5/29/09 1

Decision Point Analysis

An Examination of Disproportionality and

Disparity in Oregon Child Welfare

5/29/09 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 3

3 Study Components

n  Analysis of Administrative Data

n  Annotated Bibliography

n  Focus Group Analysis

5/29/09 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 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 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 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 8

Disproportionality: an Example Oregon child protective services

5/29/09 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 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 11

Decision Points Selected

n Reporting: All Child Protective Services/

Child Abuse & Neglect reports in calendar year 2008

5/29/09 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 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 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 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 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

Decision Points Selected

n Reporting

n  Screening

n Disposition

n Removal/Hold

n  Foster Care

n  Primary Permanency Plan

n  Exit from Foster Care

5/29/09 18

Thanks!