U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

www.childwelfare.gov

ISSUE BRIEF

January 2011

Addressing Racial 

Disproportionality 

in Child Welfare

Promising Practices in

Child Welfare

Issue briefs include a review of 

research and policies to bring 

together current information with 

examples of promising practices.

What’s Inside:

• Prevalence

• Community development and prevention

• Reporting and screening

• Investigation and assessment

• Service provision

• Permanency for children in out-of-home care

• Across the stages of child welfare

• States’ efforts

• Strategies and research
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

2 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

The child welfare community has moved from 

acknowledging the problem of racial and 

ethnic disproportionality in the child welfare 

system to formulating and implementing 

possible solutions. As jurisdictions and 

agencies evaluate their systems to identify 

where and how disproportionality is occurring, 

they are seeking changes that show promise 

for their own populations. 

This issue brief explores efforts to address

racial disproportionality in child welfare by 

focusing on changes in policy and practice at 

specific decision points in the child welfare 

process—prevention, reporting, investigation, 

service provision, out-of-home care, and 

permanency—as well as policies and practices 

that can be implemented across several or 

all of these decision points. The issue brief 

is designed to help administrators, program 

managers, and policymakers explore solutions 

to racial disproportionality in their own 

child welfare systems. Specific examples 

of State and local projects that address 

disproportionality are highlighted throughout.

A brief introductory section on prevalence is 

also included, to provide some background 

statistics.1

1	 While it is necessary to understand what causes

disproportionality in a particular jurisdiction in order to formulate

solutions, it is beyond the scope of this issue brief to explore the

background issues and causes in depth. A number of studies

already exist, including, for example, Derezotes, Poertner, &

Testa (Eds.), 2005; Hill, 2005, 2006; McRoy, 2005; Casey-CSSP

Alliance for Racial Equity, 2006; U.S. Government Accountability

Office, 2007.

Prevalence

A significant amount of research has 

documented the overrepresentation2

 of certain 

racial and ethnic groups, including AfricanAmericans and Native Americans, in the child 

welfare system when compared with their 

representation in the general population (e.g., 

McRoy, 2005; Derezotes, Poertner, & Testa, 

2005; Hill, 2005, 2006; Casey-CSSP Alliance 

for Racial Equity, 2006; Overrepresentation of 

minority youth in care, 2008). While the extent 

of this overrepresentation varies significantly 

across different regions of the country, it exists 

at some level in virtually every locality.

At the same time, research from the first three 

National Incidence Studies of Child Abuse and 

Neglect (NIS) found no relationship between 

race and the incidence of child maltreatment 

after controlling for poverty and other risk 

factors (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996). Instead, 

incidence of child abuse and neglect was 

associated with poverty, single parenthood, 

and certain other related factors. However, 

the most recent NIS (NIS-4) indicated that 

Black children experience maltreatment at 

higher rates than White children in several 

categories of maltreatment. The study’s 

authors suggest that the findings are at 

least partly a consequence of the greater 

precision of the NIS-4 estimates and partly 

due to the enlarged gap between Black 

and White children in economic well-being, 

since socioeconomic status is the strongest 

2	 In this issue brief, the terms “disproportionality” and

“overrepresentation” are used interchangeably to refer

to the proportion of ethnic or racial groups of children in

child welfare compared to those groups on the general

population. “Disparity” refers to the more global condition of

disproportionality or overrepresentation.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

3 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

Table 1

Race-Ethnicity of ChIldren in Total Population vs. in Foster Care in 2008

Race/Ethnicity Percentage of Total 

Child Population*

Percentage of Children in 

Foster Care**

American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 2%

Asian 4% 1%

African-American 14% 31%

Hispanic 22% 20%

White, non-Hispanic 56% 40%

* U.S. Census Bureau’s 2008 American Community Survey, which provides statistics on children and youth under 18 as 1-year estimates.

** U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (2009) AFCARS data for FY 2008, which provides statistics on children and youth in 

the child welfare system up to age 20 (although only 5 percent are 18+ years) on September 30, 2008.The two columns of percentages 

show the disparity between each race’s representation in the general population vs. its representation in the foster care population. Note 

that this does not show each group’s representation in the child welfare system as a whole, just representation in out-of-home care.

predictor of maltreatment rates (Sedlak, 

McPherson, & Das, 2010).

How extensive is overrepresentation of 

certain groups in child welfare compared to 

the general population of children? Statistics 

from the U.S. Census Bureau’s (2009) 2008 

American Community Survey and from the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (U.S. HHS, 2009a) Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS) for 2008 give some idea of the 

extent of the disparity, using the example of 

foster care. (See Table 1.)

The AFCARS figures for 1998 through 2008 

show a drop in the percentage of AfricanAmerican children in foster care, although a 

large disparity remains when compared with 

figures for White children. For the first year for 

which the percentages were provided, 1998, 

African-American children constituted 43 

percent of those in foster care. By 2008, that 

percentage had dropped to 31 percent.3

While these national statistics provide some 

idea of the extent of the overrepresentation, 

they do not show the wide discrepancies in 

population numbers among States and even 

within States. For example, while Native 

American children constitute 2 percent of 

the foster care population nationally, they are 

overrepresented in States where there are 

larger Native American populations, such as 

Hawaii (10.5 percent), Minnesota (8.2 percent), 

and South Dakota (7.9 percent) (Hill, 2005). 

Jurisdictions need to gather and evaluate 

their own statistics to identify what groups 

are over- or underrepresented and where 

the disproportionality occurs (e.g., reporting, 

3	 The most recent AFCARS numbers, for FY 2009, show that

African-American children make up 30 percent of those in foster

care (see www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/

tar/report17.htm).
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

4 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

screening, placement) in order to determine 

the best way to address the problem.4

Disproportionality can also indicate the 

disparate outcomes, services, and treatment 

that children and families of color experience 

while interacting with the child welfare 

system.5

 For instance, while the average stay 

in foster care for White children at the end of 

FY 2003 was approximately 24 months, the 

average length of stay for African-American 

children at the same time was more than 40 

months (Stoltzfus, 2005). Some of this disparity 

may be attributed to the trend for AfricanAmerican children to spend more time in 

foster care with relatives, but that practice 

does not account for the enormity of the gap. 

Another example of the disparity in services 

is found in the underrepresentation of Asian 

children in foster care. One might conclude 

from their low representation in the child 

welfare system that some Asian children and 

families may not be identified as needing 

services.

The Child and Family 

Services Reviews

As early as the first round of the Child and 

Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), numerous 

State Final Reports noted the problem of 

disproportionality in the child welfare system 

and reported on issues that may intensify 

or cause the overrepresentation of minority 

4	 A number of jurisdictions have begun to assess and address

disproportionality. For instance, read Places to Watch: Promising 

Practices to Address Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare 

Services (Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity, 2006) or view

Racial Equity: Recent State Legislative Initiatives (National

Conference of State Legislatures, 2007).

5	 The phrase “of color” refers to non-White or nonmajority race

or ethnicity.

groups.6 For example, at least 25 State 

first-round Final Reports identified gaps in 

culturally appropriate services, and at least 24 

State Final Reports indicated that language 

differences are a barrier to services, case 

planning, investigations, or training. Only 38 

percent of States received a positive rating on 

the CFSR indicator regarding whether a State’s 

recruitment efforts for foster and adoptive 

parents reflect the racial and ethnic diversity 

of children in need of out-of-home care (U.S. 

HHS, n.d.).

In the second round of CFSRs, only 14 of 

41 States received a positive rating on the 

item regarding State efforts to recruit and 

retain resource parents who reflect the 

racial and ethnic diversity of the foster care 

population in that State.7

 For the States 

that received a rating of “Strength” for this 

CFSR item, a number of strategies were 

cited that accounted for the States’ success 

in recruiting a diverse foster and adoptive 

parent population. Some of these promising 

practices included a pilot program targeting 

prospective parents of Native American 

descent (North Dakota), a program that used 

6	 The CFSRs are designed to enable the Children’s Bureau of

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ensure

that State child welfare agency practice is in conformity with

Federal child welfare requirements, to determine what is actually

happening to children and families as they are engaged in

State child welfare services, and to assist States in enhancing

their capacity to help children and families achieve positive

outcomes. For more information about the CFSR process, visit

the Children’s Bureau website at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/

cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htm.

