Racial Bias of Child Protective Service Workers
and How It Impacts the Investigation and Subsequent
Removal of Native/Alaska Native
Children From Their Family Homes

 

Leslie Hunsucker
November 29, 2020

 

 

I. Statement of the Problem
When social scientists begin to evaluate the systems that are tasked with protecting children, they
must question whether the rule of ‘protection’ has been applied equally to all children who are
served by child protection agencies. For one hundred years prior to the Indian Child Welfare
Act, the United States government, with agreement from religious entities, decided that First
Nation or Native parents were not equipped to raise children who would possess the qualities
needed to succeed in the American way of life. Their culture, religion and language were all
seen as obstacles; it was widely accepted that the situation could be remedied by removing those
children from the family home and placing them in religious settings. Removal, without regard
for children, their customs and their family ties has resulted in intergenerational trauma, which
leads to poor long term outcomes. Data has shown that unaddressed trauma, severed family ties
and institutional settings as a replacement for family increase the chances of depression, drug
and alcohol abuse and incarceration.

The goal of Child Protective Services should always be to serve the best interests of the children
who are reliant upon them. In 2017, White examined the work of Drywater-Whitekiller (2014),
which found that 33% of Native children had been placed outside of the family home, in
adoptive homes, foster homes and state licensed residential facilities. (White, 2017) Martin &
Connelly (2015) found that not only were Black and Native children over represented in the
foster care system, but their families were less likely to receive the services provided to other
families to keep them intact. (Martin & Connelly, 2015) While substance abuse, poverty and
intergenerational trauma can explain some of the disparity, it cannot explain all. An examination
of data taken from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS)

found that in Alaska and South Dakota where Native children made up 21.2% and 13.8 % of the
population respectively, they made up 53% and 57% of those in foster care. (NICWA, 2019)
Researchers are tasked with asking whether family preservation has been the goal, or if state
protection services have been used as a tool to perpetuate colonialism.

Tribes often agree that the latter has been the goal. It is unlikely that the public is aware that the
Indian Child Welfare Act is the only child protection legislation that does not have a monitored
data collection system to ensure procedure and implementation. In 1986, Congress passed and
authorized the funding of the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS), which would mandate that states provide HHS with the demographics of children,
the entry and exit numbers of state care, the number of waiting children and with permanency or
placement plans. NICWA has made tremendous effort to ensure that Native/AN demographics
were included and to ensure that the disproportionality of Native/AN children in foster care and
poor long term outcomes were not ignored. (NICWA, 2020) In May of 2020, HHS delivered a
final ruling that eliminated 85% of data elements used; it was seen, within the Native
community, as a clear attempt to streamline the regulatory process, make it easier for social
service agencies to act independently and to disregard the regulations of the ICWA that govern
placement and adoption outside of the tribe. Every tribe who was present at the hearing rejected
the data elimination, and in August of 2020, a coalition of tribes filed a federal lawsuit in the
Northern District of California claiming that the changes were unlawful. The attempt to remove
important data is a clear attempt to negate the cultural differences and the historical inequities
that exist in child protection.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), Oversight Subcommittee
Chairman John Lewis (D-GA), Worker & Family Support Subcommittee Chairman Danny K.
Davis (D-IL), and Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) condemned
the data removal and released the following statement:
“Now more than ever, vulnerable children need support. Yet, the Trump Administration
chose in the middle of a global pandemic to plow ahead with a rule that undermines the
core mission of the child welfare system to protect and care for kids. This isn’t abstract
numerical data collection. This is about making sure Congress has the tools it needs to
ensure the safety and well-being of vulnerable children.” (CWLA, 2020)

 

A 2019 Report by the National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) found that
Native/Alaska Native children are represented at 1.6 times their levels of representation in the
population. The rate of abuse/neglect for Native/AN children was 16.5 per 1,000. Native/AN
children were more likely to be victims of neglect than other children; they were less likely to be
victims of physical abuse. The rate of abuse/neglect for other groups, per 1,000, was as follows:
African American children 19.5; White children 10.8; and Latino children 10.7.
The objective of continued research is to determine whether Child Protective Services has
consistently acted to serve the best interests of the children who are reliant upon them and
whether equal treatment has been given to Native families. Or has racial bias among Social
Workers led to First Nation children being removed from their family homes at a higher rate than
their non-Native peers?

