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 Rockymore University of Minnesota School of Social Work Contact: [email protected]A Study of the African American Racial Disparities Committee, the Minnesota Department of Human Services and four Minnesota counties Based on January 19, 2008 Presentation Introducing the Qualitative Story
Racial Disparities in Child Protective Services. Based on January 19, 2008 Presentation. Introducing the Qualitative Story. Qualitative study presented by: Margaret (Griesgraber) Skrypek, Susan J. Wells and Maxie Rockymore University of Minnesota School of Social Work - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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: [email protected] 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
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)
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
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