino, Central Washington Univ.Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Robert Rosenman, Washington State UniversityRepresentative Skip Priest Les Purce, The Evergreen State CollegeSenator Pam Roach Ken Conte, House Office of Program ResearchSenator Mark Schoesler Richard Rodger, Senate Committee Services
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.
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
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
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
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.
Measuring Disproportionality
Example:
5,612 American Indian children were referred in 200455,872 Indian children in Washington in 2000Rate of CPS referrals for Indian children:
5,612 ÷ 55,872 = 0.100Or
100 children referred per 1,000 Indian children in Washington
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
Defining Race
WSRDAC specified the hierarchical rules for classifying multi-racial/ethnic children.
American Indian: Any Indian heritageBlack: Any non-Indian Black heritageAsian: Any non-Indian, non-Black Asian/Pacific
Islander heritageHispanic: Hispanic heritage, not in any of the other
racial groupsWhite: Non-Hispanic, White only
Decision Points In Child Protective ServicesAnd Time in Care, 2004 Cohort
Referral to CPS
Accepted
Initial High Risk
Removed From Home
Over 60 Days
Over Two Years
58,005
43,423
35,474
4,744
3,194
1,476
3.053.31
4.56
4.96
6.29
1.00 1.04 1.13
1.70
2.15
2.92
1.56
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
Over 2 years
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex (
Ind
ian
vs
Wh
ite) DI
DI After Referral
White children
Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : American Indian Children
Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Black Children
2.02 2.17 2.29 2.24
2.79
1.00 1.07 1.15 1.21 1.181.48
1.89
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
Over 2 years
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex (
Bla
ck v
s W
hit
e) DI
DI After Referral
White children
Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Hispanic Children
1.44 1.41 1.48 1.45 1.371.34
0.921.031.031.051.00 1.07
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
Over 2 years
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex (
His
pan
ic v
s W
hit
e) DI
DI After Referral
White children
Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: Asian Children
1.00 1.06 1.05 1.020.85 0.86
0.410.410.490.500.510.480
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
Over 2 years
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex (
Asi
an v
s W
hit
e)
DI
DI After Referral
White children
Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: All Races
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
Over 2 years
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex (
Co
mp
ared
to
Wh
ite) Indian Children
Black Children
Hispanic Children
Asian Children
White children
16 of 26
Who Refers to Child Protective Services?
Mandated Reporters: Certain professionals are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. These include:
Medical professionalsSchool personnelDSHS employees and other social service
professionalsChild care providersLaw enforcement
Non-mandated Reporters: RelativesFriends/NeighborsParentOther
Who Refers to Child Protective Services?
WSIPP, 2008
CPS Referrals
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AmericanIndian
Black Asian Hispanic White
Per
cen
t o
f A
ll R
efer
rals
Mandated Not Mandated
Who Refers to Child Protective Services?Disproportionality Index by Type of Referrer
WSIPP, 2008
0
1
2
3
4
AmericanIndian
Black Asian Hispanic White
Dis
pro
po
rtio
nal
ity
Ind
ex(C
om
par
ed t
o W
hit
e C
hild
ren
)
Mandated Not Mandated
Outcomes For Children Following a CPS Referral 2004 Cohort
Referral to CPS
Accepted
Initial High Risk
Removed From Home
Over 60 Days
Over Two Years
58,005
43,423
35,474
4,744
3,194
1,476
Reunification
Guardianship
Adoption
Age Out
Outcomes for Children Following a Placement Linked to a CPS Referral
(As of November 1, 2007)
WSIPP, 2008
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indian Black Asian Hispanic White
Reunified Guardianship Adopted Reached Majority Placement Still Open
Permanency for Children in PlacementsLinked to a CPS Referral
(As of November 1, 2007)
WSIPP, 2008
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indian Black Asian Hispanic White
Permanency Reached Majority Placement Still Open
Children Living with Single Parents
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Indian Black Asian Hispanic White All Races
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ch
ild
ren
All Children Children In Out-of-Home Placements
Legal Outcomes Children Removed from HomePlacements Linked to CPS Referrals in 2004
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
American Indian Black AsianHispanic White All races
Perc
ent o
f Chi
ldre
n
If dependent
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
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.
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?
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.
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
CurrentStudy
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.”
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.
Study Approach for SDM AnalysisTimeline
SDM Statewide
27-Oct-07
Pre-SDM CPS Referrals
Post-SDM CPS Referrals
Pre-SDM Placements
Post-SDM Placements
Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08
Comparing Referrals2007 to 2008
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Indian Children
20072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Comparing Referrals2007 to 2008
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
Black Children
20072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After Referral
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6Indian Children
20042005200620072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After Referral
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.40
1.50
1.60 Black Children
20042005200620072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After Referral
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Asian Children
20042005200620072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality After Referral
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
Hispanic Children
20042005200620072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
After
Ref
erra
l
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality Index
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0
1
2
3
4
5
6Indian Children
20042005200620072008WhiteD
ispr
opor
tiona
lity
Inde
x
Multi-Year ComparisonsDisproportionality Index
Referrals January through June
Referrals Accepted Initial High-risk
Placed Over 60 days
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
Black Children
20042005200620072008White
Dis
prop
ortio
nalit
y In
dex
Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis
Effect of SDM on removal from homeReferrals from Jan through June 2006, 2007 and 2008
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
Beta P-value Odds ratioAll children -0.0306 0.3138Indian children -0.0816 0.3504Black children 0.3054 0.0003 1.36Asian children 0.0053 0.9753Hispanic children -0.0523 0.541
Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis
Effect of SDM on removal from homeReferrals from Jan through June 2006 and 2008 (omit 2007)
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
Beta P-value Odds ratioAll children -0.00108 0.9755Indian children -0.0652 0.5178Black children 0.2599 0.0073 1.30Asian children 0.3183 0.1311Hispanic children -0.0211 0.8298
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.
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
Thank you!
Questions?