Examining Child Welfare Decisions and Services for Asian Versus White Children and Families Involved in the Child Welfare System

Background and Purpose:

Asian populations are under-represented in the child welfare system and barriers in accessing and utilizing services have been noted among Asian children and families involved in the child welfare system While there is a growing body of empirical studies that present a profile of investigations involving Asian populations, there is a paucity of empirical studies that examines Asian populations that are deemed in need of ongoing child protection services. The purpose of this study was to compare the profiles of Asian and White households that were closed after investigation versus those being transferred to ongoing child protection services (CPS).

Methods:

The current study was conducted using data from the Ontario Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (OCANDS), which is a provincial level database of child welfare administrative data. The sample was comprised of all Asian and White households who were investigated for alleged child maltreatment (n = 8,675), and then received in-home ongoing CPS (n = 1,988) at any of six research participating agencies between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2012. Pearson’s chi-square (χ²) was conducted for all bivariate analyses. Kaplan-Meir survival analyses were used to examine the duration of ongoing CPS for Asian households and White households. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the odds of re-investigation for any form of maltreatment-related concern within 12 months after the closure of initial child protection investigation.

Results:

Child protection investigations that were transferred to ongoing CPS of Asian and White households presented a similar profile of case characteristics, and caregiver and child clinical needs. For both Asian and White households that were transferred to ongoing CPS, the paramount reason for involvement was due to caregiver functioning concerns. However, Asian households received ongoing CPS for over a month longer than White households, and were less likely (OR = 0.39) to be re-investigated for any form of maltreatment-related concerns within one year after case closure. Therefore, it appears that child protection investigations involving Asian households are less likely to be closed prematurely than White households.

Conclusions and Implications:

The current study found that perhaps Asian households are receiving child welfare intervention as needed. The profile of cases involving Asian households that were transferred to ongoing CPS possesses case characteristics, and caregiver and child needs which suggest that further interventions could be beneficial. The prolonged ongoing CPS involvement may be due to the additional time needed and the complexity of using language translators with Asian children and families. There may also be a lack of community resources for Asian children and families, and child welfare services would have remained open longer to provide the necessary intervention or until more specialized services became available. Family privacy and saving face may inhibit disclosure and future reporting to the child welfare system. This family desire for privacy is a strength and protective factor that may contribute to the lower re-investigation rate for Asian households. Child welfare needs to be mindful of these cultural contexts and provide intervention as needed.