WIXLIB

B ira c ia l c hild re n a re r ef er re d a t f o ur time s the ra te c om pa re d with white c hildr en,ExecutiveSummarya nd ha d s ig nif ic ant d if fe re nce in risk ra tings a t re fe rr al in ter m s of ca re g ive rc a pa c ity (p hys ic a l, em o tio nal and inte llec tua l) a nd pa re nting sk ills a nd kno wle d ge .Multiv ar ia te a na lys es f o und tha t c hild r ac e s ig nifica ntly pr e dic ted ca seinve s tiga tion, with Af r ic an-Am er ica n c hild re n le ss like ly to be inv es tiga ted thanwhite c hild re n. B ir ac ia l c hildr e n wer e twice a s lik e ly to be the s ub je c t o f aninve s tiga tion co m pa re d with white c hild re n.T her e was no ev ide nc e in the se d a ta of a f unne ling e ff ec t fo r A fr ic a n-A me rica nc hildr en, whe re d is pr op or tio na lity inc rea se s a t e ac h de cis io n po int (Va nde rg r if t,2006). R a the r, d is pr o po r tio nality in A lle g he ny C o unty f o r Af r ic an-Am er ica nc hildr en, who r e pre se nte d 68 p er ce nt of c hildre n in fo s ter c ar e in 2008(P e nnsy lva nia P ar tner s hip s f or C hild re n, 2009), a pp ea rs r e la ted to d is p ar a te r a te so f r ef er ra ls a nd mo re fre q ue nt re -r ef er ra ls tha t invo lv e m or e c hildr e n co m pa re dwith o the r f am ilie s.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSW hile the ind iv id ua ls inter v ie we d f or this s tud y (ca se wor ke rs , s upe rv is or s a ndd ire c tor s ) ac k no wle d ge d tha t A fr ica n-A me r ic a ns a re dis pr op or tio na te ly invo lv ed inc hild p ro tec tive s er vice s , they id e ntif ie d s ys tem b ia s as a ma jo r c ause and fe lt tha tthe ir de c is io ns we re b a se d o n sa f e ty a nd no t r ac e. The inter vie we es ind ica ted tha tc irc um s ta nce s tha t ar e o f te n e xp er ie nce d b y Af r ic a n-A me rica n fa milie s , s uc h a sha ving a lo w inc om e, liv ing in a n unsa fe ne ig hb or hoo d , s ing le pa re nting , la ck ing ane d uca tion or us ing s ub s ta nce s o r hav ing a se rio us me ntal illnes s wer e lik ely f ac tor stha t ma ke the se fa m ilie s m or e v ulner a ble , inc re as ing the ir v is ib ility to s ys te mss uc h a s c hild we lf ar e . All o f the inter v ie we es fe lt tha t be ing po or and b lac k wer e sointe r twine d tha t it wa s im po s sib le to unr av e l them in or de r to de ter m ine which o nec a us e d Af r ic a n-Am er ica n f a milie s to be d isp r op or tio na tely inv o lv ed in the c hildwe lfa re s ys te m.R e co mm e nd a tio ns ar e to fo c us inter ve ntions o n p o ints in the sy s te m wher ed is pa r ities se em to oc c ur . I nterv e ntio ns s ho uld dr a w f ro m m ultiple ex p la na to rythe or ies fo r re fe rr a l d is pr o po r tio nality. Ba se d o n the th eo ry sug ge s te d by the sed a ta tha t p ov er ty , sy s te m b ias a nd c om m unity f ac to rs r es ults in r ef er ra lFiguresd is pr o po r tio na lity, A lle g he ny C o unty co uld utiliz e ev ide nc e -b a se d a nd e v id e nc es up po r te d pr ac tice s tha t f oc us o n re d ucing d isp ar itie s a t the fr o nt e nd of the c hildwe lfa re s ys te m pa thway .5

