African American, American Indian, Native Alaskan and Pacific Islander children are overrepresented in America's child welfare system. African American children do indeed represent the greatest number of children of color in the child welfare system - however, it is important to note children of other races are over-represented at significant rates. It is also important to note that Asian children are under represented in child welfare in different parts of the country.¹ While Hispanic/Latino children have representation more closely matching representation for white children at the national level, when we look more closely at the state level we see that Hispanic/Latino children were over-represented in 10 states, had comparable representation in 23 states and were under-representation in 17 states. Attached are a series of tables compiled by Casey Family Programs depicting rates of children in out of home care in FY 2005 for your review:

This disproportional representation of children of different racial and ethnic origins has been a major concern for child welfare professionals for decades. What causes disproportionality? Why do children of some races and ethnicities remain in the child welfare system for long periods of time than white children and others rarely enter?

In order to begin to understand the reasons children of different ethnic and racial backgrounds follow alternative paths through and are disproportionately represented within the child welfare system as well as what would serve their needs best, one must look closely at the factors that impact these children and families.² Is the disproportionality appropriate? Are some groups over reported? Are children of other racial and ethnic backgrounds under reported? Are children of different races and ethnic backgrounds exposed to different types of maltreatment? Are these adequate resources for each group? Does institutional bias explain such a high number of children of certain groups in the child welfare system? What is the impact of policy? Do on-line worker's behaviors explain the phenomenon? What role does the community and family play? What is the history of child welfare system involvement in this country? What is the history of the relationship between each cultural community with the United States? Does this have an impact on current treatment?

Recognizing that disproportionality and disparities are present in the child welfare system, what happens to children would depend on factors at several levels: federal and state policy, agency/site, practice, the community, the family, and the individual.

Federal and state policies guide practice. As new policies are crafted, practices change based on new regulations and changes in funding. In addition, private agencies and regional state offices can have their own implemenation guidelines that impact the way workers execute their jobs.

Communities are set up in very different ways and have a wide disparity of resources from one to another. How does community composition impact a family's experiences with the child welfare system? Families are diverse. Depending on their internal resources and strengths, families may need different types and levels of external resources. What do you know about the things that strengthen families to work effectively? Each child is unique.

Do children and families of different racial and ethnic backgrounds have the same experiences? The same world view? If children of different racial and ethnic groups have different strengths and challenges, alternative services might be needed to meet their needs.

And finally, are the needs of children of any race and ethnicity being addressed within the child welfare system?

These are all question that swirl around in our heads when the discussion of disporportional representation of children in the child welfare system takes place. Yes, children, families and communities of different racial and ethnic backgrounds have unique histories, strengths, world views. How has this impacted child welfare involvement in this country? The two documents below help to provide some historical information to begin to address these questions:

In a recent document, Institutional Racism and the Social Work Profession: A Call to Action, The National Association of Social Workers cites addressing institutional racism as critical to improving social work practice. On page three The Call to Action uniforms us that, " Although acknowledging the existence and pervasiveness of the forms racism may take, the emphasis here is not on whether individual social workers are engaging in biased on racist practices. The assumption is that people enter the profession with good intentions and the desire to help. Rather, the focus in on the societal, institutional, structural maintenance of racism and the social worker's role in reference to this macro-level issue. What is key is that the social work profession and the systems through which the profession has evolved historically, into the present, is part of a larger society in which policies, resources, and practices are designed to benefit some groups significantly more than others, while simultaneously denying the existence of racism as a variable, except in its most extreme forms. The responsibility of individual social workers is to recognize that structural racism plays out in their personal and professional lives and to use that awareness to ameliorate its influence in all aspects of social work practice, inclusive of direct practice, community organizing, supervision, consultation, administration, advocacy, social and political action, policy development and implementation, education, and research and evaluation. Furthermore, individual social workers have a responsibility to promote change within and among organizations, and at the societal level.