The color of care: legislators are seeking answers to difficult questions about race and child welfare.

Thirty-three percent of kids in foster care are African American, but they make up only 15 percent of the child population. Yet federal studies indicate that child abuse and neglect is actually lower for black families than it is for whites.

Why the disparity?

Lawmakers in a number of states are requiring answers, and social service agencies are doing some difficult soul searching. One of the major questions is whether the nation's child welfare system undermines the strength of families, particularly families of color.

The statistics are troubling. A series of large, federally mandated studies found that parents of color are no more likely than white parents to abuse or neglect their children and showed no significant difference in overall maltreatment rates between black and white families. In fact, an analysis of the 1993 National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect by Westat researchers found that rates of maltreatment for black families are lower than rates for white families, once we control for other factors, says Robert H. Hill, a senior researcher at Westat, a research corporation based in Maryland.

Some people believe the issue is economic, not racial. African American families and neighborhoods are disproportionately poor, and poverty is highly correlated with a higher risk of child abuse.

Overrepresentation in the child welfare system may have more to do with poverty and its related social problems such as substance abuse and single parenthood than it does with race. "The available studies do not allow us to identify causes," says Hill. "You can't assume that racial differences are the result of bias or racism. On the other hand, some racial differences may indeed result from race-related factors. At this point, we just don't know."

Although racial bias may not be the cause of overrepresentation in child welfare, it is clear that black families and children are treated differently than whites once they are in the system. Studies have shown that families of color receive fewer and lower quality services, fewer contacts by caseworkers, and less access to mental health and drug treatment services. Black and Hispanic children are twice as likely as white children to be placed with relatives, and yet relative foster parents tend to get less training and fewer support services than do non-relative foster parents.

"There is widespread agreement that, compared to white children and families in the child welfare system, children of color and their families have less access to services and their outcomes are poorer," says Peter Pecora, senior director of research for Casey Family Programs, a private operating foundation based in Seattle.

Several studies have also shown that children of color are more likely to be removed from home and to remain in foster care longer, and are less likely to be returned to their parents than are white children.

MAKING RACIAL EQUITY A PRIORITY

Raising these issues, let alone solving them, can be a challenge. But it is an important first step toward change.

"Action begins when state or local leaders identify racial inequities as a serious problem and resolve to address it," says Ernestine Jones, a child welfare researcher at Howard University. Jones is involved in a national initiative called the Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. Jones recently completed a study of 10 jurisdictions working on the problem. They include sites in San Francisco; San Antonio, Texas; Sioux City, Iowa; King County, Wash.; and Guilford and Wake counties in North Carolina. Programs in Connecticut, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota were also part of the study.

"What we learned is that impetus for action can come from inside or outside the child welfare agency, but that it seems most powerful when it comes from both," she says.

While the work of each jurisdiction studied by Jones is different, she did find similarities.

All 10, for example, are reviewing data to see how decisions made at key points in the process--such as whether to investigate, to confirm or "substantiate" abuse, or to remove a child from home--may contribute to racial overrepresentation. All the sites have invited participation by parents, neighborhood residents and key agencies and other community partners. And all are working to improve decision-making, services and supports for families.

King County, Wash., for example, is using teams made up of extended family, friends, foster parents and others who are important to the family, to decide if a child should be removed from home, moved from one foster home to another, be reunited with parents, or adopted. One of the goals of this strategy, which is being used in a growing number of states, is to ensure that key decisions are based on a child's safety needs, not on race.

San Francisco is working harder to connect families reported for less serious maltreatment, such as educational neglect, with community-based services to avoid removing children from their homes. This approach allows caseworkers to help a family solve their problems instead of being subjected to an adversarial investigation when a child's safety is not at risk. Again, one of the purposes of this approach is to help families come up with their own solutions to problems such as homelessness or substance abuse, with the help of family and community resources.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

Recognizing that many children of color in child welfare are cared for by relatives, Illinois pioneered the use of subsidized guardianship. Many relative foster parents don't want to adopt the children in their care, but are comfortable with legal guardianship, which does not extinguish all of a parent's legal rights. Providing monthly payments to relative guardians allows the state to convert temporary foster placements to permanent homes, maintaining family ties and reducing the number of minority children in out-of-home care.

