Children of color are overrepresented in the foster care system, comprising nearly 60 percent of all placements in the year 2004. This is nearly twice their representation in the general population. Of all children requiring child welfare intervention, the ma- jority of African American children requiring care are placed in foster care, whereas the majority of Caucasian children receive in-home services (Child Welfare League of America, 2002). In addition, African American children remain in foster care far longer and are reunited with their families far less often. This overrepresentation of children of color in the foster care system, particularly African American children, is fueled by other long-standing factors such as social oppression, negative social conditions, racial discrimination, and economic injustice. For instance, African American children were initially excluded from the child welfare system, but are now the most overrepresented of all racial groups (Smith & Devore, 2004).
Some reasons for this overrepresentation relate to complex social issues such as in- stitutionalized racism, intergenerational poverty, and culturally based drug abuse. But other possible causes include racism within the child welfare system.
Types of racial discrimination include:
1. Racial bias in referring families for family preservation programs versus out-of-home
placement. Certain special populations, including African American families, are
not consistently targeted for family preservation programs. Reasons for this include caseworker bias based on the belief that the needs of the African American com- munity may be too great to be appropriately handled by this program (Denby & Curtis, 2003).
2. Racial partiality in assessing parent–child attachment leading to delays in returning
children to their biological parents. A 2003 study of approximately 250 black and
white children in foster care placement found that racial partiality existed in assess- ing the parent–child attachment when the caseworker was of a different race than the biological parent. Although this result was reciprocal (i.e., black caseworkers showed partiality to black families and white caseworkers show partiality to white families), the effect of this trend has particular relevance to the African American community because the majority of caseworkers are Caucasian, and African American children are disproportionately represented among children in foster care. The results of this study revealed that Caucasian caseworkers might have erred when they concluded that African American mothers were poorly attached to their children because of the caseworker’s lack of understanding of cultural differ- ences between Caucasian and African American customs (Surbeck, 2003).
3. Caseworkers who are poorly trained in cultural competencies. For a caseworker to ac- curately assess many of the factors necessary in determining whether out-of-home
placement is warranted, such as the level of violence in the home, the ability of par- ents to protect their children, or the level of parental remorse, a caseworker must be aware of commonly held negative stereotypes of various racial groups. It is unac- ceptable for a member of the majority culture to claim not to hold any negative ste- reotypes, and it is only through the honest admission of overt and subtle negative biases toward other cultures that a caseworker can begin to work effectively with a variety of ethnic groups.
Placing Children of Color in Caucasian Homes
Considerable controversy exists surrounding the placement of children of color in Caucasian homes. Many advocacy organizations do not support this practice, whereas others claim that it is not in the best interest of children to experience placement delays simply because there are no foster families available that are the same race as the child. From a “micro” perspective, this latter argument makes sense. If an African American child is in desperate need of a long-term foster home, how much sense would it make to have a policy in place that prevents placement in a suitable home only because the foster family is Caucasian? After all, all children deserve loving homes, and the color of their skin should not keep them from being placed in one. Right?
Yet, from a “macro” perspective, a different viewpoint is revealed. Consider the eq- uity of a majority culture systematically destroying an entire race, as the United States has done to the African American population during the slavery and post–Civil War era or to the Native American population during colonial times and the era of early oc- cupation of the United States. How do you think these racial groups would perceive this same majority culture then rushing in to “rescue” the children who were maltreated in great part because of this cultural genocide and the resultant social breakdown?
Advocates of placing children of color in homes of the same race cite such cultural genocide in their arguments. Alternatives to transracial placement include the develop- ment of kinship care programs, where members of a child’s extended family act as foster parents, often made possible through financial assistance. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) cites the long-standing tradition of informal kinship care within the African American community extending back to the Middle Ages and solidified during the slavery era, when many African Americans acted in the informal capacity of parents for children whose biological parents were sold and sent away. Such cultural traditions can serve as a precursor for federally funded programs that promote kinship care foster programs, which respect cultural identity and tradition (NABSW, 2003).
Recent studies support the concerns expressed by the NABSW and others about the difficulties faced by even the most well-meaning white adoptive parents to appropri- ately and accurately teach their black adopted children lessons about race in a culturally appropriate manner. A recent study by Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) found that the majority of adoptive families of black adoptees were white, middle to upper-class families from primarily white communities, and despite their attempts to teach their children about matters of race and instill in them a sense of cultural pride, most of the
black adoptees were often left to struggle with racial discrimination and racial encultur- ation on their own. The primary reason for this dynamic was that their white adoptive families more often than not experienced race quite differently than their black adopted children, viewing racial dynamics through a white Eurocentric lens (Smith, Juarez & Jacobson, 2011).
In their study on the attempts of white parents to teach their black adopted children about race and racism in America, Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) state:
As members of U.S. society’s dominant mainstream, White adoptive parents are positioned to transmit collective understandings, interpretations, knowledge, and memories about Whiteness, not Blackness. They are well positioned to teach les- sons about race that reflect and give privilege to the interests, values, experiences, and perspectives of Whites. (p. 1198)
Their study revealed that while a majority of white transracial adoptive parents cited the importance of their children developing a sense of pride in their cultural heritage, they framed “cultural pride” as an individual process, not a collective one. Since the ma- jority of transracial families interviewed in the study lived in primarily white communi- ties, their black children did not participate or engage in communities of color; thus, any development of cultural pride was done in collective isolation.
Most of the white parents in this study taught their children about African American culture, including the nature of race relations in America, through books, films, and cultural events, such as attending black camps. For instance, several white adoptive parents shared that they taught their black adoptive children about overcoming racism through the telling of stories of famous black individuals who became successful despite racial barriers through personal fortitude and a lot of hard work. Yet Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) point out how this type of racial framing illustrates Western notions of individualism, rather than community efforts more reflective of African American culture and history, and did not teach black adoptees about racial inequality involved in “structural relations within society that enable the hard work of some to pay off more than that of (racialized) others” (p. 1214).