II. Review of the Literature

Before researchers determine whether the racial bias of social workers leads to Native/Alaska
Native children being removed from their family homes at higher rates than that of their
non-Native peers, they must review the body of research that has examined disproportionality
within the foster care system and the findings that attempt to explain the disparate numbers.
For almost two decades, social scientists have looked at whether minority children are
overrepresented in the foster care system. While research has consistently indicated that there is
disparity between the removal of African American and Native/AN children and their white
peers by Child Protection Agencies, it has often failed to provide clear reasons why. Martin &
Connelly (2015) examined not only the higher rates of removal, but the poor treatment by system
professionals, the failure to provide reunification services and the likelihood that Native children
will not find permanent homes and will age out of the foster care system. In 2013, Native/AN
children had the highest rate of foster care placement in the USA, at 12.94 per 1,000. (Martin &
Connelly, 2015) In 2009, the US Department of Health and Human Services report found that
Native/AN children made up 1% of the population but made up 2% of those who are placed
outside of the family home by Child Protective Services. (Carter, 2010) Carter (2010) began
examining the disproportionality of Native/AN children in foster care, and what was more
shocking than their disproportionate placement out of the family home was that 1% of all
Native/AN families are investigated for maltreatment; 3% of those investigated had their
children removed and placed outside of the home. (Carter, 2010) When state by state data was
compared, two states were found to have egregious rates of removal and out of family
placement. Native/AN children represented 20% of Alaska’s population and 2% of Minnesota’s
population; yet, they represented 50% and 12.2% respectively of the total children placed outside
of the home. (Carter, 2010) The HHS Report from 2009 indicated that 69.2% of all children
removed from family care in 2007 were removed due to neglect. (Carter, 2010) The IRB
approved study used CPS data of abuse and neglect investigations as gathered through the
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being; there were 2215 White and Native/AN
children from urban areas. 84 Native/AN and 493 White children had been placed outside of the
home. Case workers used a checklist to identify risk factors, including drug and alcohol use,
domestic violence, and mental health issues then divided children into four age groups. Poverty
or the inability to pay for basic necessities, age, three or more children and gender were used as
variables. A classification scale was used to type physical neglect, physical and sexual abuse,
and lack of supervision. (Carter, 2010) Physical abuse and lack of supervision occurred more
often among white families. Sexual abuse was the same in both groups, but physical neglect,
which may explain the higher death rate, was more prevalent among Native/AN families.
(Carter, 2010) Domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse occurred in higher rates in white
families than in Native/AN families; this was in contrast to a prior study which showed double
the rate of alcohol abuse in Native/AN families. (Carter, 2010) Mental health problems were
more common among Native/AN families. Poverty or basic needs proved to be the only
significant variable; Native/AN children from families who could not meet their basic needs
were four times more likely to be removed from their family homes than white children. (Carter,
2010) When family characteristics were combined with the four forms of abuse, Native/AN
removal was more common when drugs or alcohol was abused or when mental health disorders
were present. White families had significantly higher rates of lack of supervision and higher
rates of domestic violence than Native/AN families. White families also had a higher percentage

of poverty or inability to meet basic needs, which was surprising considering that Native/AN
families have a 24.5% poverty rate compared to the 9.6% national average. (Carter, 2010) In this
study, white families had a slightly higher rate of drug and alcohol abuse, but Native/AN
children were two times more likely to be removed for alcohol abuse and seven times more
likely to be removed for drug abuse than their white peers. (Carter, 2010) Finally, the rates of
mental health problems were similar in both groups, but children from Native/AN families with
mental health problems were twice as likely to be removed as those from white families. (Carter,
2010)