LEGISLATIVE RESPONSES

Jones also found that most of the states she studied had "institutionalized" the work on racial disparities by enacting legislation or changing agency policy. "Legislatures in Michigan, Minnesota and Texas, for example, have really put this issue on the front burner," she says.

Michigan Senator Bill Hardiman says his state created and funded a task force to examine why more children of color are in the system. "The statistics don't lie," Hardiman says. "We need to help strengthen families. We need to discuss the issue and investigate further. We need training for child protective services and other workers."

The FY 2005 budget for the Michigan Department of Human Services included a new requirement to "address the ongoing and nationally pervasive problem of the over-representation of children of color." The department convened an advisory committee of legislators, parents, Human Services staff, tribal leaders, judges, service providers, the NAACP, child advocates and others. Marianne Udow, DHS director, says support from the Legislature was key. " It was hard for people to talk about, but the leadership of Senator Hardiman and the Legislature led to a broad-based task force that held focus groups and public hearings around the state to understand this issue."

After a year of pouring over state data, hearing from national experts, reviewing national statistics and interviewing families and others throughout the state, the committee determined that African American children were more likely than white children to be removed from their homes, experience numerous foster placements, stay in care for long periods, and end up in the juvenile justice system.

In response, the Michigan Department of Human Services is now improving support for relative caregivers, using early intervention to prevent foster placement, training staff on cultural differences, and strengthening efforts to give families a say in the services they receive.

NATIVE AMERICAN CHILDREN

Although most studies have focused on African American children, Native American children are also overrepresented in child welfare. A long history of federal and state policies of assimilation, forced removal and termination of parental rights have had a devastating impact on tribes. National studies conducted between 1969 and 1974 found that 25 percent to 35 percent of Indian children in some states were living in non-Indian foster homes, adoptive homes or institutions.

In response, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 to protect the interests of Indian children. It attempted to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by granting jurisdiction over children on Indian reservations to tribal courts to ensure that Indian children maintain connections with family, tribe and culture.

Enforcement by courts and child welfare agencies, however, has been inconsistent. In addition, tribes can receive federal foster care funds only through state-tribal agreements, which only a few tribes have entered into. In recent years, Arizona, California, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Mexico and South Dakota have passed laws to protect a child's tribal connections, strengthen compliance with the federal act, test tribal delivery of child welfare services, and prioritize placement options for Indian children removed from home.

The Washington Legislature has also recently focused on tribal child welfare. Representative John McCoy, a Native American, and Representative Eric Pettigrew are working to give tribes more autonomy over their child welfare systems.

"Last session we enacted a tribal foster care bill," McCoy says. "We are also working on building more compacts between the tribes and the Department of Social and Health Services." The 2006 legislation allows Indian tribes to enter into agreements with the state to license child placement agencies located on or near reservations. It also permits tribes to define the terms under which they may license agencies.

Representative McCoy says changes in the training of caseworkers and day-to-day practices are also needed. "Culturally sensitive professional staff are important," he says.

McCoy also believes that Indian children and families will benefit if tribes are given more autonomy and control over the fate of their children. "If we let the tribes do it, they'll keep kids safe from abuse," he says.

Washington's Department of Social and Health Services is developing a new child welfare model using tribal input, says director Robin Arnold Williams. Tribal members are involved in a state-level advisory committee and have been hired as state and regional staff. The department and tribal leaders have also established information and consultation protocols for shaing information and developing policy.

MOVING FORWARD

There is no single approach that will solve the problems of disparate treatment in child welfare. States and communities, however, are discovering that by recognizing and addressing this issue all children and families involved in the system benefit. Legislators now have more resources--a growing list of state examples, more sources of technical assistance, better data, and heightened public awareness of the need for action.

STEPS FOR A COLORBLIND SYSTEM

Studies in Michigan, Minnesota and Texas recommend these action steps for improving child welfare programs.

* Hire more diverse staff.

* Engage families through the use of family group conferencing.

* Train staff in cultural differences.

* Evaluate the cultural awareness of service providers.

* Track services offered to children and families by race.

* Strengthen kinship care programs and services.

* Develop state and local teams to monitor potential problems.

* Increase recruitment of foster and adoptive families of color.

* Contract with service providers of color.

Nina Williams-Mbengue and Steve Christian handle child welfare issues at NCSL. For more information go to www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/racialequity.htm