1. Racial Disproportionality in Washington’s Child Welfare System: An Update FCAP Seminar April 14, 2010 Marna Miller, Ph.D. Washington State Institute for Public Policy www.wsipp.wa.gov

2. WASHINGTON STATE INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY Created by State Legislature in 1983 Mission: Carry out non-partisan research on projects assigned by the Legislature or Board of Directors Board of Directors : Representative Glenn Anderson Robin Arnold-Williams, Executive Policy Office Representative Mary Lou Dickerson Director Victor Moore, OFM Senator Karen Fraser Sandra Archibald, University of Washington Representative Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney James L. Gaudino, Central Washington Univ. Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Robert Rosenman, Washington State University Representative Skip Priest Les Purce, The Evergreen State College Senator Pam Roach Ken Conte, House Office of Program Research Senator Mark Schoesler Richard Rodger, Senate Committee Services

3. Background Disproportionality: The over-representation of children belonging to racial/ethnic minorities in the child welfare system. Always defined as comparison with White children. For example, in 2004, American Indian children comprised less than 4 percent Washington’s children, but accounted for 14 percent of children removed from their homes in that year.

4. Today Review findings from our earlier study on racial disproportionality Update on racial disproportionality in the period between 2004 and 2008. Ongoing work on effects of Structured Decision Making on racial disproportionality

5. Study Direction ESSB 1472, Laws of 2007 Established the Racial Disproportionality Advisory Committee: “to analyze and make recommendations on the disproportionate representation of children of color in Washington's child welfare system.” Directed WSIPP to: “… serve as technical staff for the advisory committee.” 2 of 26

6. Study Direction ESSB 1472, Laws of 2007 To Examine: Level of involvement of children of color in the child welfare system (CWS) at entry, exit, and all points at which treatment decisions are made The number of children of color in low-income or single-parent families involved with the child welfare system The family structures of families involved in the state's child welfare system Outcomes for children in the existing child welfare system

7. Measuring Disproportionality Disproportionality Index: The rate of occurrence of an event for children in a racial group divided by the rate of the same event for White children.

8. Measuring Disproportionality Example: 5,612 American Indian children were referred in 2004 55,872 Indian children in Washington in 2000 Rate of CPS referrals for Indian children: 5,612 ÷ 55,872 = 0.100 Or 100 children referred per 1,000 Indian children in Washington

9. Measuring Disproportionality In the same year, 2004, the rate of referral to CPS for White children was 34 per 1,000 children. Disproportionality Index: Rate for Indian children ÷ Rate for White children 100 ÷ 34 = 2.92

10. Defining Race WSRDAC specified the hierarchical rules for classifying multi-racial/ethnic children. American Indian: Any Indian heritage Black: Any non-Indian Black heritage Asian: Any non-Indian, non-Black Asian/Pacific Islander heritage Hispanic: Hispanic heritage, not in any of the other racial groups White: Non-Hispanic, White only

11. Decision Points In Child Protective Services And Time in Care, 2004 Cohort Referral to CPS Accepted Initial High Risk Removed From Home Over 60 Days Over Two Years 58,005 43,423 35,474 4,744 3,194 1,476

12. 3.05 3.31 4.56 4.96 6.29 1.00 1.04 1.13 1.70 2.15 2.92 1.56 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ReferralsAcceptedInitial High-risk PlacedOver 60 days Over 2 years Disproportionality Index (Indian vs White) DI DI After Referral White children This means that Indian children are 2.92 times as likely to be referred to CPS as White children Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : American Indian Children

13. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Black Children 2.02 2.17 2.29 2.24 2.79 1.00 1.07 1.15 1.21 1.18 1.48 1.89 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ReferralsAcceptedInitial High-risk PlacedOver 60 days Over 2 years Disproportionality Index (Black vs White) DI DI After Referral White children

14. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004 : Hispanic Children 1.44 1.41 1.48 1.45 1.37 1.34 0.92 1.03 1.05 1.00 1.07 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ReferralsAcceptedInitial High-risk PlacedOver 60 days Over 2 years Disproportionality Index (Hispanic vs White) DI DI After Referral White children

15. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: Asian Children 1.00 1.061.05 1.02 0.85 0.86 0.41 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.48 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ReferralsAcceptedInitial High-risk PlacedOver 60 days Over 2 years Disproportionality Index (Asian vs White) DI DI After Referral White children

16. Previous Findings for Referrals in 2004: All Races 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ReferralsAcceptedInitial High-risk PlacedOver 60 days Over 2 years Disproportionality Index (Compared to White) Indian Children Black Children Hispanic Children Asian Children White children 16 of 26

17. Who Refers to Child Protective Services? Mandated Reporters: Certain professionals are required by law to report suspected child abuse or neglect. These include: Medical professionals School personnel DSHS employees and other social service professionals Child care providers Law enforcement Non-mandated Reporters: Relatives Friends/Neighbors Parent Other

18. Who Refers to Child Protective Services? WSIPP, 2008 CPS Referrals 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% American Indian BlackAsianHispanicWhite Percent of All Referrals MandatedNot Mandated

