assignment
Childrens Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS
800.394.3366 | Email: [emailprotected] | https://www.childwelfare.gov
ISSUE BRIEF
November 2016
Racial Disproportionality and
Disparity in Child Welfare
WHATS INSIDE
Prevalence
Potential explanations
Strategies to address
racial disproportionality
and disparities
Conclusion
Additional resources
References
The child welfare community has moved from
acknowledging the problem of racial and ethnic
disproportionality and disparity in the child welfare
system to formulating and implementing possible
solutions. As jurisdictions and agencies evaluate their
systems to identify where and how disproportionality
and disparity are occurring, they are seeking
changes that show promise for their own populations.
This issue brief explores the prevalence of racial
disproportionality and disparity in the child welfare
system. It also describes strategies that can assist
child welfare administrators, program managers,
and policymakers with addressing these issues in
general and at specific decision points in the child
welfare process (e.g., prevention, reporting,
investigation, service provision, out-of-home care,
permanency). Examples of State and local initiatives
that address disproportionality also are highlighted.
mailto:info%40childwelfare.gov?subject=
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
2
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
It is important to note that the research on racial
disproportionality and disparities and the theories for why
they exist are, at times, conflicting. Part of this may be due
to demographic, practice, policy, and other differences at
the national, State, and local levels and the fact that this is
an exceptionally complex issue. This brief serves as an
overview of the literature on this topic, but not every
finding or practice described may be applicable to each
community or agency. Each community and agency
should review its own data, practices, policies, and other
factors to determine the best path to address any
disproportionality and disparities.
Prevalence
A significant amount of research has documented the
overrepresentation of certain racial and ethnic
populationsincluding African-Americans and Native
Americans1
1 When describing the work of other researchers and organizations, this
brief, where practicable, uses the terms for racial and ethnic populations
used in the original sources. For example, the brief uses both Native
American and American Indian (both of which are inclusive of Alaska
Natives), as well as Black and African-American, depending on the usage
in the original source.
in the child welfare system when compared
with their representation in the general population (e.g.,
Summers, 2015; Wells, 2011; Derezotes, Poertner, & Testa,
2004). Additionally, numerous studies have shown that
racial disparities occur at various, decision points in the
child welfare continuum (e.g., Putnam-Hornstein, Needell,
King, & Johnson-Motoyama, 2013; Font, 2013; Detlaff et
al., 2011). Although disproportionality and disparity exist
throughout the United States, the extent and the
populations affected vary significantly across States and
localities.
Terminology
Disproportionality: The underrepresentation or
overrepresentation of a racial or ethnic group
compared to its percentage in the total population
Disparity: The unequal outcomes of one racial or
ethnic group as compared to outcomes for another
racial/ethnic group
Families/children of color: Families or children other
than those who are non-Hispanic, White-only (e.g.,
Black, Hispanic, Native American)
Table 1, which provides 2014 statistics from the U.S.
Census Bureau and the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, illustrates one way to view the extent to
which disproportionality exists among populations. It
provides a racial disproportionality index (RDI) that
compares the percentage of children by race in the
general population to their percentage at various points
in the child welfare continuum. An RDI of 1.0 means a
group is represented proportionately to its representation
in the general population. An RDI higher than 1.0
indicates the group is overrepresented, and an RDI lower
than 1.0 indicates the group is underrepresented. For
example, an RDI of 2.0 means the group is represented
twice its rate in the general population.
https://www.childwelfare.gov
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
3
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
Table 1. Disproportionality Compared to Total Population, 2014*
*Each RDI cell is associated with the percentage cell to its left.