WHY DO CHILDREN ENTER THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM?BackgroundC hildr en and y o uth e nte r a nd e x it c hild we lf ar e s erv ice s thro ug h a we ll-d ef ine dp a th with m ultip le de c is io n po ints. B ar th (2005) wr ites tha t fo r c hild re n in thec o m munity , e ntry into the c hild welf are sy s te m b eg ins with a r ep or t ofm a ltrea tm e nt. A de c is ion is ma de by s o me o ne in the c o mm unity tha t a c hild isb e ing ab use d o r neg le c ted (o r is a t r isk f or ab use a nd neg lec t) a nd they ma ke ar e fe rra l to c hild p ro te c tive s er v ic es . I n A lle ghe ny C o unty , re f er ra ls ca n c om ethr o ugh the s ta te ’s “C hild Line ” (C PS ), whic h ar e pr ima r ily re f er ra ls fo r a buse , o rthr o ugh Ge ne ra l P ro tec tive S erv ice s (GP S), whic h a re p r im ar ily r ef er ra ls f orne g le c t. T he ne x t s te p is tha t the re fe rr al is either inve s tig a ted o r a d ec is io n ism a de to no t inv es tig a te . Fo r C PS r ef er ra ls, de cis io ns ar e m ad e a bo ut whe the r them a ltrea tm e nt oc c ur re d (“s ubs ta ntia ted ”) a nd whe ther to p ro vid e se rv ic es(“a cc ep te d ”). For G PS r ef er ra ls, there is no pr oc es s o f s ubs ta ntia tion, o nly ad e c is io n a b o ut whe ther to p ro vide se rv ic es . S er vice s m ay b e p ro vid ed to f am ilie swhile the c hild r em a ins a t ho m e, or the c hild ma y be p la ce d in o ut-of -hom e ca re ,s uc h a s in f os ter ca re o r kins hip fo s te r ca re (plac e d with re la tive s ). Go a ls f orc hildr en p la ce d into o ut-o f -ho me ca re ty p ic ally inc lude : r eunif ic a tio n with the irf a m ily , ad o p tio n o r a no ther lo ng -te rm pe rm a ne nt living s itua tio n s uc h a s leg a lg ua rd ians hip (B ar th, 2005).Referent BiasD es p ite re se ar ch s up p or ting tha t c hild m a ltr ea tm ent is unr e la ted to ra ce o re thnicity (Se d la k & S c hulz , 2001a ; S ed lak & Sc hulz , 2005), A fr ic a n -A me rica nf a m ilies a re o ve r -re p re se nted in their re f er ra l to c hild pr o te c tiv e se rv ice s (Fluk e ,Y ua n, He dd er so n & C ur tis , 2003; Lem o n, And ra de & A us tin, 2005). T his pa tter nha s b ee n c alled “r ef er e nt b ia s .” Re se ar c h s ugg es ts tha t the re is a n a ss o cia tio nb e twee n r ef er ra l, ty pe o f re fe rr ing a ge ncy a nd c hild a nd fa m ily r ac e . Me dica lp e rs o nne l ar e m or e lik ely to r ep or t Af r ic an-Am er ica n c hild re n to c hild we lf ar es e rv ic es c o mp ar e d with o ther c hild re n (A rd s & Har re l, 1993; Ha mp to n &Ne wb er ge r , 1988; Hine s e t a l., 2002), whe re as sc hoo ls ar e mo re like ly to re f erLa tino /His pa nic fa m ilies (Hine s e t a l., 2002). A s tudy of e m er ge ncy r oo mp hy sic ia ns fo und tha t A fr ica n-A me r ic an pa re nts wer e m or e lik ely to be r ep or te d fo ra b use , ev e n af ter co ntro lling f or the lik eliho o d o f ab us ive inj ury (La ne , R ub in,Mo nte ith, & C hr is tian, 2002). A ltho ug h b o th white and A fr ica n-A me r ic a n wom e nus e d r ug s d uring p re g na ncy a t sim ila r ra tes , A fr ica n -A me r ic a n wom e n wer er e po r te d f or child m altre a tme nt up o n d eliv er y a t a p pr ox ima tely 10 tim es the ra tef o r white wom e n (C ha sno ff , La ndr es s & B ar re tt, 1990; Ka rp , 2001).Figures6

