Exploring Anti-Black Racism and Classism in Child Welfare Worker Decision-Making in Allegations of Child Neglect

Black children are overrepresented in child welfare (CW). Black mothers are more likely than White mothers to live with a low socio-economic status (SES). Factors associated with living with a low-SES, such as running out of food, may be referred to CW as neglect. When neglect referrals are received, how do child welfare workers’ (CWWs) biases influence decision-making? Inspired by the concept of “Blind Removals” (Pryce et al., 2018) a cross-Canada mixed-methods, quasi-experimental online, factorial survey using a child maltreatment vignette (vignette) was developed. It was hypothesized that CWWs’ characteristics, biases about racism and classism, and beliefs about child safety would result in differential decision-making; a lack of awareness of anti-Black racism (ABR) and classism and beliefs of child safety would result in more intrusive decision-making. CWWs were recruited through purposeful sampling. After the collection of demographics, CWWs were randomly assigned to the Control Group (CG) or one of the 3 Experimental Groups (EGs). The CG assessed the full vignette (Black mother, low-SES). Each EG had different information of the mother’s racial identity and SES and EG3 assessed a “blinded” vignette (no race or SES). Four measures were included: the Colour-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale, the Attitude Toward Poverty, the Child Welfare Attitudes Questionnaire – Removal subscale and the Adverse Childhood Experiences. To assess for differences between the CG and EGs’ decision-making, chi-square tests were completed. Due to the small sample size, all CWWs were included to assess for differences in decision-making. Differences were assessed at the bivariate level through chi-square, independent sample t-tests, and one-way ANOVAs. Statistically significant variables were entered into one-block binominal regression models to explore what characteristics and biases predicted decision-making. A content analysis was completed for narratives of Safety Plans. CWWs in the CG were approximately three times as likely as CWWs in EG3 to recommend a safety plan for the children. Overall, CWWs with less awareness of racism were more likely to investigate the referral, apply an urgent response, assess the children at a higher risk of future harm, and open the file. CWWs with decreased awareness of classism were more likely to find the children unsafe and recommend protection services. Participants with increased beliefs of family preservation were more likely to assess the children as safe and at a lower risk of future maltreatment. Six themes were identified in the content analysis: high(er) threshold for safety, attention to child’s well-being, child-centred, low(er) levels for safety, collaboration, and family centred responses. CWWs’ characteristics and biases may contribute to differential decision-making with Black children when assessing child neglect that may contribute to their over-representation in the CW system. As Black families are more likely to live with poverty, they are more likely to come to the attention of CW reporters and agencies. CWWs must be aware of how their biases influence their decision-making; social work education must embed critical approaches challenging ABR and classism. Yet this is insufficient; changes are required at legislation and policy levels to address ABR and perpetuation of classism in CW.