Racial Disparities in Child Protective Services

Principal Investigator: Susan J. Wells; Research Assistant: Margaret (Griesgraber) Skrypek

Minnesota DHS Coordinator: Maxie Rockymore

Data Analysis Contributors: Ila Kamath, Scotty Daniels, Alex Beutel,

Mary Pfohl, Louis B. Carter, Dinorah Martinez-Osorio, and Nancey Riley

Qualitative study presented by: Margaret (Griesgraber) Skrypek, Susan J. Wells

and Maxie RockymoreUniversity of Minnesota School of Social Work

Contact: swells@umn.eduA Study of the African American Racial Disparities Committee, the Minnesota Department of

Human Services and four Minnesota counties

Based on January 19, 2008 PresentationIntroducing the Qualitative Story

Study Background

and

Quantitative Findings

Analyses Completed Quantitative - assigning numerical values to

variables in order to understand behavior by statistical modeling and measurement

Qualitative - subjective judgment based on non-quantifiable information, such as text, notes and comments

Quantitative analysis is a powerful tool for evaluation, but the story is more complete when it is combined with

qualitative analysis.

Selection of Cases All neglect cases in 4 counties Selection requirements

a single type of maltreatment. children not previously placed race: all African American or all white; no children identified as Hispanic ethnicity ages 0 through 11 parents born in the USA

Total Cases Selected

Total of 1,095 Substantiated for neglect From four Minnesota counties in 2001 African American (58%) and Caucasian

(48%) children

Matched Case Study

103 pairs of cases were matched on: Age group (0-5 and 6-11) Reason for referral - type of neglect Gender County

Evolution of Number of Cases or Pairs 1,095 original cases After case matching, 103 original pairs – 206 cases Some cases were eliminated later

For example: Child was of more than one race Family was immigrant or other culture

81 pairs remained – 162 cases(If pairs of eliminated cases were included - 180 cases)

Descriptive Data for Study

Anoka 18 children Hennepin 76 children Olmsted 20 children Ramsey 48 children

N = 162

Counties

Descriptive Data for Study (cont.)

Abandonment: 4 Educational neglect: 28 Endangerment: 52 Inadequate Supervision: 14 Neglect (food, clothing, shelter): 58 Prenatal exposure: 6

N=162

Type of Neglect

Three Parts of Record Review Questionnaire (for Paired Cases)

Assessment – 162 cases

81 pairs

Case Management – 55 cases

13 original pairs

Reunification - 39 cases

7 original pairs

Today’s Focus Very quick review of 162 – 81 pairs Overview of quantitative analysis

of 180 cases Qualitative analysis of 180 cases

Qualitative Variables Used for Quantitative Study History of maltreatment

Extensive; multi-generational Interaction of worker and family

Worker negative; parent uncooperative Poverty: yes or no Substance abuse extensive Relative was a resource Primary problem contributing to maltreatment Family moved, case outcome unclear Police arranged informal placement

N=68 56.8%

27.2%

84 N=1324 7.4 8.6 16

N=81 64.2%

35.8%

100%

No

Yes

African American Child of Pair

Total

No Yes

Caucasian Child Of Pair

Total

McNemar level of significance p = .004significant finding

Family Composition at Assessment

Percentage of Pairs with Biological Father in Household

Other Significant Differences at Assessment

Yes forAfrican

American

Yes forCaucasian

McNemar Level of

Significance

No for Caucasian

No for African

American

Worker Noted Alcohol Abuse Problem 3.7% 14.8% p = .035

Mother Noted to be on Public Assistance 24.7% 7.4% p = .009

Mother Noted to be Involved in Domestic Violence 27.2% 12.3% p= .050

Mother Noted with Physical Disability or Cognitive or Mental Health Problem

11.1% 27.2% p = .029

Biological Father was a Perpetrator 11.1% 25.9% p = .043

N = 81 pairs

Police Involvement at Assessment

N=79

85.2% 12.3% 97.5%

N=2

2.5% .0% 2.5%

N=81

87.7% 12.3% 100.0%

No

Yes

African AmericanChild of Pair

Total

No Yes

CaucasianChild of Pair

Total

Percentage of Pairs in Which Police Arranged an Informal Placement

McNemar level of significance p = .039significant finding

Cases Opened for Case Management Services

Percentage of Pairs in which the Case was Opened for Case Management Services

McNemar level of significance p = 1.0Not significant

Caucasian Child of Pair

TotalNo Yes

African American Child of Pair

No

48.1% 18.5%

N=54

66.7%

Yes

17.3% 16.0%

N=27

33.3%

Total 65.4% 34.6%

N=81

100%

Cases Opened for Reunification Services

Percentage of Pairs in which the Case was Opened for Reunification Services

Caucasian Child of Pair

TotalNo Yes

African American Child of Pair

No

60.5% 13.6%

N=60

74.1%

Yes

17.3% 8.6%

N=21

25.9%

Total 77.8% 22.2%

N=81

100%

McNemar level of significance p = .690Not significant

Similarities among Cases

There were no significant differences in parental drug abuse, inadequate housing, felony history, contact with the law, father’s disabilities, termination of parental rights for older siblings, or death of one or both parents.

