1 presentation to the 2011 children in court summit achieving brighter futures for our youth their...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Presentation to the
2011 Children in Court Summit
Achieving Brighter Futures for Our Youth
Their Future is Our Future
New Jersey Court Improvement Project
Marcia M. Sturdivant, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
Allegheny County Department of Human Services
Office of Children, Youth and Families
May 3, 2011
Communities in Partnership to Protect Children: Advancing Permanency Outcomes by Incorporating Philosophy to Drive Systemic Change
2
About ACCYF
ACCYF IS NOT A PERFECT CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM!
THE ONLY PERFECT CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM IS NO CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM!
3
Shifting the Paradigm: Changing Philosophy and Practice
Safety Measures – 1st and foremost
Community Mistrust
Placement Rates
Quality Assurance
Diversity and Inclusiveness
4
Hard Lessons, Big Pills, Denial
We have to accept things we don’t like to hear or believe, but a real commitment to improving practice requires a level of receptiveness that isn’t always comfortable.
In the end, we will be better professionals and children and families will be better served.
Unfortunately, some people will always want to feel comfortable; let’s start with the people who are willing to be challenged.
5
Ethnic minority children are more likely to be separated from their parents
Ethnic minority children are more likely to receive higher levels of intervention strategies
Ethnic minority children spend more time in foster care
Ethnic minority children receive inferior services (Roberts, 2004)
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care: Race, Class and Gender Matters
6
Placement - 56% vs. 24% Length of time in placement - 62 months vs. 36
months Length of open case longer than 18 months - 64%
vs. 31% When poverty is controlled minority children still
have a 42% lower probability of leaving custody
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care: Race, Class and Gender Matters
7
Child welfare is largely a system addressing concerns of women parenting children.
The view of the absentee father is prevalent in child welfare perception, philosophy and practice.
Social challenges related to gender receive little attention in child welfare practice.
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care: Race, Class and Gender Matters
8
Public Perceptions and Public Policy Foundations of Disparity
The feminization of poverty
Some governments alleviate the problem through public policies designed to remedy economic and social hardships
U.S. has responded to the phenomenon with policies designed less to remedy inequities than to try to control behavior and demonstrate dominant attitudes about the relationship between home, family, and government (Geiger, 1995)
9
Public Perceptions and Public PolicyFoundations of Disparity
The feminization of poverty
Public policy is deeply rooted in stereotypical perceptions of poor, single and minority mothers.
“There are a lot of…lies that male society tells about welfare mothers…If people are willing to believe these lies, it’s partly because they’re just special versions of the lies that society tells about all women” (Johnnie Tillman, 1972)
10
Economic Impact of Disparity
Child Welfare is a multi-billion dollar industry creating jobs for systems, but depletes communities of their foundational strengths, i.e. self-sufficient, government-free families.
Inclusion in the child welfare system negatively effects individual employment, educational, social, and recreational opportunities and subsequently effects the economic viability of communities and ultimately the nation.
11
The history of the child welfare field is a history of paternalism (Andrew Turnell, 1998)
Current Child Welfare Practice and Philosophy
12
Current Child Welfare Practice and Philosophy
Paternalism is defined as: The process whereby the professional
approaches the child protection service recipient with the attitude that it is the professional’s opinion that carries the most import in the interaction.
13
Current Child Welfare Practice and Philosophy
The professional evaluates the nature of the problem, the risk and the harm, and formulates the solutions required to resolve the matter.
What the service recipient thinks is secondary.
14
Biogenic Theory
IndividualBiologically inherited predispositions
15
Ecological Systems Theory
IndividualMicrosystemMesosystemExosystemMacrosystem
Chronosystem
16
Attribution theory and child welfare practice
17
The Influence of Probation Officers and Social Workers in Perpetuating Stereotypes
For all ethnic groups, children of color are more likely to be viewed as in need of rehabilitation, unreceptive to treatment, or in need of behavioral intervention: resulting in higher rates of detention, foster care and institutional placement (Roberts, 2004)
Maltreated and neglected children from low S.E.S. groups are seen as sympathetic victims from dysfunctional families and communities and more likely to be removed from their communities by child welfare practitioners
18
Indirect Effects of Disparity on Child Welfare Recipients
Cultural Mistrust
Psycho-Social Maladjustment
Economic Impact
19
Child Centered
Family Centered
Integrated
Child Welfare Practice: Historical Change in Philosophy
20
Family Systems Theory
Families are like mobiles. When one piece of the mobile moves, the whole mobile moves.
21
Families have strengths and can change.
Strengths are what ultimately resolve concerns.
Strengths are discovered through listening, noticing, and paying attention to people.
Strengths are enhanced when they are acknowledged and encouraged.