Race
(Non-
Hispanic)/
Ethnicity
% of
Total
Child
Population
% of
Children
Identified
by CPS as
Victims
RDI % of
Children
in Foster
Care
RDI % of
Children
Entering
Foster
Care
RDI % of
Children
Exiting
Foster
Care
RDI % of
Children
Waiting
to Be
Adopted
RDI % of
Children
Adopted
With
Public
Agency
Involvement
RDI
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
0.9% 1.3% 1.5 2.4% 2.8 2.3% 2.7 2.1% 2.4 1.9% 2.2 1.5% 1.7
Asian 4.8% 0.9% 0.2 0.5% 0.1 0.6% 0.1 0.7% 0.1 0.4% 0.1 0.4% 0.1
Black or
African-
American
13.8% 22.6% 1.6 24.3% 1.8 22.4% 1.6 23.2% 1.7 23.1% 1.7 19.4% 1.4
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Islander
0.2% 0.2% 1.0 0.2% 0.9 0.2% 1.1 0.2% 1.2 0.1% 0.6 0.2% 0.9
Hispanic
(of Any
Race)
24.4% 24.0% 1.0 22.5% 0.9 21.9% 0.9 21.8% 0.9 23.6% 1.0 22.1% 0.9
White 51.9% 46.4% 0.9 43.4% 0.8 46.1% 0.9 45.6% 0.9 43.2% 0.8 48.5% 0.9
Two or
More
Races
4.1% 4.7% 1.1 6.8% 1.7 6.4% 1.6 6.5% 1.6 7.7% 1.9 8.0% 2.0
Sources: Total child population data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov/popest). Victimization data were
obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via Child Maltreatment 2014 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/
programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014). Other data were obtained from the HHS AFCARS Report #22 (http://www.acf.hhs.
gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-22).
Note: The HHS datasets used in this table have a category for Unknown/Unable to Determine, but the U.S. Census Bureau dataset
does not. Based on the assumption that the number of children in that category would be evenly distributed among the other race/
ethnicity categories, the number of Unknown/Unable to Determine children was removed from the total number of children in each
child welfare category when calculating the percentages and rates for each racial/ethnic population. Due to this calculation, the
percentages for each racial/ethnic population may not match the percentages provided in the original sources. Additionally, all races
exclude children of Hispanic origin, and children of Hispanic ethnicity may be any race.
The RDI for African-American children in foster care decreased from 2.5 in 2000 to 1.8 in 2014 (Summers, 2015). Although
this is a promising trend, it still indicates that African-American children are represented in foster care 1.8 times their rate
in the general population. The RDI for American Indian/Alaska Native children, however, increased from 1.5 in 2000 to 2.7
in 2014.
www.census.gov/popest
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-22
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-22
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
4
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
Another method for measuring disproportionality is by comparing a particular racial or ethnic populations
representation in the child welfare system to its representation at the prior decision point. For example, rather than
comparing a particular races proportion of children adopted with its proportion of the total population (as in table 1),
this method compares the particular races proportion of children adopted with the proportion of children of that race
waiting to be adopted (i.e., a prior decision point). Table 2 provides 2014 data about how populations are represented
along the following decision path: victimization, entering foster care, waiting to be adopted, and adopted with public
agency involvement.
Table 2. Disproportionality Compared to Prior Decision Point, 2014*
*Each RDI cell is associated with the percentage cell to its left.
Race
(Non-
Hispanic)
/Ethnicity
% of
Total
Child
Population
% of
Children
Identified
by CPS
as
Victims
Disp.
Rate
% of
Children
in Foster
Care
Disp.
Rate
% of
Children
Entering
Foster
Care
Disp.
Rate
% of
Children
Exiting
Foster
Care
Disp.
Rate
% of
Children
Waiting
to Be
Adopted
Disp.
Rate
% of
Children
Adopted
With
Public
Agency
Involvement
Disp.
