An Examination of Disproportionality and Disparity in Oregon Child Welfare

1. Decision Point Analysis
An Examination of Disproportionality and
Disparity in Oregon Child Welfare
5/29/09 1

2. A Study with 3 Components
n Conducted by: The Center for Improvement of Child
and Family Services within the School of Social Work
at Portland State University
n Conducted for: The Oregon Department of Human
Services and the Oregon Commission on Children
and Families and the Governor’s Task Force on
Disproportionality in Child Welfare
n Sponsored by: Casey Family Programs
Center for the Improvement of Child and Family Services
440 University Building
520 SW Harrison, Suite 440
Portland, Oregon 97201
5/29/09 2

3. 3 Study Components
n Analysis of Administrative Data
n Annotated Bibliography
n Focus Group Analysis
5/29/09 3

4. Areas the Administrative Data
Component will address
n The existence of disproportionality & disparity
n The extent of disproportionality & disparity
n The specific groups affected
n The specific decision points
5/29/09 4

5. Decision Point Analysis
Work Group
n Group of Oregon DHS child welfare staff:
n Met 3 times
n Provided: advice &
n A process for making decisions
n 3 Major Decisions:
n What decision points/other areas to include
n What time frame for the data
n How to define ‘foster care’
5/29/09 5

6. Decision Point Analysis
Work Group Members:
n Stacey Ayers
n Cheryl Baldomarolucas
n Anna Cox
n Maria Duryea
n Beth Englander
n Kevin George
n Kory Murphy
n Catherine Stelzer
n Shirley Vollmuller
5/29/09 6

7. Disproportionality and
Disparity Definitions
n Disproportionality: when a group makes up
a proportion of those experiencing some
event that is higher or lower than that group’s
proportion of the population
n Disparity: a comparison of one group (e.g,
regarding disproportionality in services,
outcomes) to another group
5/29/09 7

8. Disproportionality: an Example
Oregon child protective services
5/29/09 8

9. Disproportionality Index: an Example
Oregon & Multnomah County foster care
n Children in care 2 – 4 years:
n White NH 0.791 0.565
n Asian NH 0.227 0.531
n Hispanic 0.355 0.327
n Black NH 2.125 2.436
n Native American NH 10.5 22.75
(in care on 12/31/07) (N=1,451) (N=385)
Oregon Mult. Co.
5/29/09 9

10. Disproportionality & Disparity Index:
an Example: in foster care 2-4 years
n Disproportionality Index:
n White 58.7% in care / 74.2% in pop. = 0.791
n Black 6.8% in care / 3.2% in pop. = 2.125
n Disparity Index:
n 2.125/0.791 = 2.686
5/29/09 10

11. Decision Points Selected
n Reporting: All Child Protective Services/
Child Abuse & Neglect reports in calendar
year 2008
5/29/09 11

12. Decision Points Selected (cont.)
n Screening: Reports assigned for full field
assessment (referrals/‘completed
assessments’) and those reports not
assigned for full field assessment (‘closed at
screening’)
5/29/09 12

13. Decision Points Selected (cont.)
n Disposition: referrals based on their
disposition:
n Referrals assessed as ‘founded’
n Referrals assessed as ‘unable to determine’
n Referrals assessed as ‘unable to determine’ with
the reason of, ‘unable to locate’*
n Referrals assessed as ‘unfounded’
n Referrals assessed as ‘no CPS assessment
required’
5/29/09 13

14. Decision Points Selected (cont.)
n Removal – non-removal: ‘Founded’
referrals with a ‘removal/hold’ designation and
those ‘Founded’ referrals without a ‘removal/
hold’ designation
5/29/09 14

15. Decision Points Selected (cont.)
n Children in foster care (a 6-month cohort):
All children in foster care; by type of care
groups; by length of stay in care groups
5/29/09 15

16. Decision Points Selected (cont.)
n Permanency: Children by type of primary
permanency plan and children exiting foster
care to permanency by type of exit
5/29/09 16

17. Decision Points Selected
n Reporting
n Screening
n Disposition
n Removal/Hold
n Foster Care
n Primary Permanency Plan
n Exit from Foster Care

18. Thanks!
5/29/09 18