THIS CHAPTER WILL HIGHLIGHT AREAS of research that need to be explored, including referrals by mandated reporters. Future research is especially important in this area because the number of referrals for children of color continues to be very high and the largest percentage of these children enters the child welfare system because of child neglect; however, the definition of child neglect continues to be quite nebulous. Changes to current social welfare policy that are needed, as well as new policies that appear to be warranted, will also be addressed in this chapter.
There are a number of areas that need to be examined in future research studies. As noted above, one of these areas is individual bias in decision making by mandated reporters and child welfare caseworkers. It would be most beneficial to design a longitudinal study covering several states with a large sample. Qualitative studies that have been conducted have been limited in their scope and have included descriptive data collected from participants in focus groups. Research (Harris & Courtney 2003) has shown that race and family structure impact the exit rates of children of color involved in the child welfare system, especially African American children from single-parent families in California. Are children of color that are involved in the child welfare system in other states affected by these two study variables?
Other research that is needed includes a study of proactive steps that have been taken to address racial disproportionality and disparities in those states that have enacted legislation mandating the child welfare system to examine the overrepresentation of children of color in the system. Among the states with disproportionality legislation are California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington. How many of the aforementioned states have implemented family group decision making (FGDM)? Do children and families of color experience better outcomes as a result of the implementation of FGDM? For example, are African American and Native American children exiting the system sooner when their families have been involved in FGDM? Has there been a decrease in the disproportionate number of children of color entering the child welfare system in those states with disproportionality legislation?
Another relevant research study is one that examines what practices have been implemented to include birth fathers of color in permanency planning for their children. Do children experience better outcomes when their fathers are included in permanency planning? How often are fathers used as a placement resource for children of color involved in the child welfare system? Are fathers included in family group conferences?
Differential response or alternative response has been used to keep children from entering the system when they are not at risk of harm or in imminent danger. Have the entry rates for children of color, especially the rates for African American and Native American children, decreased in states that have implemented differential response systems? In those states that have implemented differential response was this alternative the result of some type of legislative action? Are families of color more trusting of the child welfare system when differential response is utilized if their children are not in imminent danger?
It is also time to collect data from the children of color and their families who are directly affected by racial disproportionality and disparity at each key decision point in the child welfare system. Why do they think this problem is so pervasive? What ideas do they have for ameliorating racial disproportionality in the child welfare system? Have they experienced bias in decision making at key decision points in the child welfare system? What types of disparities have they experienced?
Research that examines the child welfare system with the goal of making systemic change is long overdue. “As long as disproportionality is viewed as an individual or personal issue of African American and Native American children or other children of color, the solutions to disproportionality will not be focused in the public domain of the child welfare system, a system that created and has continued to perpetuate disproportionality” (Harris & Hackett 2008, 202). Who benefits from racial disproportionality? Children and families of color certainly receive no benefits; they are adversely affected by racial disproportionality and disparity in the child welfare system. For example, the following was reported about the child welfare system in South Dakota:
Critics say foster care in South Dakota has become a powerhouse for private group home providers who bring in millions of dollars in state contracts to care for kids. Among them is Children’s Home Society, the state’s largest foster care provider, which has close ties with top government officials. It used to be run by South Dakota’s Gov. Dennis Daugard. An NPR investigation has found that Daugard was on the group’s payroll while he was lieutenant governor-and while the group received tens of millions of dollars in no-bid state contracts. It’s an unusual relationship highlighting the powerful role money and politics play in South Dakota’s foster care system.
(Sullivan & Walters 2011, 2)
One tribal social worker, Juanita Sherick, stated, “They make a living off of our children” (Sullivan & Walters 2011, 2). It certainly appears that Native American children in foster care are not receiving any benefits from being disproportionately represented in the South Dakota child welfare system.