Disproportionality is not just a problem in the United States. Ma, Fallon and Richard (2019)
examined the data from OIS-2013, a study which looked at the reports of child maltreatment in
Ontario, Canada. A simple random sampling was used to select 17 agencies out of 46 agencies.
The sample consisted of 5,265 children, under the age of 15. Sibling sets where all persons were
not subject to a case, reports that involved something other than maltreatment, and children
whose race/ethnicity were not First Nation or white were discarded. Cases opened during a
randomly selected time, over a three month period, were eligible. The sample did not involve
active specific cases, but rather examined those where a general report of past abuse or neglect
had been made. (Ma et al., 2019) The greatest disparity was found among cases with unfounded
maltreatment after investigation. First Nation children were 2.5 times more likely to have their
cases labeled as malicious by the concerned reporter than the cases involving white children;
moreover, the greatest percentage of those reported cases came from professionals. First Nation
children represented 2.5% of the population but represented 7.4% of maltreatment investigations.
For every 1000 First Nation children in the population, there were 160 investigations for
maltreatment compared to 50 investigations per 1000 for white children. For every 1000
investigations involving First Nation children, 61.7 resulted in substantiation, compared to 18 in
1000 substantiated cases for white children. (Ma et al., 2019, p. 56) The most common reason for
reporting was neglect and exposure to domestic violence, and the most common reason cases
were substantiated was exposure to domestic violence, lack of supervision, resulting in injury,
and medical neglect. The most disparate results involved medical neglect, or failing to get dental
care for children. Medical neglect cases involving First Nation children were 13.1 times more
likely to be substantiated than those involving white children. (Ma et al., 2019)

It seems that long term success and the best interest of the child has not been the driving force in
Child Protection when it comes to children of color. According to the National Youth in
Transition Database, 2014, 59% of teens who age out of foster care are minorities. Of those, 4%
are Native, despite making up only 1% of the population. (Martin & Connelly, 2015) And
children who remain in foster care have far worse outcomes than their peers. They are more apt
to quit high school; one study indicates that 20% do not complete high school. Moreover, 72% of
females and 53% of males have a child by the age twenty six. They struggle to maintain
employment, and 80% of males who age out of foster care are arrested between the ages of 18
and 26. (Martin & Connelly, 2015) Families of color already face burdens beyond what their
white peers face; this holds especially true for Native communities. There are fewer
opportunities, higher rates of unemployment and less federal funding on tribal land or on
reservations. Protection systems have consistently overlooked the poor outcomes, both
physically and emotionally, for Native/AN children, who suffer from high rates of depression,
suicide and alcohol abuse. Reunification requirements have often presented poor families with

even greater obstacles. They may live in rural areas, rely on public transportation and struggle
just to visit their children who have been placed in white communities, far away from where they
reside. (Martin & Connelly, 2015)

 

The same NYTD (2014), data collection indicated that Black males were 30 times more likely
than their white peers to be placed in residential facilities, ie. group homes and state schools.
(Martin & Connelly, 2015) Even more alarming is that Black males were thirty times more likely
to be prescribed antipsychotic medications than their peers. Children in foster care already have
4.5 times the likelihood of being prescribed medication. That number increases from 10 to 30%
in a community setting, increases to 67% in a designated therapeutic setting, and is as much as
77% in group homes. (Martin & Connelly, 2015) In short, by leaving children of color to
languish in residential settings, without permanency, or worse to label Black boys and opt to
place them in institutional settings, instead of attempting to find long term family care for them,
they are sentenced to a life of medication sedation. This data is critical to understanding how the
actors within the system make choices about the interventions for children, specifically the
choices as they pertain to marginalized communities.
Dakil, Cox, Lin, & Flores (2011) used the 2006 National Data Archive on Child Abuse, collected
from 49 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia to analyze reported child abuse,
substantiated physical abuse and death rates for five racial ethnic groups. The reports included
3,477,988 reports of abuse with physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, medical neglect, failure to
provide necessities, and emotional maltreatment substantiated among those. State case workers
were entirely responsible for deciding what services or interventions were offered to families
after substantiation of abuse. (Dakil et al., 2011) Asian and Pacific Islanders, Latinos and
African Americans had significantly higher rates of physical abuse. (Dakil et al., 2011)
Meanwhile, Native families were less likely to be reported for physical abuse and were less
likely to have substantiated abuse. Native/AN children were often treated by tribal medical
providers, who may have been less likely to refer cases to CPS families, which may explain the
lower reporting rate. All four of the minority groups had a higher death rate from physical abuse
than whites, and Native children, specifically, had double the death rate as white children, at
21%. (Dakil et al., 2011) Native families were provided with more interventions, especially
substance abuse programs, than any other group, with the exception of mental health services. At
the same time, they were the least likely to receive family preservation services. (Dakil et al.,
2011) Death resulting from physical abuse was more common among every group when
compared to whites, but it is important to note that there were a small number of deaths reported.
In addition, when other explanations were controlled, the death rates, from physical abuse, were
the same across all groups. (Dakil et al., 2011) Martin & Connelly (2015) noted that Native/AI