ACCYF Values and Beliefs
22
Necessary Practice Change
1st – Paradigm shift: both philosophical and in practice
Shift from a deficit based approach structured on “risk” and internalize a strength-based approach structured on the reality of strengths.
23
Strength Based Inclusive Encourages Family Honest/open Team Effort Creative Individualized Culturally Sensitive
Differences : Traditional vs. Family/Community Empowerment Models
24
Birth to 6 years Response ACCYF Foster Care Visits Parent Advocacy Community Workshops Permanency Planning Conferences Quality Assurance (Case Practice Specialists) P.O.W.E.R. (D/A) Urban League of Pittsburgh Housing Traveler’s Aide / Medical Assistance Transportation Gwen’s Girls Mother to Son Parents at Risk of TPR Male Coalition Truancy Treatment (CES and YAP) Families United Celebration Career Motivation Celebration of Success D.A.D.S Family Group Decision Making Inua Ubuntu High Fidelity Wrap Transition Age Youth
ACCYF Initiatives
25
Prevention Programs (27) Family Support Centers (32) Foster Care (37) In-Home (8) In-Home (6) - Crisis Residential TX (9) Transportation
ACCYF Programs
26
Permanency in Allegheny County
Background
14,890 children served by the Office of Children, Youth and Families in 2010
1,536 children experienced out-of-home placement during 2010
At any point in time, about 63% of youth in foster care are with kin.
27
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Total Count 1010 863 1090 1229 1159 1162 1167 916 905 861
Type of Primary Placement
Congregate Care 22% 28% 26% 25% 25% 27% 25% 23% 25% 21%
Foster Care 41% 39% 40% 35% 35% 33% 33% 39% 36% 38%
Kinship Care 34% 28% 29% 37% 36% 38% 40% 35% 37% 38%
Independent Living 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
No Primary Placement 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
Type of Primary Placement for First Entries, 2000-2009
28
Type of Primary Placement, by Age at Time of Entry, 2000-2009
29
Length of StayCongregate
CareFoster
CareKinship
CareNo Primary Placement
Total
Under 1 month 25% 28% 6% 2% 18%
1 to 2 months 22% 15% 19% 8% 17%
3 to 5 months 11% 9% 15% 11% 11%
6 to 11 months 14% 11% 11% 16% 11%
12 to 17 months 9% 6% 8% 15% 7%
18 to 35 months 11% 21% 29% 18% 24%
3 years or longer 7% 10% 12% 30% 11%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Length of Stay by Primary Care Type, 2000-2009
Youth Ages 0-12 at Entry
30
Still in
CareReturn to
FamilyAdoption PLC
Non-Permanent
Reach Majority
Runaway Other
Congregate Care 3% 64% 2% 0% 12% 2% 11% 8%
Foster Care 10% 60% 20% 1% 3% 1% 1% 4%
Kinship Care 13% 53% 13% 10% 2% 2% 3% 4%
Independent Living 3% 47% 3% 0% 10% 15% 14% 8%
No Primary Placement 11% 40% 7% 0% 9% 12% 13% 10%
Total 9% 58% 13% 4% 5% 2% 5% 5%
Exit Destinations from First Spell, by Primary Placement Type, 2000-2009
31
Congregate Care
Foster Care
Kinship Care
Independent Living
No Primary Placement
Total First Entries 2561 3790 3675 151 185
Total Exits 2496 3424 3186 146 165
As percent of all entries 98% 90% 87% 97% 89%
Total Reentries 1175 1007 915 33 70
As percent of all exits 47% 29% 29% 23% 42%
Reenter Within 1 Year 1005 718 713 27 58
As percent of all entries 39% 19% 19% 18% 31%
As percent of all exits 40% 21% 22% 19% 35%
As percent of positive exits 32% 18% 19% 15% 25%
Reentries into Care after First Spell, by Primary Placement Type, 2000-2009
32
Recommended Strategies
Open and constructive dialogue about the uncomfortable realty of the existence of race, class and gender biases in child welfare - individual and systemic
Train and educate agency staff and stakeholders about institutional and structural racism and its impact on decision-making, policy and practice
Comprehensive review conducted by community and system partners to ensure that policies, practices, programs and services are supportive of children and families of color, poor families and families often marginalized in social systems
Employment of “Healers and Helpers” at all levels of leadership, staffing and contracts that reflect the cultural, spiritual, religious and racial backgrounds of the population served.
33
Recommended Strategies
Improve the capacity of communities to prevent child abuse and neglect while promoting social reform designed to improve the quality of life for parents and their children
34
Recommended Strategies (Federal)Anti-Poverty Policy Options
Policies to meet the general needs of the poor
Categorical strategies of providing special financial assistance to single mothers so that they can stay at home with their children
Universal young-child strategies under which cash benefits and policy supports are given to all families with young children