7	 At the time of this report, Round 2 Final Reports were

available for only 41 States. Ratings on Item 44 (The State has in

place a process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential

foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial

diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive

homes are needed) were found by perusing each of those

reports, which could be located through a search function on the

Children’s Bureau website: http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/

ws/cwmd/docs/cb_web/SearchForm
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

5 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

children’s zip codes as one factor in matching 

them with resource families (Idaho), and the 

compilation and analysis of demographic data 

on families who had adopted and families 

underrepresented in the pool of prospective 

parents (Ohio).

Community Development 

and Prevention

Prevention services can strengthen families 

and decrease the number of children entering 

care, regardless of race or ethnicity. The level 

of available prevention services, however, 

is often inadequate (Lemon, D’Andrade, & 

Austin, 2005). Jurisdictions struggling with 

funding are sometimes reluctant to direct 

money toward prevention efforts when 

programs for children already in the system, 

such as foster care, have many funding needs.

By working proactively and in conjunction with 

other agencies and service providers, child 

welfare agencies can implement preventive 

measures, build family support, and offer 

services to vulnerable families before abuse 

and neglect occur. These efforts can be 

designed for the general population or 

targeted for specific at-risk groups. In fact, 

strategies for addressing disproportionality 

are often the same strategies used to improve 

child welfare for all children and families 

(Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity, 2006). 

Targeted prevention efforts that include 

a strong cultural competence component 

reflected in staffing and training may be 

especially useful. 

Certain risk factors that disproportionately 

affect families of color, such as poverty and 

parental incarceration, may lead to their 

disproportional contact with the child welfare 

system (Hines, Lemon, Wyatt, & Merdinger, 

2004). Therefore, programs designed to 

reduce poverty and crime rates and to 

increase concrete services such as housing and 

employment may have preventive effects on 

the incidence of child abuse or neglect.

One example is El Paso County, Colorado’s 

approach to families receiving Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or 

child welfare services or both. Recognizing 

the great overlap in the populations they 

served, the county’s child welfare and TANF 

agencies decided to integrate their services to 

provide “seamless, family-centered services” 

(Hutson, 2003, p. 1). The benefits for families 

include coordinated services, greater support 

for voluntary kinship care, support for at-risk 

teens, and intensive in-home services for 

families with substance use disorders at risk for 

involvement with child welfare. 

Culturally Appropriate 

Prevention Services

Culturally appropriate or culturally competent 

services touch every facet of child welfare 

decision-making. According to the standards 

of the National Association of Social Workers 

(NASW), cultural competence refers to “the 

process by which individuals and systems 

respond respectfully and effectively to people 

of all cultures, languages, classes, races, ethnic 

backgrounds, religions, and other diversity 

factors in a manner that recognizes, affirms, 

and values the worth of individuals, families, 

and communities and protects and preserves 

the dignity of each” (NASW, 2007). Cultural 

competence needs to permeate every part 

of an organization, from policymaking to 

administration to frontline practices, and 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

should be an ongoing component of training 

for all staff, as well as a centerpiece of 

recruiting a diverse workforce.

Promising Project—Prevention

Project Helping Families Prevent Neglect

Location Baltimore, MD

Researcher Collaboration between the University of Maryland School of Social Work and the 

University of Maryland School of Medicine, Pediatrics

Goal To reduce risk factors and increase protective factors in families at risk for child 

neglect in a target population that was predominantly African-American

Method Home visiting services were provided at least weekly; other services included 

community outreach, parent education, support groups, and concrete services. 

Emphasis was on a culturally competent strengths-based approach that promoted 

social support and empowerment.

Results Of the study’s 154 parents/caregivers caring for 473 children, 85 percent were 

African American. Families that received services for 3 or 9 months showed:

• Reduction in risk factors (e.g., parental depression, parenting stress)

• Increase in protective factors (e.g., social support, parenting satisfaction)

• Increase in child well-being

• Increase in child safety

For more 

information

DePanfilis, D. (2002). Helping families prevent neglect: Final report. Study funded by 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau 1996-2002 

(Grant Number 90CA1580). Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland School of Social 

Work. 

www.family.umaryland.edu/ryc_research_and_evaluation/publication_product_files/

selected_presentations/presentation_files/pdfs/final_report.pdf

In-Home Services

In-home services programs in which parents or 

expectant parents in certain risk categories are 

visited by professionals or paraprofessionals 

in their homes have shown promise for 

reducing maltreatment. The goal of in-home 

services is to provide support, education, and 

resources for parents who may be struggling. 

If families can be served in their homes, then 

maltreatment and involvement with the child 

welfare system may be avoided. 

One of the best-documented home visiting 

programs is the nurse home visiting program 

developed by David Olds. At least one 

study has followed this program specifically 

with families of color (Olds et al., 2007). In 

a randomized control study of low-income 

African-American mothers and children in 

Memphis, TN, parents and children were 

followed from birth through age 9. Outcomes 

were compared with similar families who had 

not received home visits from nurses during 

the first 2 years of the child’s life. In a follow-up 

conducted when the children were 9 years 

old, there were several positive outcomes for 

mothers and children, including the fact that 

nurse-visited children were less likely to die 

from birth through age 9—an effect accounted 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

7 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

for by deaths that were attributable to 

potentially preventable causes among families 

not visited by nurses.

In 2009, the Children’s Bureau funded the 

National Resource Center (NRC) for In-Home 

Services to identify best practices and provide 

training and technical assistance to States and 

Tribes on in-home services. The principles that 

guide the NRC’s work with States and Tribes 

include an emphasis on culturally appropriate 

services.

Reporting and Screening

Most families first come into contact with 

the child welfare system due to a report of 

suspected maltreatment. Studies show that 

African-American families are more likely to be 

reported, although research indicates that this 

may be due, in part, to socioeconomic status 

and not race alone (Derezotes & Poertner, 

2005). Certain reforms in practice and 

training have been suggested to reduce the 

disproportionate number of reports made to 

child welfare agencies of suspected abuse and 

neglect affecting minority children.

Training for Mandated Reporters

In some cases, child welfare agencies have 

noted that mandated reporters (such as 

teachers and physicians) report the suspected 

maltreatment of minority children more. 

Teachers may have difficulty distinguishing the 

effects of poverty from actual neglect and may 

also confuse cultural differences with neglect. 

Physicians staffing birthing centers in hospitals 

may be more likely to require postpartum drug 

tests for African-American new mothers than 

for White new mothers (Chibnall et al., 2003).

Mandated reporters, who differ in every 

State, may require more specific guidelines 

and better training materials than the brief 

checklist that often serves as their training 

for reporting child abuse and neglect. States 

can develop and provide training materials 

for mandated reporters that include specific 

guidelines for detecting symptoms of abuse 

and neglect, help reporters distinguish neglect 

from poverty, and incorporate a cultural 

awareness approach. Jurisdictions may also 

want to provide lists of community resources 

that mandated reporters can turn to when they 

want to support families. 

Bridging Refugee Youth & Children’s Services 

(BRYCS) has conducted research and 

developed tools that address the intersection 

of child welfare and refugee or immigrant 

families, most of whom are families of color. 

BRYCS has designed a tool to help teachers 

and schools distinguish between cultural 

differences and child maltreatment when 

determining whether to report suspected 

maltreatment (BRYCS, 2010). The tool 

points to resources that teachers and school 

personnel may use to support refugee families 

experiencing stress.

Training for Government Staff

Due to the disproportional rates of poverty, 

staff of government agencies may have 

more contact with minority families seeking 

services or government benefits. The higher 

visibility of these families may result in their 

being referred to the child welfare system 

at a higher rate. Employees of government 

agencies that offer concrete services (such as 

cash assistance, food stamps, housing, and 

transportation) and social services may benefit 

from cultural competence training to make 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

8 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

them aware of the potential for excessive 

referrals.