children are three times more likely to be removed from their family homes than those in the general population;

though the 1978 passing of the Indian Child Welfare Act was intended to prevent the disparity in removal, and

to preserve Native language and culture, it has not been enforced outside of transracial adoptions. (Martin &
Connelly, 2015) Though several states have enacted their own legislation for collecting data and
ensuring compliance, there are no federal systems to ensure that ICWA is complied with.
Children born into Native communities often have numerous obstacles to overcome on their path
to adulthood, including poverty, parental incarceration, poor health outcomes, and

intergenerational systemic trauma. Removal only exacerbates these conditions. Until the
Fostering Connections Act of 2008 was passed, tribes did not have direct access to federal Title
IV-E funds to help support adoption, support foster care, and provide training for prospective
foster parents or kinship care. (Martin & Connelly, 2015) Protection agencies in the United
States and Canada have a long adversarial relationship with tribes and tribal leaders. Because
there has been no oversight or accountability, social workers have acted with impunity, removing
children without identifying tribal membership or affiliation, failing to make connections to
elders and making little to no effort to find tribal placements for Native children. (Martin &
Connelly, 2015) Crofoot & Harris (2012) begin by introducing the reader to the idea that the ICWA was a militant
demand by tribes to quell continued colonialism and overreach by the United States government
to force assimilation upon Native/AN people and their children. They explored the long history
of the United States and Canada’s demonizing Native/AN culture while questioning the
capability and values of Native/AN parents. In the 1870s, the federal government began
promoting religious boarding schools, and the goal to destroy Native/AN culture was not a
secret. Captain Richard Henry Pratt’s declaration was: ‘Kill the Indian. Save the man.’ (Crofoot
& Harris, 2012, p. 1668) In 1877, boarding school funding in the United States began with
$20,000 in funding. By 1900, the funding had been increased to three million dollars, and the
number of schools doubled from 150 to 307. More alarming is that the number of children
removed and placed in boarding schools increased from 3598 to 21,568 during that same period.
(Crofoot & Harris, 2012) Sometimes the children were placed in Catholic programs; on
occasion, if they were ‘lucky,’ they were placed with white families. Either way, they were

stripped of their language, forced to do chores, grow their own food and sew their own uniforms;
further their hair, tying them to their Native/AN culture, was cut. They were often held against
their will, and at Ft. Apache girls school, the windows were nailed closed, to prevent runaways.
It also prevented proper ventilation. Due to unsanitary conditions and close quarters, measles,
mumps, influenza, and tuberculosis were rampant. (Crofoot & Harris, 2012) Because no records
were kept, it is impossible to know how many children died. Crowfoot & Harris (2012) wrote
about Jacob’s finding from 2005: ‘White women, primarily as reformers, but also as teachers
and administrators, were integrally involved in promoting, carrying out, and sometimes
challenging the removal of American Indian children to boarding schools. They also contributed
to the racialized and gendered representations of Indian peoples that made such policies
possible.” (Crowfoot & Harris, 2012, p. 1669) Native women were widely portrayed as
incapable parents while white mothers were elevated to sainthood, deemed to be the ideal. In
1928, the government began to close many of the boarding schools, but by 1958 the government
had created a new campaign, carried out by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Child Welfare
League of America. The goal was to take Native children away from their families and place
them in white families. The theory was that Native children, removed from the reservation and
placed in the Northeast, would experience far less discrimination. (Crofoot & Harris, 2012) What
that really meant is that those children would lose their cultural ties, lose their language, become
assimilated and thus become more ‘like white.’ The movement became so popular that private
adoption agencies and state placement agencies got involved and promoted and facilitated
similar adoptions, placing thousands of children in white homes and in effect continuing the

destruction of Native families. (Crofoot & Harris, 2012)