19. Who Refers to Child Protective Services? Disproportionality Index by Type of Referrer WSIPP, 2008 0 1 2 3 4 American Indian BlackAsianHispanicWhite Disproportionality Index (Compared to White Children) MandatedNot Mandated

20. Outcomes For Children Following a CPS Referral 2004 Cohort Referral to CPS Accepted Initial High Risk Removed From Home Over 60 Days Over Two Years 58,005 43,423 35,474 4,744 3,194 1,476 Reunification Guardianship Adoption Age Out

21. Outcomes for Children Following a Placement Linked to a CPS Referral (As of November 1, 2007) WSIPP, 2008 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IndianBlackAsianHispanicWhite ReunifiedGuardianshipAdoptedReached MajorityPlacement Still Open

22. Permanency for Children in Placements Linked to a CPS Referral (As of November 1, 2007) WSIPP, 2008 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IndianBlackAsianHispanicWhite PermanencyReached MajorityPlacement Still Open

23. Children Living with Single Parents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% IndianBlackAsianHispanicWhiteAll Races Percent of Children All Children Children In Out-of-Home Placements

24. Legal Outcomes Children Removed from Home Placements Linked to CPS Referrals in 2004 If dependent

25. Other Factors Affecting Referrals and Placements for the 2004 Cohort Poverty: Children in families receiving food stamps were more likely to be referred to CPS and removed from home Geography (DSHS Administrative Region): Some regions placed more children than others. Region 4 (King County) had markedly greater disproportionality than other regions for American Indian children. Type of Reporter: For example, removals were more likely if law enforcement reported the alleged maltreatment

26. Other Factors Associated with Referrals and Placements History of the Intake Worker : Regardless of race, the average risk tag assigned by a worker over the previous two years was the strongest predictor of: Whether the referral was accepted The risk tag assigned to the referral That is: Some workers appear to be “harder graders” than others. Given similar case characteristics, some workers will assign higher risk tags than others.

27. Regression Analysis Regression analysis is a fancy algebra that allows us to take into account many factors simultaneously. We can ask the question: All things equal EXCEPT for race, is race a significant factor?

28. Regression Analysis Controlling for other case characteristics: For Indian children, about 30 percent of disproportionality after referral could be explained by known case characteristics. Disproportionality was unexplained by case characteristics for other races.

29. Main Conclusions from the 2004 Cohort Disproportionality exists in WA’s child welfare system: Greatest for Indian and Black children Most of the disproportionality occurs at the point of referral to CPS Mandated reporters are only part of the story Disproportionality for Indian children can be partly explained by different case characteristics

30. Current Study

31. Current Study Direction ESSB 5882, Laws of 2009 “…the Washington state institute for public policy shall evaluate the department of social and health services' use of structured decision-making practices and implementation of the family team decision- making model to determine whether and how those child protection and child welfare efforts result in reducing disproportionate representation of African- American, Native American, and Latino children in the state's child welfare system.”

32. Study Approach for SDM Analysis Structured Decision Making: Actuarial risk assessment tool. In Washington, it is used with CPS cases only, after the investigation If SDM can affect disproportionality, we should observe less disproportionality at the point of removal from home.

33. Study Approach for SDM Analysis Timeline SDM Statewide 27-Oct-07 Pre-SDM CPS Referrals Post-SDM CPS Referrals Pre-SDM Placements Post-SDM Placements Jan-07 Jul-07 Jan-08 Jul-08

34. Comparing Referrals 2007 to 2008

36. Multi-Year Comparisons Disproportionality After Referral Referrals January through June

40. Multi-Year Comparisons Disproportionality Index Referrals January through June

42. Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis Effect of SDM on removal from home Referrals from Jan through June 2006, 2007 and 2008 Controlling for child age, sex and race, alleged CAN type, risk tag at intake, CPS history, DSHS region and reporter type (mandated or not), intake worker history BetaP-valueOdds ratio All children-0.03060.3138 Indian children-0.08160.3504 Black children0.30540.00031.36 Asian children0.00530.9753 Hispanic children-0.05230.541

43. Tentative Findings: Regression Analysis Effect of SDM on removal from home Referrals from Jan through June 2006 and 2008 (omit 2007) Controlling for child age, sex and race, alleged CAN type, risk tag at intake, CPS history, DSHS region and reporter type (mandated or not), intake worker history BetaP-valueOdds ratio All children-0.001080.9755 Indian children-0.06520.5178 Black children0.25990.00731.30 Asian children0.31830.1311 Hispanic children-0.02110.8298

44. Conclusions The pattern of disproportionality for Black children varies markedly from year to year Apparent effects of implementing of Structured Decision Making in October 2007: – No effect on overall rates of removal, except for Black children – Following implementation of SDM, increased rates of placement for Black children leading to greater disproportionality at the point of removal from home. The story is not over.

45. What’s Next Obtaining additional information on families, particularly receipt of food stamps in the year of the referral Refine our estimates for the effects of SDM Analyze effects of Family Team Decision Making Report due in September 2010

46. Thank you! Questions?