|
January 8. 2002
Child Welfare Discourse
Fails to Factor in Racial Bias
CHICAGO --- A recent
federal study found that even when families have the same characteristics
and problems, Black children are most likely to be placed in foster
care.
Forty-two percent of all children in foster care nationwide are
Black, even though Black children constitute only 17 percent of
the nation’s youth. And once Black children enter foster care,
they remain there longer, are moved more often, and are less likely
either to be returned home or adopted than white children.
Those are but a few of the statistics that bolster arguments in
a provocative new book, "Shattered Bonds: the Color of Child
Welfare," by Dorothy Roberts, a professor at Northwestern University
School of Law and faculty fellow at the University’s Institute
for Policy Research.
A prominent legal scholar and social critic, Roberts argues that
the overwhelming number of Black children in foster care points
to a disturbing reality that is rarely addressed in child welfare
discourse: racial bias.
"Today’s child welfare discourse is marked by an abysmal
failure to grasp the racial harm inflicted by the child welfare
system," Roberts says. "Most white children referred to
child protective services are permitted to stay with their families,
whereas most Black children are taken away from theirs."
In contrast to arguments that focus on social work practice and
how children should be treated in the child welfare system, Roberts
offers a probing examination of how the politics of race and class
profoundly affect which children become involved in the system.
"Shattered Bonds" describes the racial imbalance in foster
care; the concentration of state intervention in certain neighborhoods,
including the alarming percentages of children in substitute care;
the difficulty that poor and Black families have in meeting state
standards for regaining custody of children placed in foster care;
and the relationship between state supervision and continuing racial
inequality.
Child protection policy has conformed to the current political climate,
which embraces punitive responses to the seemingly intractable plight
of America’s isolated and impoverished inner cities, according
to Roberts. In the past several years, federal and state policy
have shifted away from preserving families toward "freeing"
children in foster care for adoption by terminating parental rights.
Black families, who are disproportionately poor, Roberts says, have
been hit the hardest.
"Black communities have become targets of stigmatized services
designed to investigate and punish deficient parents rather than
preserve families," Roberts concludes.
Neglect, usually linked to poverty -- not physical or sexual abuse
-- is the main reason that most children end up in foster care.
(There are twice as many cases of child neglect as cases of physical
abuse.)
High rates of poverty among Black families, bolstered by stereotypes
about Black parental unfitness, create the system’s racial
disparity, according to Roberts. The racial harm profoundly affects
the Black community, extending well beyond the obvious injuries
to Blacks involved in the child welfare system, she argues.
"The negative consequences of disrupting large number of Black
families and placing them under state supervision affects Black
people’s status and welfare as a group."
Most African Americans, Roberts says, are deeply aware that, whatever
their individual character and efforts, their personal well-being
and chances of success are inextricably tied to the advancement
of African Americans as a group.
Excessive state interference in Black family life damages Black
people’s sense of personal and community identity, and placing
large numbers of children in state custody interferes with critical
functions served by families, according to the book.
The Black community’s social capital is weakened, its ability
to form productive connections among its members with people and
institutions outside the community is harmed.
Roberts proposes a child welfare system that would not eliminate
state involvement but would radically change its nature, by redefining
child welfare to generously support children in their homes.
"I don’t see why as a society we are not willing to give
generous supports for families, but we are willing to spend billions
to remove children from their families," Roberts says.
Among Roberts’ recommendations:
• Reduce family poverty by increasing the minimum wage, instituting
a guaranteed income and enacting aggressive job creation policies;
• Establish a system of national health insurance that covers
everyone;
• Provide high-quality subsidized child care, preschool education
and paid parental leaves for all families;
• Increase client participation in child welfare policy;
• And make child welfare agencies more accountable to the communities
where their clients live.
By improving conditions for all families, especially poor families,
universal social programs will help reduce coercive state intervention
in Black homes, Roberts concludes.
|