What types of outcome measures are currently being used to track whether or not there have been reductions in the disproportionate numbers of children of color at key decision points in the child welfare system? Data collection and analyses have to be done continuously at each key decision point in the system to determine where disparities occur, and a proactive approach must be taken to eradicate identified disparities. If new services and/or supports are implemented, they must be evaluated to determine their effectiveness for all children in the system, with a special emphasis on the disproportionate number of children of color in the system. It is important for the child welfare system in each state in this country to continue to collect reliable and valid data in order to determine what system changes are required to eliminate racial disproportionality and disparity.
Section 1123A of the Social Security Act requires the U.S. Children’s Bureau to conduct Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) of each state’s child welfare system. The purposes of the CFSRs are to:
• Ensure conformity with federal child welfare requirements,
• Determine what is actually happening to children and families as they are engaged in child welfare services, and
• Assist states to enhance their capacity to help children and families achieve positive outcomes. (U.S. Children’s Bureau 2011)
However, no CFSRs are required for Indian tribes that have Title IV-E programs. Since Indian children continue to be disproportionately represented in the child welfare system at all key decision points, Section 1123A of the Social Security Act needs to be amended to mandate CFSRs for all Indian tribes that have implemented Title IV-E programs. There also needs to be an amendment that will require the Children’s Bureau to determine each state’s conformity with provisions in the Indian Child Welfare Act whenever the Children’s Bureau conducts a CFSR. Although many Indian children, as well as Indian tribes, have participated in CFSRs, the current law does not focus on child welfare services that are being provided for Indian children by tribes. The mere fact the Indian tribes with Title IV-E programs are not included in Section 1123A of the Social Security Act is a disparity in policy that needs to be changed.
Many children of color in the child welfare system have a birth mother and/or father who is incarcerated in a jail or prison. According to Glaze and Maruschak (2008), among minor children in the United States 484,100 white non-Hispanic children, 768,400 black non-Hispanic children, and 362, 800 Hispanic children had an incarcerated parent; approximately half of these children were nine years of age or younger. These figures show that children of color and their families are disproportionately represented in another system. Many of these minor children are cared for by grandparents or other relatives when a birth parent and/or parents are incarcerated. For example, when incarcerated mothers and fathers were asked about the caregivers for their children 10 percent stated grandparents were providing care, 6 percent stated their children were with other relatives, and 3 percent stated their children received care through a foster home, agency, or institution. However, the majority of parents, i.e., approximately 81 percent stated that care for at least one of their children was provided by the other parent (Christian 2009).
There are two federal policies that directly impact children of incarcerated parents that need to be examined and changed. The first policy that should be changed is the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA)—specifically, the section regarding termination of parental rights if a child has been in out-of-home care for 15 of the last 22 months. The average sentence for birth parents who are incarcerated is from 80 to 100 months; consequently, many incarcerated birth parents face the risk of having their parental rights terminated (Christian 2009). According to Lee, Genty, and Laver (2005), there has been an increase in the number of cases involving birth parents who are incarcerated since the ASFA was enacted. The ASFA does have three exceptions that can be used at the discretion of the state when making decisions regarding termination of parental rights for children who have been in out-of-home care for 15 of the most recent 22 months. These exceptions are as follows: (1) the child is in kinship/relative placement; (2) documentation indicates that termination of parental rights is not in the best interest of child; and (3) the state failed to provide services needed by the family for the child to safely return home.
The second policy involves the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Program. When the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act, Pub. L. No. 112–34, was enacted in October 2011, it did not extend or further authorize funds for the Mentoring of Children of Prisoners Program. In fact, although the program had been authorized to receive funding from fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2011, no funds were appropriated for this program in fiscal year 2011. Mentors are social capital for children of incarcerated parents. Mentoring can help facilitate many positive outcomes for these children. Mentors can function in the following roles:
• A consistent adult presence. What children of incarcerated parents need, above all, is stable, reliable care from adults. A mentor has the ability to provide continuity when other circumstances in a child’s life may be in flux.