Decisions to InvestigateO nce a re fe rr al is ma de to c hild pr o te c tive se rv ic es , a k ey d ec is io n is whe the r toBackgroundinve s tiga te. Are Af ric an-Am er ica n f am ilie s inv es tiga te d a t a gre a ter r a te ? T hisq ue s tio n wa s exa m ine d us ing da ta f ro m the Na tio na l I nc ide nce S tudy (NI S -3;S e dlak & Sc hulz , 2001b ; Se d la k & S c hulz , 2005). Af r ic a n-A mer ica n c hild re n whoe x per ie nce d e m o tio na l m a ltr ea tm ent, p hys ica l ne glec t or fa ta l or s er io us inj ur y hadc a re give rs with s ubs ta nc e ab use pr ob lem s , a nd thos e whos e ca se s wer e re p or tedb y p r of es s io na ls wer e m or e lik ely to b e inve s tig a te d tha n white c hild re n with thes a me c har ac ter is tic s . An ana ly sis o f the 2000 NC A ND S d a ta fr om fi ve s ta tesr ev ea le d tha t A f rica n-Am er ic a ns we re twic e a s lik ely to b e inve s tig a te d a s white s(Fluke , Yua n, Hed d er so n & C ur tis , 2003).Mo s t une q uiv oc al a re find ing s tha t A fr ica n-A me r ic a n c hild re n ar e ov er re p re se nte da m o ng childr en in f os ter c ar e . Ev er y s ta te in 2000 s ho wed dis pr o po r tio na te r a te so f A fr ica n-A me r ic a n c hild re n e nte r ing f o s te r ca re , with ra tes tha t ra nge f ro m 1.5 8to ov er 65 time s the r a te o f white c hild re n (Va nde rg r if t, 2006). V and er gr if t r ef er sto a “f unne ling e ff ec t,” mea ning tha t the p er ce ntag e o f m ino r ity r ep re se nta tio ninc re as es a t eve ry s te p o f c hild we lf ar e inv o lv em e nt. T he o nly s ta ge whe re the rea re no ra cia l d iff er ence s is in r a te s o f c hild re n’s r ee ntry into the c hild we lfa res y s te m (Hill, 2006).T her e ar e the or ie s as to why Af r ic a n-Am er ica ns a nd o ther m inor ities a re r ef er re da nd inve s tig a te d a t gr ea ter r a te s tha n white f am ilie s. One theo ry a t the re fe rr a ls ta ge is tha t indiv id uals hav e b ia se s a nd inc o ns is te nc ie s in the ir de cis io n-mak ingp r oc es se s tha t r es ult in a gr ea ter num b er o f re f er ra ls of A fr ica n-A me r ic a ns to c hildwe lfa re s er v ic es . C alled “r ep o r ting b ias ” (Dr ak e & Z ura vin, 1998), it wa se m p ir ic a lly e s ta b lis he d in 1980 in the Na tiona l I nc ide nc e S tudy NI S -1 (A r ds &Ha r re ll, 1993), whic h f o und tha t fa m ilies with s us pe c te d ma ltr ea tm ent a nd hig herf a m ily inco me ha d a le ss er c hance of ha ving a f or m al re po r t m ad e . Ho we ve r , thisf ind ing wa s no t s up po r te d whe n the NIS Wa ve 1 d a ta we re r e -a na lyz ed , due top o ss ib le s e le c tio n b ias in the fir s t a na ly s is (A rd s , C hung , My er s , 1998). Z e llm an(1992) us ed v ig ne ttes to s ur ve y 1,196 ma nda te d re po r ter s a nd fo und so m ee v id e nc e of “la be ling b ia s ” or the tend ency to loo k fo r a nd f ind ma ltrea tm e nta m o ng cer ta in g ro ups . Ho wev er , this f inding has no t be e n re p lic a te d in o thers tud ie s a nd in the la s t 20 y ea rs , no s tud ie s have s up p or ted the pr es e nc e ofla be ling b ia s in c hild pr o te c tiv e se rv ice s (D ra ke & Z ur av in, 1998).Figures7