Rate
American
Indian/
Alaska
Native
0.9% 1.3% 1.5 2.4% 1.8 2.3% 1.0 2.1% 0.9 1.9% 0.9 1.5% 0.8
Asian 4.8% 0.9% 0.2 0.5% 0.6 0.6% 1.2 0.7% 1.0 0.4% 0.6 0.4% 1.0
Black or
African-
American
13.8% 22.6% 1.6 24.3% 1.1 22.4% 0.9 23.2% 1.0 23.1% 1.0 19.4% 0.8
Native
Hawaiian/
Other
Pacific
Islander
0.2% 0.2% 1.0 0.2% 0.9 0.2% 1.3 0.2% 1.0 0.1% 0.5 0.2% 1.4
Hispanic
(of Any
Race)
24.4% 24.0% 1.0 22.5% 0.9 21.9% 1.0 21.8% 1.0 23.6% 1.1 22.1% 0.9
White 51.9% 46.4% 0.9 43.4% 0.9 46.1% 1.1 45.6% 1.0 43.2% 0.9 48.5% 1.1
Two or
More
Races
4.1% 4.7% 1.1 6.8% 1.5 6.4% 0.9 6.5% 1.0 7.7% 1.2 8.0% 1.0
Sources: Total child population data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (www.census.gov/popest). Other data were
obtained from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services via Child Maltreatment 2014 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014) and AFCARS Report #22 (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-22).
Note: The HHS datasets used in this table have a category for Unknown/Unable to Determine, but the U.S. Census Bureau
dataset does not. Based on the assumption that the number of children in that category would be evenly distributed among
the other race/ethnicity categories, the number of Unknown/Unable to Determine children was removed from the total number
of children in each child welfare category when calculating the percentages and rates for each racial/ethnic population. Due
to this calculation, the percentages for each racial/ethnic population may not match the percentages provided in the original
sources. Additionally, all races exclude children of Hispanic origin, and children of Hispanic ethnicity may be any race.
www.census.gov/popest
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/child-maltreatment-2014
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/afcars-report-22
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
5
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
The two data tables are shown to highlight the differences
that occur in the disproportionality rates depending on
the calculation method used. For example, the
disproportionality rate for Asian children who are adopted
with public agency involvement is 0.1 in table 1 but is 1.0
in table 2. Using the method in table 2, it appears that
disproportionality for Black and Native American children
lessens the further a child moves through the child welfare
system. This is not to say, however, that table 2 indicates
disproportionality or disparity do not occur for children in
those populations at later child welfare stages.
When reviewing data pertaining to race and ethnicity, it is
important to take into account the inherent difficulties
collecting and analyzing these data. The following are
examples of those difficulties:
Race and ethnicity do not have quantifiable definitions
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). People may identify their
race or ethnicity based on a number of factors (e.g.,
family and social environment, historical or
sociopolitical definitions, personal experience). The
definitions for a particular race or ethnicity may change
from study to study.
How people define their own race or ethnicity can
change over time. Researchers found that more than 10
million people changed their race or ethnicity
selections from the 2000 census to the 2010 census
(Cohn, 2014).
Race or ethnicity may be incorrectly assumed by
whomever is recording the data. For example, a
caseworker may assume a child is not American Indian
even though the child may be a Tribal member or is
eligible for Tribal membership. This would affect the
count of American Indian children involved with child
welfare and could affect the services, supports, and
jurisdiction of the case.
These issues could affect the data describing the number
of children from a particular race or ethnicity who are
involved with child welfare in general or at particular
decision points.
Other examples of research indicating disproportionality
and disparity are found throughout this issue brief.
Underrepresentation in Child
Welfare
Just as some racial and ethnic groups are
overrepresented in the child welfare system, other
groups, particularly Asians, are underrepresented.
Hispanic children also are underrepresented in
the child welfare system, though to a much lesser
extent than Asian children. It is unclear whether
underrepresentation is due to a lower occurrence
of child maltreatment among those populations
perhaps due to cultural protective factorsor
if it is caused by underreporting due to cultural
perceptions of others or those populations being
less likely to report maltreatment because of cultural
norms (Cheung & LaChapelle, 2011; Maguire-Jack,
Lanier, Johnson-Motoyama, Welch, & Dineen, 2015).
