Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Task Force 11 13 09 Power Point 1.1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Task Force 11 13 09 Power Point 1.1

593
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
593
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Diverse Community Partners
  • Judge Lola Sohappy & Michael Ware are Co-Chairs!!! Dottie Garcia Nichole Maher Kristi Barrett
  • What is the “disproportionality index”? – I NEED AN ANSWER.
  • Over 54,000 reports filed in the study period Black families are 2-3 times more likely to be reported than they are represented in Oregon’s general population National Incidence Studies indicate that there is not greater abuse or neglect for children of color
  • Small Group discussion
  • Casey-CSSP alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare collaborates on research projects designed to help policy makers and child welfare professionals make informed decisions about their work to address disproportionality. The alliance posits that when six dimensions or “critical levers” are activated together, they will work interdependently to achieve the long term change goal of the alliance. Each of the dimensions is necessary to bring about change for children and families of color in the child welfare system, yet each one is insufficient to achieve the overall goal on its own. The six dimensions are: Must be activated TOGETHER!!! Which one(s) of the “levers” relate to the Juve Attorneys
  • Transcript

    • 1. Safe & Equitable Foster Care Reduction: Report on Disproportionality and Disparities in Oregon’s Child Welfare System Governor’s Task Force on Child Welfare Racial Equity Kory Murphy, B.S Keva M. Miller, Ph.D., LCSW Jim White, Ph.D. November 13, 2009
    • 2. Safe & Equitable Foster Care Reduction in Oregon
      • Partnership between:
      • DHS
      • OCCF
      • Tribes
      • Casey Family Programs
      • Portland State University School of Social Work
      • Overall Goal: Safely reduce children in
      • foster care by 20% by 2011
    • 3. Why?
      • Government does not make a good parent.
      • Foster care is temporary.
      • Children grow up in foster care are more likely to have poorer outcomes throughout life.
      • Increased efforts to keep children safely in their homes, family networks or Tribes.
      • Oregon has one of the highest foster care placement rates in the country.
      • Black and Native children are over-represented in Oregon’s system.
    • 4. Critical Pieces
      • N8V Summit Strategic Planning
      • Executive Leadership commitment
      • Child Welfare Equity Taskforce/SB 630
      • PSU Decision Point Research
      • Model Court/ Courts Catalyzing Change
      • DHS/CAF Diversity Unit
      • OYA / DHS Collaboration
      • 8 “Safe & Equitable Reduction” Pilot Counties
    • 5. 8 Pilot Counties
      • Coos
      • Deschutes
      • Jackson
      • Malheur
      • Marion
      • Multnomah
      • Tillamook
      • Washington
    • 6. Child Welfare Equity Task Force
      • “ The Task Force shall study the reasons for , and develop a plan to reduce, the disproportionality of minorities in the child welfare foster care system.” (3)
      • The Task Force may…
        • Collect and analyze data (4c)
        • Set specific goals to reduce disproportionality of minorities in child welfare (4a)
        • Study, assess, and recommend strategies:
          • To enhance recruitment and retention efforts to increase minority representation (4b)
          • Concerning staff and community partner training (4e)
          • Prevention of future disparity and disproportionality (4f)
        • *Taken from Governors Exec Order & SB 630
    • 7. Decision Point Research
      • Literature review on disproportionality and disparity and promising practices
      • Administrative Data that explores the differences in pathways and outcomes for children and families
      • Focus groups that obtain individuals’ perspectives on the differences in pathways and outcomes for children and families
    • 8. Figure 1. Nine Major Decision Points 1. Intake/Reports to CPS 2. Screening 3. Disposition 4. Removal/Hold 5. Foster Care 6. Placement 8. Plan 9. Exit 7. Foster Care Stay
    • 9. Safe & Equitable Reduction Goals
      • Six statewide goals to be met by 2011:
      • Overall: Safely reduce children in foster care by 20%
      • Reduce children entering care by 10%
      • Increase foster care exits by 20%
      • Increase relative placements by 50%
      • Reduce the disproportionality index for Native and African American children (numerical goal to be set at the end of 2009)
      • Hold the child re-abuse, neglect rate at or below 7.5%
    • 10. Goal #2: Reduce Children Entering Foster Care
    • 11. Background
      • Over 13,000 children spent at least one day in foster care in 2008.
      • On any given day, 8,775 Oregon children are in foster care, while that number was nearly 9,800 last year. Although the number of children in foster care in Oregon declined in 2008, Oregon continues to place more children in foster care than other states in the country.
      • How do kids come into foster care?
      • How can more families be better supported so less kids need foster care?
    • 12. Decision Point 1: Intakes/Reports to CPS
      • Do racial and ethnic minority families receive more reports of abuse or neglect than do White families?