Screening Reports

The literature cites some interesting and 

contradictory findings regarding whether 

reports alleging abuse of children of color 

are more likely to be “screened in” than 

reports alleging abuse of White children 

(see Gryzlak, Wells, & Johnson, 2005, for an 

illuminating discussion). One study found 

that African-American children were more 

likely to be screened in for investigation 

than White children in cases of emotional 

maltreatment, physical neglect, or fatal or 

serious injury, as well as in cases reported by 

mental health or social service professionals or 

involving drugs or alcohol (Sedlak & Schultz, 

2005). Many factors may affect the screening 

decision, and agencies should examine how 

the characteristics of the case, the worker, 

agency policy, and screening criteria affect the 

numbers of children of different races whose 

cases are screened in for investigation.

Investigation and Assessment

Not only are minority families 

disproportionately reported for abuse and 

neglect, their cases are also more likely to 

be substantiated at investigation. In 2008, 

21.9 percent of all substantiated cases of 

maltreatment involved African-American 

children (14.2 percent of the general child 

population) (U.S. HHS, 2010; U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2009). Strategies that may improve 

the investigative and assessment processes 

are the use of assessment tools and cultural 

competency training.

Assessment Tools

Given that there is often a cultural divide 

between a family being investigated and 

the worker conducting the investigation, 

the use of risk assessment tools, as well as 

standardized definitions, can help guide the 

worker in assessing families on safety and risk 

issues. Use of standardized tools may remove 

some error from the decision-making process 

(Chibnall et al., 2003). Workers who have 

detailed and culturally relevant guidelines 

about what constitutes abuse and neglect can 

more easily control bias. Not all standardized 

tools, however, have been sufficiently tested 

on children from racial and ethnic minority 

groups, thus leading to a potential increase 

in bias. Agencies should be familiar with 

the strengths and weaknesses of any tools 

they use and train supervisors and workers 

to be aware of any potential bias that the 

assessment tool may introduce into the 

decision-making process. 

The California Family Risk Assessment (CFRA) 

was developed in the late 1990s in order to 

help workers assess the risk of maltreatment 

recurrence. The CFRA was part of a larger 

child welfare structured decision-making 

project that aimed to help workers improve 

decision-making when determining risk. 

An analysis by Will Johnson (2005) that 

specifically explored possible problems with 

racial bias in the CFRA found that use of the 

instrument would not disproportionately select 

families of color as being at high risk. 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

9 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

Promising Project—Investigation/Assessment

Project The Minnesota Structured Decision Making© Family Risk Assessment (FRA)

Location Minnesota

Researcher The Institute of Applied Research, St. Louis, MO

Goal To measure the validity and reliability of the FRA in predicting recurrence of child 

maltreatment in 15,000 families, including five subpopulations of Caucasian, AfricanAmerican, American Indian, Southeast Asian, and Hispanic families

Method The FRA was completed by caseworkers for each family as part of a structured 

decision-making battery of instruments, and families were rated as being at low, 

medium, high, or intensive risk for recurrence of maltreatment. Families were 

provided with services deemed as appropriate and followed for 24 months, and all 

instances of reported recurrence of maltreatment were tracked. In addition, another 

group of caseworkers completed online versions of the FRA based on different 

vignettes in which the family’s race was varied, so that researchers could determine 

whether families of different races received different ratings from caseworkers. 

Results Overall, the FRA showed predictive validity in classifying families as being at low, 

medium, high, or intensive risk for recurrence of abuse or neglect. It showed 

levels of predictive validity for the five racial and ethnic subpopulations similar to 

the entire study sample, with two main exceptions: It was more accurate with the 

Southeast Asian families and less accurate with the American Indian families than 

with the overall population. On the vignette study, no differences in risk rating were 

found by race. Researchers concluded that while the FRA is not designed to be 

the sole assessment for determining whether families are at risk for maltreatment 

recurrence, it is a valid screening tool that showed few racial or ethnic biases and 

may contribute to decision-making consistency in casework with families.

For more 

information

• Loman, L. A., & Siegel, G. L. (2004). An evaluation of the Minnesota SDM 

Family Risk Assessment. Institute of Applied Research. www.iarstl.org/papers/

FinalFRAReport.pdf

• Structured Decision Making© has been rated as showing promising research 

evidence and as being highly relevant to child welfare programs, according to 

the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC). See the 

CEBC website for more information: www.cebc4cw.org/program/111

Service Provision

Once maltreatment has been substantiated, 

White families are more likely to receive 

services that allow the children to remain in 

the home, while families of color are more 

likely to have their children placed in outof-home care (Derezotes & Poertner, 2005). 

Differences can also be found in other types 

of services, including those for children and 

those for parents (Cahn & Harris, 2005). 

A number of child welfare practices show 

promise for reducing this disparity by 

increasing availability of services, especially 

in-home services, for families of color.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

10 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

Family Preservation and 

Support Services

In 1993, Congress established the Family 

Preservation and Support Services program 

to encourage States to develop family 

preservation and family support services to 

keep children safely with their families. Such 

programs focus and build on family strengths 

while meeting needs identified by the family 

to provide practical help. These services 

typically offer in-home support or counseling 

and may include parent training, childcare, 

and concrete services. Family preservation 

service workers generally have smaller 

caseloads and are able to spend focused 

time helping the family to deal with the crisis 

and to build competence to address future 

challenges.

Differential Response

Differential response, also known as alternative 

response or dual-track response, refers to 

the use of a tailored response for families 

reported for child maltreatment. Different 

from the “one response fits all” approach, 

differential response is most often used when 

there is a determination of low risk or when 

the family might not otherwise qualify for 

services. Families may receive services without 

a substantiated finding of child maltreatment 

or, in cases of substantiation, when the child 

can remain safely in the home while the family 

receives services.

Differential response provides more options 

for family involvement in case planning and 

service provision. The flexibility of differential 

response means that it is one positive way for 

jurisdictions to address disproportionality, if 

they find that a disproportionate number of 

families of color are substantiated for child 

maltreatment.

In FY 2009, the Children’s Bureau funded 

the National Quality Improvement Center 

on Differential Response in Child Protective 

Services (QIC-DR). The QIC-DR has conducted 

significant research in this area and is currently 

overseeing demonstration projects in three 

States that will identify the components 

that contribute to the success of differential 

response. The QIC-DR also provides training 

and technical assistance on this topic to States 

and counties looking to implement or improve 

differential response programs. 

Informal Kinship Care

Informal kinship care refers to cases in which 

parents voluntarily place their children with kin 

without any formal involvement from a child 

welfare agency. This may happen in response 

to suspected or unsubstantiated reports of 

abuse or neglect. Because there is no formal 

involvement from the child welfare system, 

the kin are not obligated to be licensed or 

approved; however, they are also not eligible 

for most subsidies or supports. Community 

supports for these families might enable them 

to care for their children better and keep them 

from entering the child welfare system.

Family Group Decision-Making

In the Family Group Decision-Making (FGDM) 

approach, the child welfare agency provides 

support and information to help the extended 

family come together and develop a plan for 

the safety and well-being of the child.8

 This 

approach is based on the belief that the family 

8	 For more information on Family Group Decision-Making, see

American Humane’s website for the National Center on Family

Group Decision-Making at www.americanhumane.org/children/

programs/family-group-decision-making/national-center.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

11 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

has strengths that can be garnered for the 

child’s benefit. Generally, a broad definition of 

“family” is used and may include godparents, 

neighbors, community or Tribal members, 

and anyone else invested in the welfare of 

the child and family. In fact, one of the early 

benefits of FGDM may be the identification 

and location of family members who may not 

have been involved with the child or may not 

have even known about the child before being 

contacted to participate in FGDM.

The worker, or an FGDM facilitator, is 

responsible for locating and contacting the 

family, providing information such as legal 

requirements, and making arrangements for 

family conferences. The worker or facilitator 

may also help implement the family’s plan and 

conduct follow-up conferences or activities. 