Potential Explanations
There are a variety of possible causes of racial
disproportionality and disparity. It is often difficult,
however, to determine what particular factors at either
the systems or individual case levels had an effect
and to what degree. Researchers who reviewed 10
years of findings on this topic posited four possible
explanations (Fluke, Harden, Jenkins, & Ruehrdanz, 2011):
Disproportionate and disparate needs of children and
families of color, particularly due to higher rates of
poverty
Racial bias and discrimination exhibited by individuals
(e.g., caseworkers, mandated and other reporters)
Child welfare system factors (e.g., lack of resources for
families of color, caseworker characteristics)
Geographic context, such as the region, State, or
neighborhood
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
6
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
Disproportionate and Disparate Need
Findings from the first three National Incidence Studies of
Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS) found no relationship
between race and the incidence of child maltreatment
after controlling for poverty and other risk factors (Sedlak
& Broadhurst, 1996). Instead, incidence of child abuse and
neglect was associated with poverty, single parenthood,
and other related factors. However, the most recent NIS
(NIS-4) indicated that Black children experience
maltreatment at higher rates than White children in
several categories of maltreatment (Sedlak, McPherson, &
Das, 2010). The studys authors suggest that the findings
are at least, in part, a consequence of the greater
precision of the NIS-4 estimates and partly due to the
enlarged gap between Black and White children in
economic well-being, since socioeconomic status is the
strongest predictor of maltreatment rates.
Other studies also have found a relationship between
poverty disparity and maltreatment disparity and urge an
emphasis on risk factors such as poverty rather than a sole
focus on bias within the child welfare system (Drake et al.,
2011; Maguire-Jack et al., 2015). A study of families in
California found that low socioeconomic status (SES) Black
children are actually less likely to be referred for
maltreatment, have their cases substantiated, or enter
foster care than low SES White children (Putnam-
Hornstein et al., 2013). The poverty experienced by
families and children of color also may amplify their
exposure to social service systems, such as financial or
housing assistance, which may further increase their
exposure to mandated reporters. This is referred to as
visibility or exposure bias.
Racial Bias and Discrimination
The strong relationship between poverty and
maltreatment, however, does not fully explain racial
disproportionality and disparity. It is also possible that
child welfare professionals or others involved with the
case or family may knowingly or unknowingly let personal
biases affect their decision-making. For example, two
studies in Texas found that race, risk, and income all
influence case decision, but even though African-
American families tended to be assessed with lower risk
scores than White families, they were more likely than
White families to have substantiated cases, have their
children removed, or be provided family-based safety
services (Dettlaff et al., 2011; Rivaux et al., 2008).
Child Welfare System Factors
Certain characteristics of the child welfare system may
affect the services and outcomes of children of different
races and ethnicities. For example, a review of the
Michigan child welfare system identified several
institutional features that negatively impact children and
families of color, including limited access to court
appointed special advocates, contracted agencies not
providing services in African-American communities (even
when required to do so), and a lack of quality assurance
mechanisms that may help identify and correct differential
treatment (Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2009).
Geographic Context
When measuring racial disproportionality and disparity, it
is possible that higher-level (e.g., national) data obscure
differences that occur at lower levels. For example, at the
national level in 2013, Hispanic children were slightly
underrepresented in foster care (Summers, 2015).
However, they were overrepresented in 14 States.
Additionally, one national study found that there were
higher rates of maltreatment disparity for Black and
Hispanic children in the most urban and most rural
counties (Maguire-Jack et al., 2015). Agencies,
policymakers, and others may be more successful in their
efforts to address disproportionality and disparities when
they use data regarding the differences present in their
jurisdictions rather than relying solely on national data.
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
7
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
The Child and Family Services
Reviews
As early as the first round of the Child and Family
Services Reviews (CFSRs) in 2000, numerous State
Final Reports noted the problem of disproportionality
in the child welfare system and reported on issues
that may intensify or cause the overrepresentation of
minority groups. For example, at least 25 State
first-round Final Reports identified gaps in the
provision of culturally appropriate services, and at
least 24 State Final Reports indicated that language
differences are a barrier to providing and receiving
services, case planning, investigations, or training.
Only 21 States (40 percent) received a positive rating
on the first round CFSR indicator regarding whether a
States recruitment efforts for foster and adoptive
parents reflected the racial and ethnic diversity of
children in need of out-of-home care (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services [HHS],
Childrens Bureau, 2012).
In the second round of CFSRs2
2 Although the third round of the CFSRs began in 2015, only two third-round Final Reports were available as of the
writing of this issue brief. Therefore, this brief does not present the results from the third round.