This study revealed just how committed the white adoptive parents who were inter- viewed were in their attempts to appropriately validate their black adoptive children’s racial heritage and culture pride, but they did so in ways that were distinctly white. For instance, the white adoptive parents taught their black children to:
SAffirm and feel positively about racial differences,
SSubvert personal needs and responses to racial discrimination to help Whites learn
about race and racism, and
SDevelop a thick skin to deflect the consequences of race-based discrimination
in a way that avoids conflict and does not disrupt harmony with Whites. (pp. 1221–1222)
Framing racial and cultural dynamics in such a White Eurocentric individualist way contradicted sharply with how most African American parents handled matters of race with their children. Although the white parents in this study clearly loved their black
adopted children and appeared very committed to addressing matters of race, with re- gard to cultural pride and dealing with racial prejudice, by presuming that racism was the result of white ignorance that could be overcome only through education and hard work, the white parents were inadvertently drawing from historic white cultural nar- ratives of racial inequality, not black ones, which are far more likely to emphasize the purposeful agenda of racial oppression and inequality within American society, and the collective struggle of African Americans to fight against it.
Although Smith, Juarez, and Jacobson (2011) do not specifically advocate against transracial adoption, they do caution white parents to be very careful about the ways in which they choose to teach lessons about race to their adopted children, in order to avoid even the inadvertent inculcation of white racist framing of the black experi- ence in America. They suggest doing this through the reframing of race and racial issues through the experiences of the black community, and not through the lens of White America. Whether this is possible, is difficult to say, but further research on ways in which race lessons can be taught to black adoptees will inform this growing area of re- search, particularly if informed by black adoptees themselves.
Native Americans and the U.S. Child Welfare System
The British colonization of North America involved an organized and methodical cam- paign to decimate the Native American population through invasion, trickery (such as trading land for alcohol), and ultimately the forced relocation of all Native Americans onto government-designated reservations, where the assimilation into the majority culture became a primary goal of the U.S. government (Brown, 2001). The few Native Americans who survived this genocide were broken physically, emotionally, and spiritu- ally, suffering from alcoholism, rampant unemployment, and debilitating depression.
In the early part of the 19th century the U.S. government assumed full responsibil- ity for educating Native American children. It is estimated that from the early 1800s
through the early part of the 20th century, virtually all Native American children were forcibly removed from their homes on the reservations and placed in Indian boarding schools, where they were not allowed to speak in their native tongues, practice their cultural religion, or wear their traditional dress. Dur- ing school breaks many of these children were placed as servants in Caucasian homes rather than being allowed to return home for visits. The result of this forced assimilation amounted to cultural genocide where an entire genera- tion of Native Americans was institutionalized, deprived of a relationship with their biological families, and robbed of their cultural heritage.
This ongoing campaign to assimilate the Native Americans into European American
Student body assembled on the Carlisle Indian School Grounds.
culture became even more aggressive between 1950 and 1970, when social workers with gov- ernmental backing removed thousands of Native American children from their homes on the reservations for alleged maltreatment, placing them in adoptive Caucasian homes. In reality, many of the problems on the reserva- tions were the product of years of governmen- tal oppression resulting in extreme poverty and other commonly associated social ills, and the U.S. government response to this was to tear Native American families apart rather than in- tervene with mental health services.
Between 1941 and 1978, approximately 70 percent of all Native American children were removed from their homes and placed either in orphanages or with Caucasian families,
many of whom later adopted them (Marr, C. 2002). In truth, few of these children were removed from their homes due to maltreatment as it is currently defined. Rather, approximately 99 percent of these children were removed because social workers be- lieved that the children were victims of social deprivation due to the extreme poverty common on most Indian reservations (U.S. Senate, 1974). The result of this govern- ment action has been nothing short of devastating. Native Americans have one of the highest suicide rates in the nation, with Native American youth, particularly those who have spent time in U.S. boarding schools, having on average five to six times the rate of suicide compared to the non-Native American population. When these children grad- uated from high school, they were adults without a culture—no longer feeling com- fortable on the reservation after years of being negatively indoctrinated against their cultural heritage, yet not being accepted by the white population either. The response of many of these individuals was to turn to alcohol in an attempt to drown out the pain.
In 1978, the Indian Child Welfare Act (Pub. L. No. 95-608) was passed, which pre- vented the unjustified removal of Native American children from their homes. The act specifies that if removal is necessary, then the children must be placed in a home that re- flects their culture and preserves tribal tradition. Tribal approval must be obtained prior to placement, even when the placement is a result of a voluntary adoption proceeding (Kreisher, 2002). This act has for the most part successfully stemmed the tide of mass re- moval of thousands of Native American children from their homes on the reservations, but unfortunately many caseworkers still do not understand the reason why such a bill was passed in the first place, or why it is necessary, and mistakenly believe that this act hampers placing needy children in loving homes.
Gaining a fuller understanding of the history between people of color and the U.S. child welfare system will make it easier to understand why some minority groups may not trust human service professionals in issues regarding allegations of abuse. The social worker might not be aware of the long-standing negative history between government
Old Sun Residential School.
child welfare agencies and a particular racial group, but members of that particular group are most likely aware of this history. It is vital that human service profession- als develop cultural competencies, regardless of whether they are actively working with ethnic minority populations. It is only through a comprehensive understanding of the history of child welfare policies and abuses of power that the U.S. child welfare system will truly achieve its goal of respecting the autonomy and dignity of all people, regard- less of race, gender, age, nationality, and sexual orientation.