The disproportionality of the removal of children of color has been proven. The causes are
multi-faceted. Risk factors increase the possibility that physical abuse and physical neglect will
occur in the home, but when those variables are similar, why are Native/AN children still
removed at a higher rate than their white peers? And does Child Protection, as a system with a
long history of bias, create circumstances in which social workers, advocates and the justice
system participants make decisions, independently, at critical moments, while having no cultural
understanding, that lead to giving white families the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to
correct their mistakes while permanently punishing the Native/AN families that do not fit into
the cultural model?

 

Since 2007, Washington has required the Department of Social and Health Services to create an
advisory board to collect and analyze data on disproportionality, the board has reported their
findings annually to the legislature. The information gathered includes race/ethnicity, geographic
location, and ICWA eligibility and focuses data on four areas: the number of children of color at
every stage, from entry to exit and when treatment or intervention decisions are made, the
number in low income or single parent households whose children are actively involved in the
CPS system, the structure of those families and the outcomes of those children. This data is
compiled and made available to the public. It is only through disclosure and information sharing
between social service providers that widespread change can occur. (Martin & Connelly, 2015)
For more than a decade, Oregon has committed to similar efforts and has increased data
collection to address the disproportionality of children of color in their foster care system. A
2008 report found that Native/AN children were 5.5 times more likely to be represented among

foster care placements than their representation in the general Oregon population. (Miller et al.,
2012) Miller, Cahn & Orellana (2012) examined the two main theories behind this
disproportionality. First, they note that families of color have higher rates of individual, family
and community risks, including poverty, violence, incarceration, drug abuse and mental health
issues, which increases the chances of child abuse within the home. (Miller et al., 2012) They
also point to research which indicates that race becomes the primary factor when protection
workers make decisions about what services to provide and whether to focus on removal or
family preservation. (Miller et al., 2012)

The team conducted a mixed method study ordered by the Child Welfare Equity Task Force and
Safe Reduction of Foster Care Initiative. There were two goals: engage social workers,
community activists, policy makers and families and to document their experiences and ideas
about why disparity exists and to create an action plan to change it and make treatment more
equitable for all of Oregon’s children. Participants were invited to participate, given information
on anonymity, and informed consent. There were 100 participants and 17 focus groups. Each
group was presented with findings then an interview was performed asking three specific
questions. Every group had a person of color as facilitator, and four of the six analysts were
persons of color. This is a critical design that lends itself to greater authenticity and honesty from
those personally impacted by child removal and who are skeptical of the system. Each
investigator reviewed the transcripts and notes from their group, then the investigators reviewed
the same together, combining ideas and observations. (Miller et al., 2012) Finally, with the goal
of bringing ideas and suggestions together, they examined and tested the relationships between

themes.