      • American Indian/Alaskan Native families are 2
      • times more likely to be reported to CPS than their
      • representation in Oregon’s adult population.
      • Black families are 2 ½ times more likely to be
      • reported to CPS than their representation in
      • Oregon’s adult population.
    • 13. Intakes/Reports to CPS
    • 14. Qualitative Findings
      • “ It is sometimes difficult to discern the parameters for ensuring child safety while maintaining cultural sensitivity.”
      • “ It is necessary to understand that a one size fits all practice does not serve all families well. Families would fare better if child welfare and collaborating agencies/systems were more sensitive and accepting of differences of racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse populations.”
    • 15. Who Makes the Reports? *Status of Children 2008
    • 16. Decision Point 2: Screening
      • Are children of color less or more likely to be screened for an assessment to be conducted with child welfare than White children?
      • White (54.9%), American Indian/Alaskan Native
      • (53.3%), and Black (57.3%) families were referred
      • for an assessment at similar rates.
    • 17. Screening
    • 18. Decision Point 3: Disposition
      • Are families of color more or less likely to have
      • disposition findings of “founded”– the disposition
      • category that leads to greater involvement with child
      • welfare?
      • American Indian/Alaskan Native families (29%) were
      • more likely to have founded dispositions than White
      • families (24.5%).
      • Black (20.2%), Asian (20.4%), and designated
      • race/ethnicity “Unknown” (20.1%) were the least
      • likely to have a founded dispositions.
    • 19. Qualitative Findings
      • “ If they are like me , maybe the assessments would have an increased likelihood of resulting in an unfounded disposition.”
    • 20. Type of Abuse Type Percent Mental Injury 1.9% Physical Abuse 7.9% Neglect 32.9 % Sexual Abuse 8.6% Threat of Harm: 48.7%
      • DV
      35.4% - Neglect 34.5% - Sexual Abuse 15.1% - Physical Abuse 10.6% - Mental Injury 4.3%
    • 21. Decision Point 4: Removal/Hold
      • Are children of color more or less likely to be removed
      • from their families than White children when abuse or
      • neglect has been founded?
      • American Indian/Alaskan Native (51.4%), Pacific
      • Islander (56.8%), and Black (43.3%), children were
      • removed from their parents at higher rates than
      • were White children (40.1%).
    • 22. Removal/Hold
    • 23. Victims & Entrants by Race/Ethnicity
    • 24. Removal Reasons
    • 25. Decision Point 5 : Foster Care
      • Are children of color more likely to be represented in the
      • foster care population as they are in the general
      • population.
      • American Indian/Alaskan Native children were nearly
      • 5 ½ times more likely to be in Oregon’s foster care
      • system than their representation in Oregon’s general
      • child population.
      • Black children were 2 times more likely to be in
      • Oregon’s foster care system than their representation
      • in Oregon’s general child population.
    • 26. Qualitative Findings
      • “ If families were like mine then children are would more likely return home sooner, thereby shortening their length of stay in foster care.”
    • 27.  
    • 28. Why? Factors, Challenges, and Barriers
      • Increased risk factors related to poverty
      • Access to quality services
      • Institutional racism & personal biases
      • Workforce demographics
      • Relationship with communities of color
      • Data development & analysis
      • What else can you think of as factors, challenges, & barriers?
    • 29. Disproportionality Theories: Research Adapted from Congressional Research Service. August 2005. Race/Ethnicity and Child Welfare . More likely to come into contact with social service or other workers who notice and report maltreatment More likely to be in poor, single parent homes – risk factors for maltreatment Have less access to services that prevent placement and hasten permanency More likely to be reported and less likely to be reunified due to biased decision making Children of Color
    • 30. Moving Toward Equity: 6 “Critical Levers”
    • 31. Reducing Entries
      • Promising practices
      • Implementation of ICWA
      • Objective assessment process/Structure decision-making
      • Access to appropriate “front-end” services
      • Relative finding and engagement
      • Family group conferencing
      • Mandatory reporting training
      • Current Oregon efforts
      • Oregon Safety Model implementation
      • Family Based Services redesign
      • Policy Revisions
      • Mandatory reporting training
      • OR-Kids data capture
      • What else?
    • 32. Small Group Exercise & Report Back
      • Referring to the 6 critical levers..
      • As you digest this information, what themes jump out at you? How do you respond to this information?
      • What needs to happen to safely reduce foster care entries, especially for children of color?
      • What other information would be helpful?
    • 33. Workgroups
    • 34. Next Steps
    • 35. Next Meeting: January 29, 2010
      • Focus on Relatives
      • DPA: Increasing Foster Care Exits
      • Workgroup Development