Disproportionality in child welfare.

Disproportionate placement of children of color has been a longstanding issue. It is a troubling phenomenon because individuals, agencies, and systems of good intent cause harm to those they try to help without knowing how or why. This issue is complex because of the array of contributing factors. We have the challenge that no one seems to be able to isolate or clearly articulate the causal factors. Not being able to identify causal factors has been used as an excuse for doing nothing. This approach is short sighted, is damaging to those we intend to help, and leads us to inappropriate use of scarce resources. It is time to confront the issue comprehensively and to face our own demons as child-centered social workers. Little work has been done in child welfare to articulate wellgrounded theories about the problem. All we seem to have are several schools of thought or assumptions based on ingrained opinions that tend to be part of the problem. One school of thought has been that there is a disproportionate need and that due to poverty, substance abuse, and family disruptions over time in communities of color, children from these groups come into the child welfare system in greater numbers. It turns out that this idea is mostly myth. National incidence studies of child maltreatment find that all races experience child maltreatment at roughly the same rates. Further, the poorest of the poor - rural African American and American Indians - actually show lower rates of maltreatment than less impoverished populations do. Clearly, poverty is not the explanation. Likewise, substance abuse rates among American Indians are the highest in the nation for any cultural population, while rates of child abuse are lower and neglect is only somewhat higher. While substance abuse is highly correlated with child maltreatment, it does not appear that the differences between cultures with regard to substance use and abuse are sufficient to understand the problem of disproportionality. What is different is the response of the helping professions. For example, African American and white women are equally as likely to test positive for drugs in their systems at birth, but African American women are 10 times more likely to be reported to child protective services as a result. The real culprit appears to be our own desire to do good and to protect children from perceived threats and our unwillingness to come to terms with our own fears, deeply ingrained prejudices, and dangerous ignorance of those who are different from us. These factors cumulatively add up to an unintended race or culture bias that pervades the field and exponentially compounds the problem of disproportionality at every decision point in the system. For example, of 100 white children that come to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS) intake, 25 will be substantiated and 8 will be eventually placed in substitute care. Of 100 American Indian children coming to the attention of non-American Indian CPS agencies, 50 will be substantiated and 25 will be placed. Here is the heart of the problem - 100 children from each group have about the same likelihood of being maltreated. Why are twice as many American Indian families substantiated? And then why are three times as many placed of those substantiated? There is no explanation other than racial bias. But how is it that racial bias can function among professionals of good will that get into a field to help people, most of whom would define themselves as against racism and discrimination? I have observed several factors that contribute to bias in 30 years of cross-cultural training and advocacy. Additionally, several lessons of the past should be instructive to us today if we are willing to take an important look inward at the dangers inherent in our concerns for children. Fear has been a constant theme among participants in my cultural competence workshops. Once comfortable in disclosing things that hinder effective practice, many workers admit they are afraid of going to African American, Latino, or even low-income neighborhoods or onto American Indian reservations. …