The study revealed eleven themes among the participants, and seven of those were directly
related to racial bias: (1) poverty; (2) lack of trust; (3) negative perceptions of clients' behaviors;
(4) inability to relate to clients; (5) raising/differing expectations for families of color; (6)
holding onto the past; and (7) lack of family engagement. (Miller et al., 2012) But the views
were much more nuanced than expected. For example, white respondents were more apt to
believe that the biggest factor was poverty; whereas the families of color, with personal
experience, believed that racial bias played a bigger role. It wasn’t that any one professional or
individual was responsible for the bias, but rather the system was designed and perpetuated to
see families of color as less involved, less capable, more adversarial, instead of considering that
their hesitation was a protective mechanism to avoid already compromised relationships. (Miller
et al., 2012) Miller, Cahn & Orellana (2012) found that much of the problem lay with
professionals who misinterpreted the involvement, interest or compliance of families of color
and acted accordingly when providing services or suggesting resolution; they were unaware or
failed to acknowledge systemic bias, much less their own bias. While the study’s limitation was
that the data applied specifically to Oregon, which is predominantly white, it provides critical
information about how families of color see and distrust the system. It also leads us to conclude
that the best way to combat bias and provide more equity for families of color is to increase
diversity and ensure representation within the organizations that are intended to protect children
and to preserve families, when possible. Families of color want and need to see social workers,
supervisors, court advocates and judges that reflect their racial, ethnic and cultural differences.
(Miller, Cahn & Orellana, 2012)

The question of whether racial bias is a major contributing factor in the disproportionate removal
of Native/AN children requires additional research. Anonymous surveys presented to social
workers assessing their cultural awareness and bias, combined with public data on investigation,
substantiation, solutions offered and removal of children by county and by agency with
race/ethnicity identified can lead us to important conclusions about social worker actions at
various stages of the intervention process. Families, who have been personally impacted by CPS
involvement, should have the opportunity to anonymously answer questions about how they
were treated, what services they were offered and what factors, they believe, led to the outcomes
in their cases. Finally, minority foster parents or minority prospective foster parents, specifically
Native/AN, should be surveyed to gauge how social workers treated them when they showed
interest in becoming licensed to foster.

 

III. Hypotheses for the Proposed Study
Despite some research that suggests that Native families are investigated more often and have
their children removed at a higher rate than other racial groups, it is still unclear if such disparate
numbers are a result of abuse and neglect being more prevalent in the Native community, due to
high rates of trauma, mental disorders and drug and alcohol use. The unclear data leads to a need
for greater research that asks: Does the racial bias of Social Workers and other Child Protection
Services professionals increase the chances that Native children will be removed from their birth
families, for less egregious abuse, and are Native families offered and receive fewer services
intended to lead to family reunification?

H1: Reports of abuse or neglect by community members, teachers, healthcare workers against
Native parents are more likely to be labeled as egregious or malicious than cases against white,
Black, Asian or Latino parents.

H2: Native children are more likely to be removed from their families than white, Black, Asian
or Latino children when alcohol abuse is present in the home.

H3: Native parents are less likely to be offered family reunification plans and substance abuse
treatment programs than white, Black, Asian or Latino parents.

H4: Native children are more likely to be removed for medical neglect than their white, Black,
Asian or Latino peers.

H5: Native parents are treated with suspicion and are presumed to be less interested in
completing the steps, such as weekly visitation and parenting classes ordered by CPS, in order to
reunite with their children than their white, Black, Asian or Latino peers.

IV. Research Design for Study
This study used several research methods to gather data on abuse and neglect investigations,
subsequent determinations, action plans offered to families, including reunification and
substance abuse programs and removal of children from the family home. Surveys were used to
engage biological families and encourage them to share their experiences and levels of
satisfaction. Surveys were also used to engage Social workers in an effort to improve the
investigation process going forward. CPS professionals were asked to identify how often they
presumed guilt, pre-investigation, and how often they anticipated a lack of cooperation from
families, based on racial background of the parent. Official public reports were reviewed,
beginning with the Children’s Bureau at Health and Human Services Administration 2018 Child
Maltreatment Report, which was compiled based on data reported by individual states.
Allegations, investigations and outcomes were categorized to perform a cross section review of
children who were removed, by race and by home circumstance. The study also used official
reports from the State of Minnesota and State of Alaska’s Department of Human Services 2018
annual Child Maltreatment Reports to categorize investigations, confirmation of maltreatment
and child removal and compare the rates, using race and circumstances, including alcohol abuse
within the birth family. Case files were reviewed for notes, categorization of case severity, based
on detailed findings, and the action plans that were offered to individual families. A separate
spreadsheet will be kept on individual agency actions to determine if there was a pattern of
systematic removal or racial bias. The objective is to use this data as a tool to improve the system
and to provide additional training to professionals about how to self evaluate for cultural

awareness as they process cases.