Case ManagementI f la be ling is n’t the r ea so n f or why c hildr en e nter the child we lf ar e sy s te m , it ma yBackgroundb e pre d ic tive o f wher e c hild re n e nd up in the s er v ic e pa thway . I n a n ea r ly s tudy ofho w ca se m a na ge rs ma ke d ec is io ns ab o ut c hild re n in s ta te c us to dy , Ma r tin, Pe te r sa nd G lis so n (1998) f o und tha t ca se ma na g er s’ p la ce me nt a nd se rv icer e co mm e nd a tio ns wer e g uid e d le s s by s tr uc tur ed a s se ss me nts a nd mo re on thela be ls g iv e n to c hild re n a nd ho w they e nter ed into s ta te ca re . R es ea rc h o nd e c is io n-ma king in c hild welf are s ug ge s ts tha t c as e wo rke r s la ck the pr er eq uisitec o m pe tenc ie s nee de d f or e f fe c tive as se ss me nts , ther eb y re lying o n the ir o wnb e lie fs a nd c ultur e in m ak ing as se ss m ents (R yc as & Hug he s , 2003). T he r es ea rc he m er g ing f ro m the be ha v io ra l d ec isio n m ak ing fie ld fr om o ther pr o fe ss io ns s uch a sm e d ic ine , la w, nurs ing and o c cup a tio na l the ra py a d d to o ur unde rs ta nding o f ho wm a nda te d re po r te r s and o ther s use co g nitive s hor tc uts or he uris tic s to ma ked e c is io ns to r ep o r t or no t re po r t, to inve s tig a te or mov e to s ub s ta ntia tio n a nd ifthe se de c is io ns a re c re a ting d is pr op or tio na lity . Fina lly , the use o f c o ns e ns us-b as edr a the r tha n a c tua ria l risk as se ss me nts in mak ing d ec isio ns may be c o ntrib uting tod is pr o po r tio na lity by ina cc ura tely c la ss ify ing ca se s to r isk lev els (Ba ird & R yc us,2005; Eng lish, A ub in, Fine & Pe co ra , 1993).PovertyA no the r theo ry is tha t d is pr o po r tio nality has le ss to do with the ra ce of ther e side nts a nd m or e to d o with the disa d va nta g ed char ac te ris tic s o f f am ilie s a nde c ono mic d e pr iv a tio n o f the c om m unities in whic h the y liv e . T he re is a linkb e twee n p ov er ty a nd the like liho o d o f c hild a b us e (S e dlak a nd B ro ad hurs t, 1996).Ne ig hbo r ho od po ve r ty is po sitive ly a s so cia ted with ma ltre a tme nt a nd, in p ar ticular ,with c hild ne glec t (D ra ke & Pa nde y , 1996). For e xa m ple , Ko r bin e t al. (1998), in as tud y o f b la ck a nd white neig hbo rho od s in C uya ho g a C o unty, fo und tha tm a ltrea tm e nt ra tes were lo wer fo r Af r ic a n-Am er ica n f a milie s , a nd co nclude d tha tc hild m altre a tme nt wa s d e te rm ine d m or e b y p ove r ty than ra ce . T he co m bina tio n o fim p ov er is hed ne ig hb or hoo d s with hig h c rim e, a c ce ss to ille ga l s ubs ta nc es a ndlim ited a c ce ss to jo b s, so c ia l se rv ice s, and s af e a nd af f or da b le ho using m ay cre a tehig h lev e ls o f nee d tha t re sult in c hildr e n be ing re fe r re d to c hild pr o te c tiv es e rv ic es (D e ttla ff & Ry c ra f t, 2008; Ga rb ar ino & Ec ke nr o de , 1997).Figures8

Child Welfare Organizational ClimateFina lly , the c lima te of child we lf ar e or g aniza tio ns is tho ug ht to c o ntr ib ute toBackgroundd is pr o po r tio na lity. Or ga niza tio na l c lim a te s tud ie s s ugg es t tha t p os itiv ee nviro nme nts c har ac ter ize d by lo w co nflic t p er so naliza tio n a nd co lla bo ra tio n ar ep r ed ic tive of po s itive ser v ic e o utc o me s as we ll a s q ua lity (G lis s on & He m me lga rn,1998; G liss o n, 2009). Y e t f e w wo uld c har ac ter ize the c urr e nt c lim a te o f p ub licc hild we lf ar e ag e nc ie s a s p os itiv e . C hild we lf ar e or g a niza tio na l c lim a te s a re o f tenc har ac te rize d b y f ea r of lia b ility or p unitive c o ns eq uence s (De ttlaf f & Ry cr af t, 2008p . 