,1only 19 States (37
percent) received a positive rating on the item
regarding State efforts to recruit and retain resource
parents who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of
the foster care population in that State (HHS, 2011).
For the States that received a rating of Strength for
this CFSR item, a number of strategies were cited that
accounted for the States success in recruiting a
diverse foster and adoptive parent population. Some
of these promising practices included a pilot program
targeting prospective parents of Native American
descent (North Dakota), a program that used
childrens ZIP Codes as a factor in matching them
with resource families (Idaho), and the compilation
and analysis of demographic data on families who
had adopted and families underrepresented in the
pool of prospective parents (Ohio). (For more
information about the CFSRs, including access to the
Final Reports, visit http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/
cb/monitoring/child-family-services-reviews.)
Strategies to Address Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities
Strategies to address disproportionality and disparities
are often the same strategies used to improve child
welfare for all children and families. The particular
strategies employed by agencies should be specific to the
disproportionality and disparities present in their
jurisdictions, both in terms of the racial and ethnic
populations affected and the points within the child
welfare process at which those differences are apparent.
This section describes strategies that focus on various
components of the child welfare system, including
prevention and early intervention; reporting; screening,
investigation, and assessment; services; recruiting and
retaining resource families; and permanency. It also
includes strategies that can be employed across the child
welfare stages.
The California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for
Child Welfare (CEBC) has reviewed a number of
strategies aimed at reducing racial disproportionality
and disparity and has assigned them scientific
ratings based on the research evidence supporting
them. To view this information, visit CEBC at
http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/reducing-racial-
disparity-and-disproportionality-in-child-welfare/.
Prevention and Early Intervention
Prevention and early intervention services can strengthen
families and decrease the number of children entering
care, regardless of race or ethnicity. The implementation
of evidence-based prevention and early intervention
services, however, is often inadequate (Pecora et al., 2014).
Jurisdictions struggling with funding are sometimes
reluctant to direct money toward prevention efforts when
programs for children already in the system, such as foster
care, have many funding needs.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/monitoring/child-family-services-reviews
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/monitoring/child-family-services-reviews
http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/reducing-racial-disparity-and-disproportionality-in-child-welfare/
http://www.cebc4cw.org/topic/reducing-racial-disparity-and-disproportionality-in-child-welfare/
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
8
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
By working proactively and in conjunction with other
agencies and service providers, child welfare agencies
can implement preventive measures, build family support,
and offer services to vulnerable families before abuse and
neglect occur. These efforts can be designed for the
general population or targeted for specific at-risk groups.
Due to their greater exposure to certain risk factors for
maltreatment, such as poverty and parental incarceration,
programs designed to reduce poverty and crime rates
and to increase concrete services, such as housing and
employment, may have preventive effects on the
incidence of child abuse or neglect. Targeted prevention
efforts that include a strong cultural competence
component reflected in staffing and training may be
especially useful.
In-home services programs in which parents or expectant
parents in certain risk categories are visited by
professionals or paraprofessionals in their homes have
shown promise for reducing maltreatment. The goal of
in-home services is to provide support, education, and
resources for families who may be struggling. If families
can be served in their homes, then maltreatment and
involvement with the child welfare system may be
avoided.
One of the best-documented home visiting programs is
the Nurse Family-Partnership program developed by
David Olds. A randomized control study of low-income
African-American mothers and children in Memphis, TN,
who were visited by nurses at home during the first 2
years of the childs lives found several positive outcomes
compared with similar families who had not received
home visits (Kitzman et al., 2010; Olds et al., 2014). For
example, nurse-visited children were less likely to die from
preventable causes and less likely to report internalizing
disorders than children in the control group.
Family Preservation Program for
Urban American Indian Families
Since 2000, the Denver Indian Family Resource
Center (DIFRC) (http://difrc.org/) has served American
Indian children and families in the Denver area who
are involved or at risk of becoming involved with the
child welfare system. A core element of its work is its
Family Preservation Model (FPM) that combines both
direct practice and system change interventions. The
direct service component features trauma-informed
and family-focused case management, culturally
competent assessments (including tools specific to
American Indian populations), team decision-making
and other early-intervention meetings, and referrals
for services and supports (Bussey & Lucero, 2013).