 

A quantitative approach will be used to survey a random sample of 5000 Native parents within
five city markets identified families who have had open cases with CPS; they were investigated,
and cases were ruled verified or not verified for child abuse or neglect. A self mailing survey
was sent to the address on file with the state protection agency. It included: a) the foldable
survey with postage; b) instructions: c) a cover letter which explained that the survey was
anonymous, would not ask for any identifying information and would outline the goal: to gather
information that is critical to improving services for Native families; d) consent form and an
explanation of informed consent. The survey asked one parent to answer 20 questions, used to
gather feedback on how they were treated by social workers. The questions ranged from whether
the parent was treated with respect, whether the process was explained to them to whether they
were offered reunification plans or were offered a substance abuse program. Each participant
was asked whether they felt judged by the social worker and whether they felt condescension or
talked down to. They were asked to answer whether they were treated poorly and whether they
felt that mistreatment was due to race. Getting feedback from those who have experienced the
system first hand is critical. After two weeks, a postcard will be sent, thanking families and
asking them to return the survey if they have not already done so.
The final step in data collection will be an online survey of protection professionals. It will
begin by identifying 10 markets with large Child Protective Service agencies. An email will be
sent to Directors, Coordinators and supervisors requesting that the link to the online survey be
disseminated to protection employees. Each professional should be strongly encouraged to
complete the survey; the answers will be used to increase cultural sensitivity and awareness
around the provision of services. Protection professionals will be asked 20 questions to inquire

 

References
Child and Family Policy Update. (2020, November). National Indian Child Welfare Association.
Retrieved from https://www.nicwa.org/policy-update/

 

Date Removed from AFCARS. (2020)

 

Child Welfare League of America. Retrieved from
https://www.cwla.org/lgbtq-icwa-data-removed-from-afcars/

 

Carter, V. (2010).  Factors predicting placement of urban American Indian/Alaskan Natives into
out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 657-663. Retrieved from
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0190740910000058?token=51DD5F2E9428E7346DD0
BAADE66A965AA0E68FA466F0F543560717CD44CC529CFC069AEC2824EFC9FD1DEF866
DD97294

Dakil, S., Cox, M., Lin, H., & Flores, G. (October 2011). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Physical Abuse
Reporting and Child Protective Services Interventions in the United States. Journal of the
National Medical Association. 103(10), 1-6. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Glenn_Flores/publication/221860307_Racial_and_Ethnic_D
isparities_in_Physical_Abuse_Reporting_and_Child_Protective_Services_Interventions_in_the_
United_States/links/5a54b974a6fdcc51a618c886/Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities-in-Physical-Abus
e-Reporting-and-Child-Protective-Services-Interventions-in-the-United-States.pdf

 

Miller, K., Cahn, K., & Orellana, R. (November 2012) Dynamics that contribute to racial
disproportionality and disparity: Perspectives from child welfare professionals, community
partners, and families. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(11), 2201-2207. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740912003180?via%3Dihub
Martin, M., Connelly, D. (2015).  Achieving Racial Equity: Child Welfare Policy Strategies to Improve
Outcomes for Children of Color. Center for the Study of Social Policy.

 

Crofoot, T., Harris, M. (September 2012).

An Indian Child Welfare perspective on disproportionality in
child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(9), 1667-1674. Retrieved from
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740912001867

 

Ma, J., Fallon, B., & Richard, K. (2019) The overrepresentation of First Nations children and families
involved with child welfare: Findings from the Ontario incidence study of reported child abuse
and neglect 2013. Child Abuse & Neglect. 90, 52-65. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.01.022

 

White, Victoria. (2017). Disproportionality of American Indian Children in Foster Care. Sophia, the St.
Catherine University. Retrieved from https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/812
Disproportionality in Child Welfare Fact Sheet. (2019) National Indian Child Welfare Association.
Retrieved from
https://www.nicwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/2019-AIAN-Disproportionality-in-Child-Welfare-FINAL.pdf