53). In a se r ie s of fo c us gr o up s with dif fe re nt s tak eho lder s f oc us ing o n ther ea s ons f or dis pr o po r tio na lity , D e ttla f f a nd R yc ra f t (2008) s umm ar ize d tha t ino r de r to p ra c tic e e ff ec tive ly , wo rke rs ne e d to f ee l s upp or te d by the ag e nc y, andim p ro ve me nts m ad e to the inve s tig a tiv e a nd r isk a ss es s me nt pr oc es se s to r ed ucethe like liho o d of ill-info rm ed de c is ions (p . 53).I f na tiona l re se ar c h s up p or ts tha t de cis io n m ak ing in c hild we lfa re is r ela te d tod is pr o po r tio na lity, wha t do es A lle g he ny C o unty look like ? Re sea rc h on re fe rr alp a tter ns f or ne g le c t in A lle g he ny C o unty be twee n 1986 a nd 1989 f o und tha ta ltho ug h A fr ica n-A me r ic a n fa m ilies co ns titute d 31 pe rc ent of fa m ilies with c hildr e nund er a g e 18 in P itts b ur g h, they wer e 45 pe rc ent of the re fe rr als to C Y F (Ne lso n,S a und er s & La nd sm a n, 1993). W ha t do the c urr e nt p ro po r tio ns loo k lik e co m pa re dto wha t was ob se rv ed 20 ye ar s a go , a nd wha t ar e the d iff er e nce s a t the v ar io usd e c is io n po ints? B a se d o n the p er sp ec tive o f c hild we lfa re wo rk er s, wha t fa c tor sm a y ac co unt fo r why d if fe re nce s ex is t a nd wha t a re po ss ib le s o lutio ns , ifd is pr o po r tio na lity ex is ts ? T he ob je c tiv es fo r the c ur re nt inve s tig a tio n a re toe xa m ine the e x te nt o f r ac ia l dis pr op or tio na lity a nd the d e gr ee to whic h r ac e isr e la ted to lik e lihoo d o f inve s tig a tio n a nd se rv ice p ro v is io n. A s ec o nd ob je c tiv e is toe x plor e the p er ce p tio ns o f thos e wor k ing with fa m ilies a b o ut the ex te nt o f a ndr ea s ons f or dis pr o po r tio na lity .9

T his s tudy us ed a m ixe d me tho d s a pp ro ac h co nsis ting of : (1) a nalys is o f da ta o n ar a ndo m s am p le o f 460 c hildr en re fe rre d to C Y F in 2006; (2) in-de p th q ualita tiv eMethodologyinte rv ie ws with c hild welfa re a g ency ca se wor ker s , s upe rv is or s a nd d ir ec tor s .I ns titutio nal Rev iew Bo ar d (IR B ) ap p ro va l was ob ta ine d f ro m the Univer s ity ofP itts b ur g h IR B .Lim ita tio ns o f this s tud y inc lude inc o mp le te f ield (c as e re co r d) da ta o n 84 ca se s:the re wa s no way to a sc er tain if the se ca se s wer e d if f ere nt fr om ca se s tha t we rec o m ple te . S eve ra l o f the f ield d a ta me as ure s , pa r tic ula r ly r a ting s o f r is k a ndm a ltrea tm e nt ty pe s re po r ted , we re b ias ed in o ne o r a no ther c a teg or y. Fore xa m ple , ther e wer e high numb er s o f “eva lua tio n re q ue s t” lis te d a s the re as o n f orr e fe rra l. A d minis tr a tive da ta d o no t hav e the sa m e le ve l o f p re c is io n a s d a tac o lle c te d f or r es ea rc h p ur po se s . T he re fo re r a ndo m or sy s te ma tic m ea s ure m ente rr or co uld imp a c t the f ind ings . A lso , while the find ing s o n b ira cia l c hild re n ar eno ta b le , they a re ba se d o n a r ela tiv ely s ma ll numb er of c hildre n.QUANTITATIVE STUDY DESIGNA ra ndo m s am p le o f c hild re n wa s se lec te d fr o m the p op ula tio n o f c