Promising Project—Service Provision

Project Alternative Response

Location Franklin County, OH (Franklin was 1 of 10 Ohio counties that implemented an 

alternative response model)

Researcher The Supreme Court of Ohio and the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services 

and American Humane Association

Goal To provide families, including African-American families, the option of a 

noninvestigative, family-friendly assessment and a more family-driven approach to 

service delivery and reduce the number of children who enter foster care

Method The county agency selected nine zip codes that were home to African-American 

populations and had high numbers of referrals and child removals. Targeting 

these neighborhoods, the agency implemented an alternative response model, in 

which services were front-loaded so that families could access services quickly and 

before children were at risk. The agency also partnered with five community-based 

settlement houses to increase families’ access to services in their neighborhoods.

Results Early results showed that nearly half of all referrals received an alternative response, 

and 93 percent of all alternative response cases closed within 45 days. This decrease 

in case openings was accompanied by a decrease in all child placements and, 

specifically, a reduction in the number of African-American children in State custody, 

both in numbers and in proportion to other ethnic groups. In fact, the percentage 

of children in State care who were African-American dropped to a 15-year low of 

50 percent after alternative response implementation. The final evaluation report 

noted that the major positive effects of differential response on new reports of child 

maltreatment occurred among African-American families. 

For more 

information

• National Quality Improvement Center on Differential Response in Child 

Protective Services. (2009). Information summit on disproportionality: Final 

report. www.differentialresponseqic.org/assets/docs/disproportionality-infosummit-report-final.pdf

• Kaplan, C., and Rohm, A. (2010). Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project: Final 

Report of the AIM Team. www.law.capital.edu/adoption/AR/Section%201%20

AIM%20Final%20Report.pdf 

• Hawkins, M. K., (2009). Spotlight: Franklin County: Protecting children by 

strengthening families. Alternative Response Quarterly, 2(1), 5. 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

12 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

One positive result of FGDM may be the 

placement of the child with kin while the 

child’s parents receive training or resources 

from the formal system and from their natural 

and culturally based network to prepare them 

to reunify their family. 

The use of FGDM reflects the traditional 

values of kinship and community seen, for 

example, in African cultures, as well as Native 

American Tribal culture (Mills & Usher, 2004). 

It may also help promote a community-based 

approach to addressing disproportionality 

(Roberts, 2007). FGDM can also help the 

community at large view child welfare workers 

and agencies in a more positive light.

Promising Project—Service Provision

Project Denver Indian Family Resource Center (DIFRC)

Location Denver, CO

Researcher 

and Goal

In 2000, DIFRC received a grant through the Rocky Mountain Quality Improvement 

Center, funded by the Children’s Bureau, to coordinate a project serving American 

Indian children and families experiencing both substance abuse and child 

maltreatment.

Method DIFRC worked directly with families that had contact with the child welfare system 

by providing intensive case management, coordinating Team Decision Meetings, 

and offering support groups to help parents prepare to enter substance abuse 

treatment. DIFRC also supported system change through collaboration with county 

departments of human services (DHSs).

Results The project ran from January 2003 through March 2006, and 49 families participated 

during that time. There was no recurrence of substantiated maltreatment during 

program enrollment. The goal of keeping children from being placed outside 

their family and culture was achieved. The number of children placed in foster 

care decreased from 39 to 19 percent, and placement with relatives increased 

from 18 to 41 percent. This partnership with DIFRC helped the DHSs provide 

culturally appropriate services, identify extended family and community supports 

for children, and further recognize the relationship between substance abuse and 

child maltreatment. DIFRC also supported adherence to Indian Child Welfare 

Act standards, provided cultural consultations on cases, and participated in team 

decision-making meetings coordinated by the Denver DHS.

For more 

information

• Bussey, M., & Lucero, N. M. (2005). A collaborative approach to healing 

substance abuse and child neglect in an urban American Indian community. 

Protecting Children, 20(4), 9–22. 

• Leake, R. (2007). Denver Indian Family Resource Center: Research report. Denver, 

CO: Rocky Mountain Quality Improvement Center. Available on the American 

Humane website: www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/children/pc-rmqic-difreport.pdf 

• Lucero, N. M., & Bussey, M. (2007). Project replication handbook: Denver Indian 

Family Resource Center/Rocky Mountain Quality Improvement Center Project. 

Available on the American Humane website: www.americanhumane.org/assets/

pdfs/children/pc-rmqic-dif-handbook.pdf 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

13 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

Promising Project—Service Provision

Project Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) Program

Location North Carolina

Researcher North Carolina Division of Social Services

Goal To reduce the number of maltreated children who are removed from their homes by 

providing services to families that stabilize crises in the home, keep the child and 

family safe, develop skills and resources to resolve future crises, and improve family 

functioning

Method Families receive culturally competent, strengths-based, time-limited services, at 

least half of which are provided in the family’s home or community. They have 

round-the-clock access to family preservation workers who have caseloads of no 

more than four families. 

Results Between July 1994 and December 2003, IFPS programs in approximately 70 North 

Carolina counties provided services to 2,056 high-risk families, in which children 

were at imminent risk of being removed from the home. A comparison group of 

28,004 high-risk families did not receive IFPS. IFPS had positive results in a number 

of domains, including mitigating racial disparities in the child welfare system. 

For example, non-White children who received IFPS were less likely to be placed 

outside the home than White children who received IFPS. Also, throughout the first 

year after services were received, the placement rate for non-White children in IFPS 

was 7 to 12 percent lower than non-White children receiving traditional services.

For more 

information

Kirk, R. S., & Griffith, D. P. (2008). Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services 

on disproportionality. Child Welfare, 87(5), 87–105.

Referrals to Culturally 

Competent Service Providers

Clients who receive services either in-home 

or in the community may be more receptive 

to services offered by culturally competent 

providers. Child welfare agencies can work 

with community agencies to identify and 

develop a culturally diverse list of therapists, 

counselors, and other service providers. 

Within agencies, management can provide 

training and direction to child welfare workers, 

ensuring that they refer clients to culturally 

competent providers within the community. 

The providers should have a full understanding 

of the client’s cultural background, especially 

the ways in which culture affects beliefs about 

health, parenting, and behavior, and be able 

to incorporate the client’s culture into the 

services. The provider also should be able to 

converse in the same language as the client.

Permanency for Children in 

Out-of-Home Care

African-American and Native American 

children enter the foster care system at a 

disproportionately high rate (see Table 1). 

Once they have been removed from their 

homes, they are more likely to remain in care 

and less likely to be reunited with their families 

than are White children. In addition, the 

CFSRs found that many States have difficulty 

recruiting foster and adoptive families that 

reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

14 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

children in need of out-of-home care. The 

following are some strategies for achieving 

permanency for children of color in out-ofhome care.

Reunification

When the safety of the child can be ensured, 

family reunification is almost always the 

preferred goal. Services that promote family 

reunification include many of the same 

services needed for prevention: family 

strengthening, parent education, substance 

abuse services for parents, and concrete 

supports such as housing and transportation. 

The speed with which these services can 

be put into place has a great impact on the 

success of reunification: courts may enforce 

the Adoption and Safe Families Act by 

terminating parental rights for children who 

have been in out-of-home care for 15 of 

22 months. Thus, most families must meet 

their goals in this timeframe in order to have 

hopes of reunification.9

 Targeting appropriate 

services for families of color includes a 

strengths-based cultural competence 

component in terms of the service provider, 

accessibility, and coordination with other 

demands, such as employment and childcare. 

In addition, placement of children with kin 

or with foster families that are in or near the 

children’s own neighborhoods may enable 

parents to visit more easily—a necessity for 

achieving reunification goals.