The model acknowledges and incorporates
awareness of the trauma histories of many urban
American Indian families.
The system change component of the DIFRC FPM
includes collaborative agreements with child welfare
agencies for work on cases involving American Indian
children, establishing protocols to identify American
Indian children upon first contact with child welfare,
training child welfare staff on culturally responsive
practices, and bolstering oversight of State-level
compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA).
Studies have found that the DIFRC FPM benefits
American Indian children and families in several ways,
including reductions in involvement with child
welfare, decreased re-referral rates, increased use of
kinship care, and decreases in out-of-home care
placements with non-kin (Bussey & Lucero, 2013).
DIFRC has received or participated in several grants
from the Department of Health and Human Services
to address disproportionality, including a 2011 grant
from the Administration for Native Americans and a
2013 grant from the Childrens Bureau.
http://difrc.org/
https://www.childwelfare.govRacial Disproportionality and Disparity in Child Welfare
9
This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare Information Gateway.
This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/racial-disproportionality/.
Reporting
Most families first come into contact with the child welfare
system due to a report of suspected maltreatment.
Therefore, ensuring that reporters of maltreatment do not
base their suspicions on racial or ethnic biases is a key
component of reducing racial disproportionality and
disparities. At the national level, children of color were
overrepresented in reports of suspected maltreatment by
all groups of reporters (as categorized in the National
Child Abuse and Neglect Data System [NCANDS]) (Krase,
2013). Additionally, due to the disproportional rates of
poverty, staff of government agencies may have more
contact with minority families seeking services or
government benefits. The higher visibility of these families
may result in their being referred to the child welfare
system at a higher rate.
Mandated reporters, who differ in every State, may
require more specific guidelines and better training
materials than the brief checklist that often serves as their
training for reporting child abuse and neglect. (For more
information about mandated reporter laws, refer to
Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect at
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-
policies/statutes/manda/.) This includes additional training
about cultural practices that may be misconstrued as
maltreatment, particularly among racial and ethnic
populations that are prevalent in their region.
Jurisdictions may also want to provide lists of community
resources that mandated reporters can turn to when they
want to support families. For additional information about
cultural competence in reporting, refer to the following
resources:
Cultural Competence: Child Abuse and Neglect (Child
Welfare Information Gateway): https://www.
childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/cultural/can/
Publications: Child Welfare (Bridging Refugee Youth
and Childrens Services): http://www.brycs.org/
publications/index.cfm#welfare
Screening, Investigation, and Assessment
A familys race or ethnicity may affect a variety of child
welfare decisions. Families of color are disproportionately
reported for abuse and neglect, and their cases are more
likely to be substantiated at investigation than White,
non-Hispanic families. Several studies have shown that
cases involving Black children are more likely to be
assigned for investigation than in cases involving White
children (Font et al., 2012; Putnam-Hornstein et al., 2013).
Additionally, a study of child welfare cases in Texas found
that although African-Americans had lower risk scores
than Whites, African-Americans were more likely to have
their case acted upon, either by service provision or the
childs removal from the home (Rivaux et al., 2011). This
indicates that caseworkers have different risk thresholds
depending on a familys race.
One hypothesis about how racial disproportionality or
disparities may arise, at least in part, is racial or ethnic
differences between a family and its caseworker. One
study using a national dataset, however, came to a
different conclusion. The researchers found that Black
caseworkers tended to assess all familiesregardless of
raceat higher risk levels than White caseworkers (Font
et al., 2012). Since Black families are more likely to be
assigned to a Black caseworker, they may have an
increased likelihood of a substantiated case of
maltreatment, which could increase their rates of
disproportionality and disparity (Font et al., 2012).
The use of risk assessment tools, as well as standardized
definitions, can help guide the worker in assessing
families on safety and risk issues and remove some error
from the decision-making process. Workers who have
detailed and culturally relevant guidelines about wh