hildr e n re fe rr e dto C Y F in 2006. Be c ause the fa m ily is the unit o f a na lys is fo r C Y F, a nd c hildr e n ar ene s te d within s ib -s hips , a ll of the c hildr e n in the f am ily re fe rr ed a s we ll as theta r ge t child wer e include d in the po p ula tion num b er o f 19,963. Yo uth o lde r tha n18, thos e with d up lic a te r e po r ts , tho se who se r e po r t was no t in Pe nnsy lv a nia a ndtho s e who were no t the tar g e t c hild o f the r ep or t were then e limina te d , re s ulting ina pr e lim ina ry s am p ling fr am e o f 7,846 c hildr e n a nd y o uth, ag es 0 to 17.I n o r de r to o b tain a r e pr es enta tiv e sa m p le o f the p o pula tio n, a s tra tif ie d sa m p lingd e s ig n wa s c ho se n. S tra ta wer e d ef ine d b y the g end er , r ac e, a g e gr o up a nd ty p e ofr e po r t: C hild P ro tec tive S erv ice s (C P S ) or G e ne ra l P ro tec tive Se rv ice (G PS ).V ar iab les r e la ted to thes e s tra ta wer e m is s ing fo r 354 c hild re n, re s ulting in a f ina ls a mp ling fr a me o f 7,495 uniq ue c hild re n who we re the ta r ge t o f a r ef er ra l in 2006.T he re q uir e d sa m ple s iz e o f 520 wa s the n alloc a te d a cr os s the s tra ta us ingp r o po r tio na l a llo ca tio n, whe re the sa mp le s iz e within a s tra tu m is a ss ig ne dp r o po r tio na l to the s tr a tum s iz e. T he r eq uir e d sa m ple s ize in e ac h s tr a tum wa sr o und e d up to the ne x t hig he s t inte g er o r if the c alc ula ted sa m ple s iz e f or as tr a tum wa s les s tha n two , a s a mp le s iz e of two was us e d, re sulting in a f ina lta r ge te d sa m ple s ize o f 544 c hild re n. T he s ur vey se le c t p ro ce d ur e in S AS ve r sio n9.1 was us ed to ra nd om ly sa mp le the c hild re n (us ing s im ple ra nd om s a mp lingwitho ut r e plac em e nt) within ea c h s tra tum.10

T a b ula tio n o f the s a mp led r ec or d s f ollo wing f ield d a ta co lle c tio n (o n r iska s se ss me nts ) re ve aled sev er a l s tra ta with a n ins uf f ic ient numb er o f o b ser va tio nsMethodology(le ss tha n two ). T hes e s tr a ta were co lla p se d b y ag e c a te go ry to inc re as e thenum b er o f s am p le d r ec or ds . The s am p le we ig hts we re the n c a lc ula te d fo r ea c hs a mp led child . T he ba se we ight is the to tal num be r o f c hild re n p er s tr a tum div id edb y the r eq uire d sa m p le s ize per s tr a tum , o r the inve rs e of the c hild ’s pr ob a bility ofs e le c tio n. T he f ina l weig ht, whic h ad j us ts f or the numb er o f r es p on d ents , is theto ta l num be r o f c hildr e n p er s tra tum d ivid ed by the num be r o f c hild re n ac tua llys a mp led pe r s tra tum . T he f inal we ig ht is use d in sub se q ue nt a nalys es . I n thea na ly se s, da ta o n the f ina l s am p le size of 460 ar e weig hted to in fe r to thep o p ula tion of 7,495. Se e A pp e nd ix A fo r p o pula tio n a nd sa m p ling f ra me .Data CollectionD a ta so urc es c o ns is te d o f : a dm inis tra tive a nd d em o gr ap

Allegheny County . Department of Human Services . One Smithfield Street . Pittsburgh, PA 15222 . Phone: 412. 350. 5701 . Fax: 412.350.4004 . . children following referral to Allegheny County child welfare services, and to identify local decision-making points, case characteristics, organization and .