Kinship Care

Ideally, when removal is necessary, children 

are placed directly with kin. In many cases, 

9	 There are exceptions to this timeframe for termination of

parental rights, and some of the common exceptions include

placement with kin or showing significant progress in achieving

case goals.

the children are under the custody of the child 

welfare system. However, this placement with 

family members may be more beneficial than 

regular foster care for the children involved 

because it helps to preserve community, 

family, and cultural ties (Roberts, 2001). In 

addition, for example, placement with kin 

reflects the longstanding informal practice of 

kinship care in many African-American and 

Native American communities.

A Broader Definition of Kin

Building on the kinship care approach, some 

States and agencies have begun to broaden 

their definition of who qualifies as kin. While 

legal definitions have tended to define kin in 

a fairly narrow way, some cultural traditions 

use a more inclusive definition. A greater 

pool of families for a child can be achieved 

by expanding the definition of kin to include 

“fictive” kin—adults who may not be related 

“by blood” but may have another relationship 

to the child, such as the extended family or 

Tribe.

For example, former foster parents, members 

of a cultural community, and others may 

provide the stability and connection that 

children or youth need. Carol Harper (personal 

communication, September 11, 2006) reports 

on several instances in Family Group DecisionMaking with families and friends of older youth 

that led to identification of and connections 

with fictive kin.10 In two instances in which 

the youth were from African immigrant 

families, their connections with cultural groups 

(Ethiopian and Oromo-East African) in their 

cities provided them with supportive fictive kin 

and helped reconnect them to their heritage. 

In another case, an incarcerated African10 Carol Harper is a faculty member at the University of

Washington School of Social Work.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

15 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

American youth formed a relationship with 

his brother’s foster parent during visits made 

to the correctional facility. The youth came to 

regard his brother’s foster parent as a family 

member, and they developed a supportive 

relationship.

Culturally Competent 

Recruitment Policies

Child welfare agencies and other agencies 

placing children in foster or permanent homes 

may use screening processes for prospective 

resource families that effectively screen out 

many minority families. Prospective families 

may be discouraged by caseworkers who lack 

cultural understanding, forms that are too 

lengthy, or caseworkers with inflexible working 

hours (McRoy, 2004). In addition, kin who 

live in homes that do not have the required 

number of bedrooms or other features 

required by State law or policy may not be 

considered for placement. This may also be 

an issue for American Indian families, for 

example, where it is customary for extended 

family to live together in one home (Jackson, 

2005). Policies should take into consideration 

the cultural customs of a family while 

continuing to ensure child safety.

Recruiting and Retaining 

Resource Families

Agencies may need to employ different 

recruiting methods to enlist resource families 

who reflect the ethnic and racial makeup 

of the children and families they serve. In 

one study to determine best practices for 

recruiting African-American families, the 

researcher interviewed personnel from 16 

agencies and found that agencies often 

partnered with community organizations—

particularly churches, but also social and civic 

organizations—to build solid relationships 

within the community. They also involved 

community leaders and hired additional 

African-American social workers. Once families 

adopted, the agencies provided ongoing 

support to help the families (McRoy, 2004). 

Establishing an adoption office within a 

minority community can help to both distance 

the office from the potential stigma associated 

with the child welfare office and to establish 

the commitment of the agency to finding 

homes for children within the community. 

Ruth McRoy (2004) uses the example of 

setting up an adoption agency office within a 

well-established church to attract community 

members. 

Other recruiting techniques include mentoring 

programs that provide prospective foster and 

adoptive families with both the information 

and the role models they need to make a 

decision to become a resource family. In these 

programs, prospective foster or adoptive 

families are matched with families in their 

community who have successfully provided 

foster care or adopted a child to learn about 

foster care and adoption, including the 

preparation, placement, and postplacement 

processes. Offering sliding-scale fees to lowincome families who want to adopt may also 

broaden the pool of prospective families.

Subsidized Guardianship

Subsidized guardianship programs have 

been established in a number of States to 

address the problem of foster parents who 

need support in order to become permanent 

guardians.11 In subsidized guardianship 

programs, the caregiver, often a relative, 

11 In some States, the programs were funded through timelimited waivers that allowed the States to use Federal funds.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

16 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

becomes the permanent legal caretaker and 

receives a monthly stipend, but the rights 

of the birth parent are not terminated, as in 

the case of adoption. This may be the best 

permanency solution for some children, 

especially older children, when parents are 

still a part of their lives but unable to provide 

a permanent and safe home. Subsidized 

guardianship is also a useful option for 

relatives who are potential guardians but are 

reluctant to see parents’ rights terminated.

In 2008, the passage of the Fostering 

Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act gave States the option to use 

Federal title IV-E funds to subsidize kinship 

guardians. This should increase the number 

of relatives who are able to afford to care for 

related children.

Promising Project—Foster Care and Adoption

Project Innovations Increasing Adoptive Placements of Hispanic/Latino Children

Location Southern California

Researcher The Latino Institute, funded by the Children’s Bureau

Goal To address the overrepresentation of Hispanic children in the child welfare system in 

California

Method A combination of culturally responsive outreach (including a website), presentations 

to Latino groups, development of a curriculum for adoption applicants, workshops 

for child welfare professionals, and intensive collaboration with public adoption 

agencies was used to promote the adoption of Hispanic children (especially males, 

older children, and sibling groups).

Results Over 3 years, the project received 632 inquiries, which resulted in 69 placements, 

far outpacing the goal of 40 placements. Effectiveness was attributed to bicultural 

administrators, long-term participation in the community, and personal contact 

between staff and prospective families.

For more 

information

• Children’s Bureau Express. (July/August 2008). Innovative recruitment 

strategies: The Latino Family Institute. http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/index.

cfm?event=website.viewArticles&issueid=96§ionid=1&articleid=2102 

• Tello, J., & Quintanilla, M. (2003). Final evaluation: Innovations increasing 

adoptive placements of Hispanic/Latino children. Available from Child Welfare 

Information Gateway at www.childwelfare.gov 

• Latino Family Institute: www.lfiservices.org/english/index.php 

Customary Adoption

Customary adoption refers to the Native 

American custom of adoption within a Tribe; 

parental rights are not terminated, and the 

child grows up knowing his or her biological 

parents and other family members. There is 

no stigma attached to this sort of adoption, 

and the arrangement is more flexible than 

mainstream legal adoption.

A project in Minnesota, funded in part by a 

grant from the Children’s Bureau, involves the 

efforts of the Rural Expansion of Adoptive 

Communities and Homes (REACH) project to 

reach out and recruit American Indian families 

in the Upper Sioux community to provide 

Indian children with permanency. Working with 

the First Nations Orphan Association, REACH 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

17 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

helps communities find legal yet culturally 

appropriate alternatives to traditional formal 

adoption, stressing the importance of keeping 

Native children in Native communities. 

Social workers have the responsibility of 

providing information to the communities 

and completing pending adoptions or other 

permanency arrangements, including those 

that do not involve termination of parental 

rights (Jackson, 2005). 

Across the Stages of Child 

Welfare

There are a number of promising practices for 

addressing disproportionality that apply across 

all stages of the child welfare continuum, 

from prevention to out-of-home care and 

permanency.

Agency Policy Review and Revision

Agencies should review all policies on an 

ongoing basis to ensure equity for all children 

and families. Dennette Derozotes (2006) notes 

four overriding steps that agencies can take 

to examine their own policies and practices in 

terms of racial and ethnic equity:

• Pay attention to agency cultural 

competence assessment, training, and 

technical assistance

• Develop a way to measure racial equity in 

agency programs and outcomes

• Identify and track agency goals by racial 

and ethnic groups

• Examine racially sensitive monitoring 

structures to identify practices that will 

better serve the needs of children and 

families

For agencies challenged about where to 

begin to assess disproportionality, the 

National Association of Public Child Welfare 

Administrators (NAPCWA) has developed the 

Disproportionality Diagnostic Tool (NAPCWA, 

2008). The tool allows the user to consider the 

issue of disproportionality from three “spheres 

of influence”: the society, the system, and 

the individual. After the tool is completed, 

agencies can determine what issues are 

being addressed and where they are being 

addressed (e.g., in the agency, in society, etc.) 

and where interventions still need to occur. 

