Figure 6. Children in Out-of-home Care per 1,000 by Race/Ethnicity, 2004–2013. Source: Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2013, Department of Human Services (p. 10)
A few weeks ago, a Star Tribune article raised the issue of child protection reform and its impact on families of color. The short article leaves a lot to be explored. My intent with this post is to delve deeper into the topic to provide a greater understanding of the history and current statistics on disparities in child welfare. I will also highlight past policy implications as well as current considerations for child protection reform.
Child Welfare Disparities in Minnesota
According to Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2013, American Indian and African American/Black children have the highest rates of contact with Minnesota’s child protection system. Respectively, they were 6 times and and 3 times more likely to be reported for abuse or neglect. Furthermore, compared to White children, American Indian children are 15.5 times more likely and African American/Black and multiracial children 4 times more likely to be placed in out-of-home care.
Federal Policy Response
Throughout the past few decades, lawmakers have attempted to decrease disparities for children and families of color on a national and state level.
MEPA/IEPA
In 1994, the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) set out to reduce the length of time children spent in the foster care system awaiting adoption by stating that race, color, or national origin could be one factor—but not the only factor—in placing children with foster or adoptive parents. It also required states to recruit racially and ethnically diverse foster and adoptive parents to reflect the children awaiting placement.
In 1996, MEPA was amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions Act (IEPA or IEP), which explicitly prohibited the denial or delay of a placement due to race, color, or national origin. The only group of children who are not covered by MEPA/IEPA are American Indian children, whose political status (tribal membership) places them under the auspices of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
ASFA
In 1997 Congress passed the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), which accelerated child placement into adoptive homes by requiring a termination of parental rights when a child has been waiting in foster care for 15 out of the last 22 months and by requiring a permanency hearing to be held no later than 12 months after entering foster care. One of the unintended consequences of ASFA was faster terminations of parental rights without a subsequent increase in the pool of prospective adoptive or foster parents, leaving children without permanency.
The Center for the Study of Social Policy has also pointed out that the shortened timelines adversely impact families of color who might have more significant needs, including issues with substance abuse, therein increasing disproportionality. In Minnesota, multiracial, American Indian, and African American/Black children were (respectively) 3.6, 3.2, and 3.0 times more likely than White children to enter guardianship (have their parents’ rights terminated) in 2013. Additionally, of all children adopted in Minnesota in 2013, 63 percent were White and 17 percent were African American/Black.
Child Welfare Reform in Minnesota
As the Star Tribune article points out, current child welfare reform in Minnesota is emphasizing child safety—some say at the expense of the family, while others disagree. Track assignment, a hot topic among the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children, is another area in child welfare where children and families of color are overrepresented. Based on Minnesota’s Child Welfare Report 2013, Family Investigation was more likely to be assigned to families of color than White families for discretionary reasons. Discretionary reasons “include a recent or frequent history of child maltreatment reports or child protective services, or the caretaker appeared to be unwilling or unable to achieve child safety.” This is despite the fact that according to Casey Family Programs, African American families are no more likely to maltreat their children than White families.
The Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children has recognized the issue of child welfare disparities in Minnesota and has included a section in their final recommendations addressing race equity in Minnesota child welfare policy. Additionally, the health and human services policy bill for this legislative session strengthens Indian child welfare policy in Minnesota. These will be addressed in future blog posts.
I think the issue of racial disparities and disproportionality in the child welfare system is one that should be discussed more often. I appreciate this information that was posted that highlights that families of color are more likely to be assigned a family investigation response for discretionary reasons; I wonder what the implications will be for families of color who come to the attention of the child protection system with the recent scrutiny of the Family Assessment response? Being that it is already an existing concern, I can imagine that families of color will increasingly receive the more punitive response of a Family Investigation, thus perpetuation the dilemma of racial disparities in Minnesota’s child protection system.