• Advocacy for youth in court settings or with social services. Mentors can serve as impartial voices for young people, helping to represent their best interests in proceedings involving placements or the court system.
• Support for the relationship with the incarcerated parent and assistance with reentry. When it is determined to be an appropriate goal, mentors may engage children in activities that help nurture the parental relationship (writing letters, making cards, assisting with visits, etc.). In some programs, mentors may also assist the parent when she or he reenters the community, helping forge connections with an array of positive supports.
• Exposure to community support systems. Mentoring is one support among many that children of incarcerated parents need. Involvement with other organizations can help surround these children with a web of care, concern, and positive experiences.
• An adult friend. The caring adults who interact most with children of incarcerated parents (social workers, case managers, foster parents, etc.) are often paid professionals. A mentor is there for the children alone, extending friendship that builds trust and self-esteem.
In essence, a mentor can serve as an island in the storm. While this requires real commitment from both the mentor and the program, the support that lies at the heart of mentoring can greatly benefit children of incarcerated parents.
(LEARNS 2004, 2)
Children of incarcerated parents need to know that they have not been abandoned because they have a birth mother and/or father who is in jail or prison. They need to know and feel that they have caring adults in their lives; mentors can be those caring adults who make a difference in the lives of children of incarcerated parents.
Grandparents (4.5 million) and other relatives (1.5 million) are the caregivers for many of the children involved in the child welfare system. They are often clueless about what services and supports are available in the system and how to gain access to these services and supports. In 2005 Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and several other members of the U.S. Congress introduced/sponsored the Kinship Caregiver Support Act (S. 958); however, it was never enacted into law. The purpose of this bill was as follows:
• To establish kinship navigator programs in states, large metropolitan areas, and Indian tribal organizations to help kinship caregivers navigate existing programs and services and to help them learn about and obtain assistance to meet the needs of the children they are raising, as well as their own needs.
• To promote effective partnerships among organizations, private not-for-profit agencies, and community and faith-based organizations to help them more effectively and efficiently serve kinship care families and address the fragmentation that creates barriers to meeting their needs.
• To provide funding for kinship navigator programs that can help kinship care families use existing programs and services and to increase the capacity of government, private not-for-profit, community, and faith-based agencies and related federal programs, such as the National Caregiver Support Program, to better serve the needs of kinship care families. (Child Welfare League of America n.d., 1–2)
Passage of federal legislation to support kinship caregivers would be most beneficial to all of these caregivers, especially the large number of kinship caregivers of color. A higher number of African American and Native American children are in kinship care placements, and prior work has shown that a disparity in services exists between foster parents and kinship care providers (Berrick, Barth, & Needell 1994; Harris & Skyles 2008).
Finally, there needs to be a federal policy that mandates all states to have policies and procedures that are specifically developed and implemented to address and eliminate the problem of racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system. Institutional racism and individual racism must be eradicated from all key decision points in the child welfare system. All children and families must receive equitable treatment for the problem of racial disproportionality and disparity in the child welfare system to be eradicated. Currently, disproportionality continues to be the norm for African American and Native American children in the child welfare system.
REFERENCES
Berrick, J. D., Barth, R. P., & Needell, B. (1994). A comparison of kinship foster homes and family foster homes: Implications for kinship foster care as family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 16(1/2), 33–63.
Child Welfare League of America. (n.d.). Kinship Care Support Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Christian, S. (2009). Children of incarcerated parents. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family structure with respect to the timing of family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5/6), 409–429.
Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 199–215.
Harris, M. S., & Skyles, A. (2008). Kinship care for African American children: Disproportionate and disadvantageous. Journal of Family Issues, 29(8), 1013–1030.
LEARNS. (2004). Mentoring children of incarcerated parents: A toolkit for senior corps directors. Portland, OR: Author.
Lee, A., Genty, P. M., & Laver, M. (2005). The impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act on children of incarcerated parents. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