In a pilot study at three sites, researchers 

found that the Diagnostic Tool was able to 

help agencies identify both their strengths 

and their areas of vulnerability, so that they 

could develop an appropriate plan to address 

disproportionality within the system (Fabella, 

Slappey, Richardson, Light, & Christie, 2007; 

Richardson & Derezotes, 2010).

A Culturally Competent 

and Diverse Workforce

Social workers, including the child welfare 

workforce, tend to be non-Hispanic White 

women. Statistics from a National Association 

of Social Workers (2006) study found that, in 

2004, 86 percent of social workers serving 

children and adolescents were non-Hispanic 

White, while 5 percent were Hispanic and 6 

percent were African-American. 

While it is neither possible nor necessarily 

desirable to match workers and clients by 

ethnicity, CPS staff who share the culture 

or language of a particular family may 

have a better understanding of the family’s 

background and needs.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

18 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

Family practices that might be seen as abusive 

or neglectful by mainstream standards may 

have a cultural component that would define 

them differently by a worker of a different 

background. Commonly encountered cases 

involve different cultural views of corporal 

punishment and parents’ rights to discipline 

their children as they see fit. In cases in 

which children are being harmed, the role 

of agencies is to honor the intentions while 

educating the parents about the laws and 

reasons behind the laws and helping them 

identify other approaches. 

In areas where immigrant groups comprise a 

significant part of the population, agencies 

may be challenged by the scope of diversity. 

Mark Traum and Amy Hurley (2005) describe 

how Intercultural Family Services, Inc., of 

Philadelphia uses cultural sensitivity, staff 

diversity, and cultural training and education 

to meet the needs of immigrant families from 

many different countries and backgrounds. 

Some of their suggestions include having 

staff understand differences among ethnic 

groups in help-seeking practices, healing, 

family member roles, religion, and parenting 

practices. The agency, which employs staff 

who represent 20 ethnicities, also promotes 

ongoing cultural competence through monthly 

cultural celebrations and distribution of a 

calendar that features holidays observed 

around the world.

A demonstration project in Woodbury County, 

Iowa, designed to meet the needs of Native 

American families involved with child welfare 

included both a significant community 

planning process prior to implementation and 

a strong component for increasing cultural 

competence among child welfare workers. 

Native liaisons were hired to help build trust 

between the Native American community 

and child welfare workers, and these liaisons 

were also able to help workers “reframe” 

child welfare challenges in more culturally 

appropriate ways. For instance, liaisons helped 

workers untangle complicated family trees to 

identify kin (Richardson, 2005). In addition, 

culturally competent practices, such as the use 

of Native healing practices, were incorporated. 

The county saw a 28-percent decrease in the 

foster care disproportionality rate, from 6.8 

percent (2005) to 4.9 percent (2008) (WesselKroeschell, 2009). For more information, visit 

the Minority Youth and Families webpage on 

the University of Iowa’s National Resource 

Center for Family Centered Practice: 

www.uiowa.edu/~nrcfcp/dmcrc/myfi.shtml 

Partnerships/Contracts With 

Other Organizations

Child welfare agencies may find that 

establishing partnerships or contracts with 

faith-based, ethnic, and community-based 

organizations provides entry into these 

organizations for the benefit of both. This 

approach may bring child welfare services 

closer to those who need them, educate 

other social service providers about the child 

welfare system, and demonstrate the agency’s 

commitment to finding homes for children 

within the community (Chibnall et al., 2003). 

Co-location With Other Services

Providing child welfare services to a 

community in the same location that provides 

other services, such as after-school programs, 

health screening, employment and housing 

assistance, and programs for HIV/AIDS and 

substance abuse, can serve to reinforce the 

community nature and interconnectedness of 

services. This can also strengthen the support 

system available to children and families.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

19 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

Promising Project—Cultural Competence Training

Project Culturally Responsive Child Welfare Practice With Latino Children and Families: A 

Child Welfare Staff Training Model

Location Chicago, IL

Researcher Loyola University Chicago School of Social Work, in collaboration with the Illinois 

Department of Children and Family Services, the Latino Consortium, and the 

Consulate General of Mexico in Chicago

Goal Develop a culturally responsive, competency-based training curriculum to prepare 

child welfare supervisors, frontline staff, and court personnel to work effectively with 

Latino children and families

Method Project staff developed a curriculum that was used to train child welfare 

professionals in Chicago and then throughout the State, with members of the Latino 

Consortium serving as trainers. The training focused on strengths-based, culturally 

competent practice, and all of the materials were designed to help caseworkers 

focus on family and community strengths within the cultural framework of their 

client.

Results 766 public and private child welfare staff and court personnel were trained. 

Evaluations found that participants showed a significant gain in knowledge about 

topics covered by the curriculum. When asked about the most useful aspects of 

the training, participants cited the material on immigration status, legal mandates, 

cultural differences, linguistic issues, demographics, and family stresses related to 

migration.

For more 

information

• Children’s Bureau Express. (July/August 2008). Collaboration leads to culturally 

responsive curriculum. http://cbexpress.acf.hhs.gov/index.cfm?event=website.vie

wArticles&issueid=96§ionid=1&articleid=2133

• Culturally responsive child welfare practice with Latino children and families: A 

child welfare staff training model. Site visit report. Available on the Child Welfare 

Information Gateway website: www.childwelfare.gov/management/funding/

funding_sources/sitevisits/latino.cfm#page=summary

Communitywide Initiatives 

Research has shown that disproportionality 

in child welfare does not occur in a vacuum 

but often reflects other societal values. 

Therefore, forming partnerships with other 

groups and engaging the greater community 

can help child welfare agencies take a more 

encompassing approach. One study that 

took place in a community where racial 

disproportionality was a problem identified a 

number of barriers between the community 

and the CPS agency; community focus groups 

then offered a number of solutions to CPS 

(Rycraft & Dettlaff, 2009):

• Build the child welfare image

• Create a community presence 

• Learn about the community and its 

resources 

• Collaborate with other service providers. 

Communities, agencies, and other 

organizations may be able to work together 

to establish councils or other communitywide 

bodies to respond to issues regarding 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

20 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

disproportionality. These councils can address 

the issue as a whole or concentrate on specific 

aspects of disproportionality, such as hiring 

practices or foster family recruitment. Such 

efforts should include representation from 

groups that are overrepresented in the child 

welfare system.

States’ Efforts

As evidenced through the projects highlighted 

above, many States and localities are striving 

to reduce disproportionality. Although many 

first-round CFSR Final Reports identified the 

prevalence of disproportionality in the child 

welfare system, several State reports cited 

decreases in disparities (U.S. HHS, n.d.):

• The Arizona Final Report noted an increase 

in the number of children from minority 

groups who had been adopted from foster 

care. 

• In Illinois, the rates of permanency for 

African-American children increased, 

perhaps due to the use of kinship care and 

guardianship as permanency options. 

• The Minnesota Final Report suggests that 

discussions in the State about the problem 

of disproportionality helped expand the 

services offered to children and families of 

color. 

• In Washington State, the time from the 

termination of parental rights to adoption 

for African-American children decreased 

Promising Project—Across the Stages of Child Welfare

Project Statewide Reduction in Racial Disproportionality

Location Texas

Researcher Casey Family Programs, Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Department 

of Family and Protective Services

Goal To reduce the overrepresentation of minority children in foster care in response to a 

2005 legislative mandate 

Method Used a combination of strategies, including (1) added cultural competence training 

for CPS and “Undoing Racism” training for management; (2) contracted with One 

Church, One Child to recruit foster and adoptive parents; (3) developed community 

advisory committees; (4) hired a State-level disproportionality director and local 

disproportionality specialists to serve as resources to CPS staff; and (5) increased 

diversity among CPS staff. The program began with pilots in five counties and 

eventually spread across the State.

Results Early results from the five pilot counties provide strong evidence that 

disproportionality has decreased in at least four of those counties. Removal rates of 

African-American children decreased across the State between 2004 and 2008. 

