Presentation to the

1
Communities in Partnership to Protect Children
Advancing Permanency Outcomes by Incorporating
Philosophy to Drive Systemic Change

• 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

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 dont like to hear or
  believe, but a real commitment to improving
  practice requires a level of receptiveness that
  isnt 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 lets start with the people who
  are willing to be challenged.

5
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care
Race, Class and Gender Matters

• 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)

6
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care
Race, Class and Gender Matters

• 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

7
Facts About U.S. Child Welfare System of Care
Race, Class and Gender Matters

• 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.

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 oflies that male society
  tells about welfare mothersIf people are willing
  to believe these lies, its partly because
  theyre 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
Current Child Welfare Practice and Philosophy

• The history of the child welfare field is a
  history of paternalism (Andrew Turnell, 1998)

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 professionals 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
Individual
Biologically inherited predispositions
15
Ecological Systems Theory
Individual
Microsystem
Mesosystem
Exosystem
Macrosystem
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 Welfare Practice Historical Change in
Philosophy

• Child Centered
• Family Centered
• Integrated

20
Family Systems Theory

• Families are like mobiles. When one piece of the
  mobile moves, the whole mobile moves.

21
ACCYF Values and Beliefs

• 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.

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
Differences Traditional vs. Family/Community
Empowerment Models

• Strength Based
• Inclusive
• Encourages Family
• Honest/open
• Team Effort
• Creative
• Individualized
• Culturally Sensitive

24
ACCYF Initiatives

• 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
• Travelers Aide / Medical Assistance
  Transportation
• Gwens 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

25
ACCYF Programs

• Prevention Programs (27)
• Family Support Centers (32)
• Foster Care (37)
• In-Home (8)
• In-Home (6) - Crisis
• Residential TX (9)
• Transportation

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
Type of Primary Placement for First Entries,
2000-2009
  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 Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement Type of Primary Placement 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
28
Type of Primary Placement, by Age at Time of
Entry, 2000-2009
29
Length of Stay by Primary Care Type,
2000-2009 Youth Ages 0-12 at Entry
Length of Stay Congregate Care Foster Care Kinship Care No 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
30
Exit Destinations from First Spell, by Primary
Placement Type, 2000-2009
  Still in Care Return to Family Adoption 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
31
Reentries into Care after First Spell, by Primary
Placement Type, 2000-2009
  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
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