Multivariate Analysis

That is, was the case referred for Reunification Services at any time during the intervention process?

(Does not include cases that were in placement initially but went home right away.)

New Variables Several scales were created to reduce the

number of variables Three variables of particular interest follow…

Maltreatment Summative Scale (0-3) None of the following Maltreatment history found at investigation Maltreatment extensive (qualitative var.) Maltreatment multi-generational (qual.var.)

Mom Drug and Law Probs Scale No drug problems or problems with the law (0) Problems with drugs or problems with the law (1) Problems with drugs and problems with the law (2)

Parent-Worker Relationship (0-1) Worker negative And/Or Parent uncooperative

This is not a scale; there is only a yes/no answer

Multivariate Analysis ResultsCharacteristic Signif. Odds

Number children in household <.001 .43

Wrkr Negative or Prnt Uncoop <.001 7.5

Ages 1 to 4 .028 1.2

Ages 1 to 4 * AA .026 .10

Maltreatment Scale .531 1.2

Maltreatment Scale *AA .013 2.9

Mom drug/law prob scale .001 2.9

Substance abuse extensive .001 7.2Constant .001 .09

Variables in the EquationB S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)

Lower Upper

Q01children -.849 .237 .000 .428 .269 .680

WrkrJudgPrnt

UncoopScale 2.011 .424 .000 7.471 3.252 17.167

Ages1_4 1.507 .684 .028 4.512 1.180 17.243

AfricanAmerican

by Ages1_4 -2.327 1.043 .026 .098 .013 .753

MaltreatHistScale .214 .342 .531 1.239 .634 2.421

AfricanAmerican

by MaltreatHistScale 1.067 .427 .013 2.906 1.258 6.714

MomDrugLawProbs 1.062 .321 .001 2.892 1.541 5.427

SubsAbuse_Extensive 1.979 .616 .001 7.237 2.164 24.208

Constant -2.418 .684 .000 .089

Other Important Variables Bio Dad in the household Mom cognitive, physical or MH disabilities County Source of report was health Relative is a resource

Percent Children Placed when Parent Uncooperative by Race

African American Uncooperative or Worker Negative-> Yes=29, No=58Caucasian Uncooperative or Worker Negative-> Yes=29, No=65

Percent Children Placed:Maltreatment History by Race

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

None 1 2 3

African American

Caucasian

Number of Children – Maltreatment History Scale by Race0 1 2 3 Total

African 29 33 21 4 87AmericanCaucasian 36 31 24 2 93

Percent Children Placed:Maltreatment History by Race

Number of Children – Maltreatment History Scale by Race0 1 2 or 3 Total

African 29 33 25 87AmericanCaucasian 36 31 26 93

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 1 2 or 3

Maltreatment History Scale

%>

0 f

or

Ca

se

wa

s r

efe

rre

d f

or

reu

nif

ica

tio

ns

se

rvic

es

(C

las

s 3

an

d 4

)

African AmericanCaucasian

Maltreatment History ScaleIndicates the number of instances of the following: history of maltreatment, maltreatment extensive, and/or multigenerational maltreatment.

Percent Referred for Placement (in Which Referral for Reunification Services was Made) by Age

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

African American

Caucasian

Number of Children - Age by Race -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Total African 1 13 4 6 4 2 11 10 6 7 9 7 7 87AmericanCaucasian 3 14 5 7 5 5 4 7 7 12 5 11 8 93Total 4 27 9 13 9 7 15 17 13 19 14 18 15 180

Children Identified as Both African American & Caucasian are not included on this graph.

Qualitative Study

So, What Can We Know From the Qualitative Study?

Examples of questions we had:

What was the problem financial difficulties about?

How did age differences work?