For more 

information

• Casey Family Programs. (2009). And how are the children? A Casey Family 

Programs report. www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/AndHowAreTheChildren 

• Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Department of Family 

and Protective Services. (2006). Disproportionality in Child Protective Services – 

Policy evaluation and remediation plan. www.dfps.state.tx.us/Documents/about/

pdf/2006-07-01_Disproportionality.pdf
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

21 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

by 3 months, although the timeframe 

remained longer than for White children.

Furthermore, States are using the information 

gathered during the CFSR process to improve 

current policies and practices in order to 

reduce disproportionality:

• After its second-round CFSR, North 

Carolina developed a Program 

Improvement Plan (PIP) that included 

goals for enhanced cultural competence 

of workers and services, reduced 

disproportionality in foster care, and 

improved recruitment of foster and 

adoptive parents who reflect the child 

welfare population. Action steps included 

mandatory cultural competence training 

for all new child welfare employees, a 

requirement for each county to analyze 

data and develop its own plan to address 

disproportionality, increased family 

team training and the use of subsidized 

guardianship, and increased collaboration 

with the State’s Commission of Indian 

Affairs.

• Hawaii reduced the disproportionate 

number of Native Hawaiian children in its 

child welfare population after the first CFSR 

showed that Hawaiian children were 31.3 

percent of the child population but 49.7 

percent of the child welfare population (FY 

2004). Using a combination of differential 

response, Ohana (family) conferencing, 

family finding strategies, and outreach to 

the native community, the State was able to 

reduce the population of Native Hawaiian 

children involved with child welfare to 34.9 

percent in FY 2008 (HHS, 2009).

The Alliance for Racial Equity in Child 

Welfare identified 11 States that have directly 

addressed the issue of racial disproportionality 

in child welfare through changes in public 

policy (2009). Legislatures in these States 

have enacted new laws and policies to 

improve services and outcomes for children 

and families of color. Activities range from 

the establishment of task forces to mandated 

research and reports to requiring the 

involvement of a variety of stakeholders. 

Additional research on the effectiveness of 

the practices discussed in this issue brief is 

necessary, but these practices can provide 

a starting point for States and localities 

to continue examining and implementing 

methods to reduce disproportionality in child 

welfare.

Strategies and Research 

A number of projects are providing valuable 

information and evaluation data on effective 

ways to address disproportionality in child 

welfare. 

• AdoptUSKids, a service of the Children’s 

Bureau at HHS, provides training and 

technical assistance in cultural competence 

and “diligent recruitment” practices for 

agencies and States that want to recruit 

resource families who reflect the ethnic and 

racial diversity of the children in foster care. 

Their website lists promising approaches 

and other resources on this topic. 

www.adoptuskids.org 

• The Children’s Bureau’s National Child 

Welfare Resource Center on Adoption 

(NCWRCA) has initiated several projects. 

These include the Minority Adoption 

Leadership Development Institute, a 

program focused on providing and 

enhancing leadership skills of 20 potential 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

22 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

and emerging minority leaders from the 

20 States that have the largest number of 

children of color awaiting adoption and 

disproportionately represented in the child 

welfare system. These emerging leaders 

are provided mentors from the National 

Association of State Adoption Programs 

who work with them as they complete 12 

months of job-related project assignments 

that increase their technical expertise as 

well as their leadership capacities. Another 

NCWRCA project is Communities Making 

Adoption Real for Kids, which focuses on 

creating a model protocol that helps States 

to develop and support collaborations with 

communities of color in an effort to remove 

barriers to timely adoptions of children and 

youth within the child welfare system. 

www.nrcadoption.org

• The Children’s Bureau’s Western and 

Pacific Child Welfare Implementation 

Center is funding the Alaska Child Welfare 

Disproportionality Reduction Project. The 

4-year project is designed to reduce the 

disproportionate number of Native Alaskan 

children in the child welfare system through 

practice and decision-making changes at 

the front end of the child welfare system. 

The State’s Office of Children’s Services will 

rely more on Tribes to participate in the 

decision-making, case planning, and service 

delivery. http://westpac.fmhi.usf.edu/docs/

AlaskaProjectPlan.pdf 

• The Race Matters Consortium was formed 

by a group of child welfare experts, with 

the sponsorship of Casey Family Programs, 

the Child and Family Research Center, 

and Westat, to focus on the problem of 

racial and ethnic disproportionality in the 

child welfare system. The consortium has 

published a number of research reports 

on the topic, and researchers are currently 

working on a variety of research projects 

and tools, including a cultural competence 

self-assessment for agencies. 

www.racemattersconsortium.org 

• Casey Family Programs collected ideas 

and data through its Breakthrough 

Series Collaborative on addressing racial 

disproportionality in child welfare. Teams 

from around the country focused on this 

issue, brainstorming new ideas, and holding 

meetings and phone conferences. The most 

successful field-tested and measurable 

strategies and tools were then rapidly 

introduced and tested throughout the other 

teams’ systems. www.casey.org/Resources/

Publications/BreakthroughSeries_

ReducingDisproportionality_process.htm 

• Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity 

in Child Welfare is a collaboration 

among a number of organizations to 

reduce disparities and disproportionality 

by (1) identifying what works to achieve 

race equity in child welfare services; 

(2) developing and disseminating new 

knowledge to the field, (3) promoting 

effective policy; (4) designing and 

implementing data collection, research, 

and evaluation methods that document 

evidence-based practices and strategies; 

and (5) ensuring that families and youth are 

leaders in helping child welfare agencies 

achieve race equity in child welfare services 

and programs. www.cssp.org/reform/

child-welfare/alliance-for-race-equity 

• The National Conference of State 

Legislatures has begun to address the 

issue by holding a conference to increase 

legislative understanding of the causes, 

as well as to share State efforts in this 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

23 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

direction. The organization’s website 

includes a webpage of resources on 

racial equity in child welfare, as well as 

a compilation of State legislative efforts 

to date. www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/

racialequity.htm; www.ncsl.org/default.

aspx?tabid=16370 

• The Courts Catalyzing Change: Achieving 

Equity and Fairness in Foster Care 

Initiative (CCC), funded by Casey Family 

Programs and supported by the US 

Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile 

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, brings 

together judicial officers and other systems 

experts to set a national agenda for courtbased training, research, and reform 

initiatives to reduce the disproportionate 

representation of children of color in 

dependency court systems. The initiative’s 

mission is to create and disseminate judicial 

tools, policy and practice guidelines, and 

associated action plans that child abuse 

and neglect court systems can use to 

reduce disproportionality and disparities for 

children and families of color. www.ncjfcj.

org/content/blogcategory/447/580/ 

• The Disproportionate Minority 

Contact (DMC) Resource Center at the 

University of Iowa School of Social Work 

is a collaboration among the university’s 

National Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice, the State of Iowa 

Department of Human Rights, the Division 

of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 

the Juvenile Justice Advisory Council, 

and the DMC Committee. The Resource 

Center serves statewide and community 

efforts to reduce disproportionality and 

overrepresentation of minority youth in the 

juvenile justice and child welfare systems 

by assisting with evaluation and analysis of 

data and providing technical assistance on 

issues that include health and educationrelated disparities. 

www.uiowa.edu/~nrcfcp/dmcrc/index.shtml 

Find recent resources on racial 

disproportionality in child welfare on 

the Child Welfare Information Gateway 

website: www.childwelfare.gov/

systemwide/cultural/disporp

Information Gateway developed a 

bibliography of resources from 2009-

2010, available on the National Resource 

Center for Permanency and Family 

Connections website: www.hunter.cuny.

edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/

Disproportionality%20bibliography.final.

pdf 

RESOURCES
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

24 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

References

Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. (2009). Policy actions to reduce racial disproportionality 

and disparities in child welfare. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.policyforresults.org/~/

media/Alliance%20Policy%20Scan.ashx 

Bridging Refugee Youth & Children’s Services. (2010). Refugee children in U.S. schools: A toolkit for 

teachers and school personnel. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.brycs.org/documents/

upload/ChildWelfare-FAQ.pdf 

Cahn, K., & Harris, M. S. (2005). Where have all the children gone? A review of the literature on 

factors contributing to disproportionality: Five key child welfare decision points. Protecting 

Children, 20(1), 4–14. 

Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity. (2006). Places to watch: Promising practices to address 

racial disproportionality in child welfare services. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.cssp.

org/publications/child-welfare/top-five/places-to-watch-promising-practices-to-address-racialdisproportionality-in-child-welfare.pdf 

Chibnall, S., Dutch, N. M., Jones-Harden, B., Brown, A., Gourdine, R., Smith, J., et al. (2003). 

Children of color in the child welfare system: Perspectives from the child welfare community. 

Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved 

December 27, 2010, from www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/otherpubs/children/children.pdf 

Derezotes, D. M. (2006). Race matters in child welfare. Permanency Planning Today, Summer 2006, 

5-7. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/

newsletter/ppt-summer-2006.pdf 

Derezotes, D. M., & Poertner, J. (2005). Factors contributing to the overrepresentation of African 

American children in the child welfare system. In D. M. Derezotes, J. Poertner, & M. F. Testa 

(Eds.), Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the 

system (pp. 1–23). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Derezotes, D. M., Poertner, J., & Testa, M. F. (Eds.). (2005). Race matters in child welfare: The 

overrepresentation of African American children in the system. Washington, DC: Child Welfare 

League of America, Inc.

Fabella, D., Slappey, S., Richardson, B., Light, A., & Christie, S. (2007). Disproportionality: 

Developing a public agency strategy. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from the National 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

25 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators website: www.napcwa.org/DDT/docs/

DisproportionalityArticle.pdf 

Gryzlak, B. M., Wells, S. J., & Johnson, M. A. (2005). The role of race in child protective services 

screening decisions. In D. M. Derezotes, J. Poertner, & M. F. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in 

child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the system (pp. 63–96). 

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Hill, R. B. (2005). Overrepresentation of children of color in foster care in 2000. Rockville, MD: Race 

Matters Consortium. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.racemattersconsortium.org/docs/

whopaper7.pdf 

Hill, R. B. (2006). Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: An update. 

CSSP-Casey Alliance for Racial Equity. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.

racemattersconsortium.org/docs/BobHillPaper_FINAL.pdf 

Hines, A. M., Lemon, K., Wyatt, P., & Merdinger, J. (2004). Factors related to the disproportionate 

involvement of children of color in the child welfare system: A review and emerging themes. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 26(6), 507–527.

Hutson, R. Q. (2003). A vision for eliminating poverty and family violence: Transforming child 

welfare and TANF in El Paso County, Colorado. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social 

Policy. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0108.

pdf 

Jackson, K. (2005). Adoption and foster care of American Indian children: Closing the cultural 

divide. Social Work Today 5(5). Retrieved December 27, 2010, from http://web.archive.org/

web/20071008063139/http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/swt_0905p30.shtml 

Johnson, W. (2005). Effects of a research-based risk assessment. In D. M. Derezotes, J. Poertner, 

& M. F. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American 

children in the system (pp. 147–161). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, Inc.

Lemon, K., D’Andrade, A., & Austin, M. J. (2005, July). Understanding and addressing 

disproportionality in the front end of the child welfare system. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social 

Services Consortium. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/bassc/public/

EvidenceForPractice3_Disproportionality_FullReport.pdf 

McRoy, R. G. (2004). African American adoptions. In J. E. Everett, S. P. Chipungu, & B. R. Leashore 

(Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective (pp. 256–274). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers 

University Press.
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

26 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

McRoy, R. G. (2005). Overrepresentation of children and youth of color in foster care. In G. P. 

Mallon & P. McCartt Hess (Eds.), Child welfare for the 21st Century: A handbook of practices, 

policies, and programs (pp. 623–634). New York City, NY: Columbia University Press.

Mills, C. S., & Usher, D. P. (2004). An Africentric paradigm for child welfare practice. In J. E. Everett, 

S. P. Chipungu, & B. R. Leashore (Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Africentric perspective (pp. 

214–224). Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. (2008). Disproportionality Diagnostic 

Tool. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.napcwa.org/DDT/tools.asp 

National Association of Social Workers. (2006). Assuring the sufficiency of a frontline workforce: 

A national study of licensed social workers: Special report: Social work services for children 

and families. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from http://workforce.socialworkers.org/studies/

children/children_families.pdf

National Association of Social Workers. (2007). Indicators for the achievement of the NASW 

standards for cultural competence in social work practice. Washington, DC: Author. 

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2007). Racial equity: Recent State legislative initiatives. 

Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=16370

Olds, D. L., et al. (2007). Effects of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 

follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics, 120(4), e832–e845. Retrieved December 27, 2010, 

from www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/4/e832 

Overrepresentation of minority youth in care. (2008). [Special issue].Child Welfare, 87(2).

Richardson, B. (2005). Evaluation of the Minority Youth and Families Initiative (MYFI) demonstration 

projects. Iowa City: DMC Resource Center at the University of Iowa School of Social Work, 

National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from 

www.uiowa.edu/~nrcfcp/dmcrc/documents/DraftMYFIYR1SEPT05.doc 

Richardson, B., & Derezotes, D. (2010). Measuring change in disproportionality and disparities: 

Three diagnostic tools. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 33(3), 323–352.

Roberts, D. E. (2001). Kinship care and the price of state support for children. Chicago-Kent Law 

Review, 76, 1619–1642.

Roberts, D. E. (2007). Toward a community-based approach to racial disproportionality. Protecting 

Children, 22(1), 4-9. 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare

27 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality

www.childwelfare.gov

Rycraft, J. R., & Dettlaff, A. J. (2009). Hurdling the artificial fence between child welfare and the 

community: Engaging community partner to address disproportionality. Journal of Community 

Practice, 17(4), 464-482.

Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. D. (1996). Executive summary of the Third National Incidence Study 

of Child Abuse and Neglect. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/

statsinfo/nis3.cfm 

Sedlak, A. J., McPherson, K., & Das, B. (2010). Supplementary analyses of race differences in 

child maltreatment rates in the NIS–4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, & Evaluation 

and the Children’s Bureau. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/

opre/abuse_neglect/natl_incid/nis4_supp_analysis_race_diff_mar2010.pdf 

Sedlak, A. J., & Schultz, D. (2005). Racial differences in child protective services investigation 

of abused and neglected children. In D. M. Derezotes, J. Poertner, & M. F. Testa (Eds.), Race 

matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the system (pp. 

97–117). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

Stoltzfus, E. (2005, August 25). Race/ethnicity and child welfare. Washington, DC: Congressional 

Research Service.

Traum, M., & Hurley, A. (2005). Fostering cultural competence in service provision to diverse 

populations. Protecting Children, 20(1), 47–54. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). S0901 Children Characteristics from the 2008 American Community 

Survey data set. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/

STTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_S0901&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_

name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. (n.d.). General findings from the Federal Child and Family Services Review. 

Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/

genfindings04/ch1.htm 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. (2009a). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY2008 estimates as of October 

2009 (16). Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/

afcars/tar/report16.htm 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. (2009b). Children’s Bureau Child and Family Services Reviews promising 
Addressing Racial Disproportionality in Child Welfare www.childwelfare.gov

28 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/racial_disproportionality 

approaches in child welfare: Hawaii. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.acf.hhs.gov/

programs/cb/cwmonitoring/promise/states.htm#HI 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, 

Children’s Bureau. (2010). Child maltreatment 2008. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/index.htm

U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). African American children in foster care: Addition 

HHS assistance needed to help States reduce the proportion in care. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved December 27, 2010, from www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-816 

Wessel-Kroeschell, B. (2009). Addressing disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Iowa’s 

response to disproportionality. Retrieved December 27, 2010, from the National Conference of 

State Legislators website: www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/Disproportionality_Wessel.pdf

Suggested Citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Addressing racial disproportionality in child welfare. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.