Introduction to the Qualitative Study Use of the same data sources as the

quantitative study Opportunity to clarify findings from the

quantitative study Deeper look at whether and how race may

affect case decisions and outcomes

Qualitative Methods – Step 1 Researchers re-read all 206 original case

record surveys When data was confusing or unclear,

researchers re-read the case record to fill in missing information

Text from these readings and selected quantitative variables were used to create a new qualitative database

Qualitative Method – Step 2

Data in the database was checked and rechecked against the surveys and the case records for accuracy

Data was imported into NVIVO software – a specialized system for qualitative analysis

Qualitative Methods – Step 3 To gain insight from community members with child

welfare experience, a sample study was completed with 36 selected cases

3 community members and 2 researchers participated in the sample study

The cases were selected randomly but were representative of the larger group of 206 cases

Using lessons learned from the sample reading, a full qualitative analysis was completed on the text of 162 cases

Age Discovered to be a Defining Variable

Child’s age was important in understanding differences among placement decisions and race. The following age groups were established:

Less than one year old One to four years old Five to nine years old Ten or eleven years old

Highlights Themes that emerged across age groups:

Parental competence Disinterest Inability (might include mental health)

Crisis Resources (educational neglect) Domestic Violence

Drugs/Alcohol Use Other involvement

Racial patterns within these case categories vary by age!

Highlights (continued) Themes that occurred across age groups with

consistent racial patterns: Police involvement

Arrests Formal vs. informal placements

County may also be important

Children Less than One Year Old (N=30)

Positive toxicology and pre-natal cases Similar outcomes regardless of race Omitted from further qualitative analysis

Children One to Four Years Old (N=30)

Percentage of Cases by Category

13%

33%

54%

Parental CompetenceCrisisExtensive Substance Abuse

Parental Competence Case Types:

Parental disinterest

Inability to parent

Child emotional or physical problems

Crisis Case Types:

Short-term emergencies

Domestic violence

Extensive Substance Abuse* Case Types:

Multiple relapses during case management

Methamphetamine use

*Indicates possible racial pattern

26 of the 30 cases in this age group (86.7%) were in three categories.

Patterns in 1 – 4 Age Group (N=30)

Caucasian families more likely to experience long term placement and to undergo TPR/TLC.

Police were involved in 12 cases Racial pattern observed in

whether police made formal placements or allowed informal placements

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

No Placement Informal Placement Allowed Formal Placement

Numb

er of

Cas

es Caucasian

AfricanAmerican

Children Five to Nine Years Old (N=74)

Percentage of Cases by Category

40%

19%

7%

34%

Crisis & Parental Competence - Minor Incidents

Educational Neglect

Parent Out of Home

Parent or Child Mental Health

Crisis & Parental Competence* Case Types:

Domestic violence

Poor parenting

Alcohol use

Educational Neglect Case Types:

Resource deficit

Mental health of caregiver

Parent Out of Home* Case Types:

Police involvement*

Abandonment

Parent/Child Mental Health* Case Type

*Indicates possible racial pattern67 of 74 cases in this age group (91%) were in four categories

Patterns in 5 – 9 Age Group (N=74)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Informal Placement Allowed Formal Placement

Numb

er of

Case

s

Caucasian

African American

African American children more likely to enter long term placement for this age range.

All cases (6) that resulted in a child being placed permanently outside the home were TLCs to relatives.

Police were involved in many of these cases, 10 of which included out of home placements. All 10 cases were either drug raids,

parental substance abuse, or criminal activity.

6 cases were arrests - all were African American parents (one during case management.)

Children Ten or Eleven Years Old (N=30)

Percentage of Cases by Category

17%

20% 23%

40%

Parent Drugs or Alcohol

Educational Neglect

Parental Competence

Short-term Crisis

Parent Drugs/Alcohol* Case Types:

Parental substance abuse

Police drug raids

Educational Neglect Case Types:

Resource deficit

Parent or child mental health

Parental Competence Case Types:

Disinterest in parenting

Inability to parent

Short-term Crisis Case Types:

Domestic violence

Resource issues*Indicates possible racial pattern

30 of 30 cases in this age group (100%) were in four categories

Patterns in 10-11 Age Group (N=30) African American and Caucasian children equally

unlikely to enter long term placement Police arranged out of home placements in 3 cases in

this age range. One formal placement for a Caucasian child whose

homeless mother requested 72 hour hold for child. Two informal relative placements for children whose

parents were arrested for drug raids. One of these children was Caucasian and one was African American.

Other factors to consider Several cases closed early because the family

moved, which may affect the data related to case outcomes.

What is the impact of parents’ perceived level of cooperation on workers’ attitudes?

More Caucasian families using other mechanisms to avoid child welfare involvement – i.e. family court to transfer custody to a non-custodial parent.

Implications Case types differ by race So, to some extent, other differences might be

expected Nevertheless, what can we learn from every

day practice about potential differences? How can we keep children out of the system

when they don’t need to be there?

Conclusion

Thank you for your attention

Questions?