Michigan Race Equity Coalition
2010 – 2012 Michigan Child Welfare Disproportionate Minority Contact
Data Book
Prepared by
Public Policy Associates, Incorporated March 2013
Public Policy Associates, Incorporated is a public policy research, development, and evaluation firm headquartered in Lansing, Michigan. The firm serves clients nationally in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors at the national, state, and local levels by conducting research, analysis, and evaluation that supports informed strategic decision making.
Table of Contents
Explanation of Data Terms 1
Definition of Child Welfare Decision Points 3
Disproportionality Highlights in Michigan, 2010-2012 5
Child Welfare Disproportionality 5
Data Tables 9
Michigan Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2010 11
Michigan Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2011 12
Michigan Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 13
Alcona County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 14
Alger County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 15
Allegan County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 16
Alpena County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 17
Antrim County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 18
Arenac County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 19
Baraga County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 20
Barry County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 21
Bay County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 22
Benzie County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 23
Berrien County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 24
Branch County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 25
Calhoun County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 26
Cass County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 27
Charlevoix County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 28
Cheboygan County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 29
Chippewa County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 30
Clare County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 31
Clinton County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 32
Crawford County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 33
Delta County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 34
Dickinson County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 35
Eaton County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 36
Emmet County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 37
Genesee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 38
Gladwin County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 39
Gogebic County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 40
Grand Traverse County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 41
Gratiot County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 42
Hillsdale County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 43
Houghton County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 44
Huron County Michigan Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 45
Ingham County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 46
Ionia County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 47
Iosco County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 48
Iron County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 49
Isabella County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 50
Jackson County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 51
Kalamazoo County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 52
Kalkaska County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 53
Kent County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 54
Keweenaw County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 55
Lake County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 56
Lapeer County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 57
Leelanau County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 58
Lenawee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 59
Livingston County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 60
Luce County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 61
Mackinac County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 62
Macomb County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 63
Manistee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 64
Marquette County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 65
Mason County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 66
Mecosta County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 67
Menominee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 68
Midland County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 69
Missaukee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 70
Monroe County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 71
Montcalm County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 72
Montmorency County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 73
Muskegon County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 74
Newaygo County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 75
Oakland County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 76
Oceana County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 77
Ogemaw County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 78
Ontonagon County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 79
Osceola County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 80
Oscoda County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 81
Otsego County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 82
Ottawa County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 83
Presque Isle County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 84
Roscommon County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 85
Saginaw County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 86
St. Clair County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 87
St. Joseph County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 88
Sanilac County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 89
Schoolcraft County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 90
Shiawassee County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 91
Tuscola County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 92
Van Buren County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 93
Washtenaw County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 94
Wayne County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 95
Wexford County Child Welfare Disproportionality Summary, 2012 96
Michigan Child Welfare Data Book| Public Policy Associates, Inc. / 7Explanation of Data Terms
This data book contains, for the State of Michigan, a table that summarizes how different racial groups moved through the child welfare system in 2010–2012. The tables show three things: (1) the number of juveniles at each of the decision points, (2) the relative rate index (RRI) for that decision point, and (3) whether that RRI is statistically significant (via formatting).
Why use a count (e.g., “number of cases”)?
A simple tally of the number of occurrences (of disposition, placement, or whatever specific point is under examination) is the most basic unit of analysis. It is especially useful for comparing magnitude—for example, in 2010, two juveniles were placed out of home in Alcona County as were 134 juveniles in Oakland County. That large difference in scale creates important differences in child welfare and in appropriate policy responses in the two jurisdictions.
What is relative rate?
A relative rate compares the rate for a minority group to the rate of the majority. For example, if the assignment rate for Hispanic juveniles in County A is 50 per 1,000 Hispanic juveniles and the assignment rate for white juveniles is 25 per 1,000 white juveniles, then the relative rate is 2: cases are being assigned for Hispanic juveniles in County A at twice the rate of white juveniles.
Why look at relative rate data?
Relative rates measure how disproportionate a system is. Relative rate data provide standardization to the child welfare system in the area—the relative rate for minority juveniles in Kent County is based on the experience of white juveniles in Kent County’s child welfare system, the relative rate for minorities in Alcona County is based on the experience of white juveniles in Alcona County’s child welfare system, and so forth. It is thus the best single measurement of the amount of disproportionate minority contact in a jurisdiction.
What is statistical significance?
Not all statistical occurrences that seem unlikely are statistically significant. For example, a tossed coin could come up heads several times in a row, despite heads and tails being equally likely. Statistical significance testing uses the size of the sample and the degree to which the occurrence is outside the expected range to assess whether it is just “noise”—variation that can be expected in any repeated event—or whether it is a significant finding.
Definition of Child Welfare Decision Points
- Population at Risk (age 0-17): U.S. Census data.
- Complaints Assigned for Investigation (Assignment): Alleged child abuse or neglect reported to the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) that if found true would constitute abuse and neglect within the meaning of the Child Protection Law. Each child in a complaint is assigned to a worker for a field investigation.
- Child Protective Services (CPS) Disposition: Following a field investigation, the Department’s findings are categorized into one of five levels:
- Category I: CPS investigated and found a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and the Child Protection Law or policy requires a petition for court action. The perpetrator is listed on Central Registry.
- Category II: CPS investigated and found a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and the risk to the child is high or intensive. CPS must open a protective services case and provide services. The perpetrator is listed on Central Registry.
- Category III: CPS investigated and found there was a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect and the risk to children was low or moderate. CPS must assist the family in receiving community-based services commensurate with the risk to the child. The perpetrator is not listed on Central Registry.
- Category IV: CPS investigated and found there was not a preponderance of evidence of child abuse and/or neglect. CPS may assist the family in accessing community-based services.
- Category V: CPS investigated and found no evidence of child abuse and/or neglect, or the family did not cooperate and the court did not require them to cooperate, or the family cannot be located.
- Out-of-Home Placement: The child is removed from the parental or custodial home and placed out of home by court order at any time during the child welfare proceedings during that reporting period.
- Termination of Parental Rights: Both parents of the child have had their parental rights terminated either through release or through a termination trial and the appellate period expired during that reporting period.
- Children Exiting Foster Care: Child-level information by type of exit:
- Reunification: The process of reuniting the child with the birth family, which is widely recognized as the initial objective in foster care.
- Adoption: After termination of parental rights, adoption is the preferred goal with permanent legal guardianship as an alternate goal if in the best interests of the child.
- Guardianship: Juvenile guardianship is available for temporary and permanent court wards and state wards when reunification or adoption have been ruled out as permanency goals.
- Relatives: The child is placed with a fit and willing relative in a permanent placement when the child cannot be reunified, adopted, or placed in a guardianship.
- Aged Out: The child turned 18 and has not been reunified, adopted, or placed in a guardianship or with relatives. This is not a permanency goal.
- Death: Children who leave the foster care system through death due to any cause (e.g., illness, accident, crime, or maltreatment).
Note: The data are collected at “point in time” by decision point for the year identified rather than a “cohort” tracking method. All data need to be interpreted cautiously due to the variance in practices between workers and counties. Centralized intake will provide more consistency across the state with practices and data entry.
Disproportionality Highlights in Michigan, 2010-2012
This report displays relative rates and numbers of youth for each decision point in the Child Welfare system, for both the state of Michigan in 2010-2012 and for each county in 2012. This section also provides highlights of Disproportionate Minority Contact (DMC) trends for Michigan. Readers can review county-level data from the most recent year to see whether the same patterns are present.
For 2010-2011 county-level data, please contact Public Policy Associates, Inc. at .
Child Welfare Disproportionality
l Changes 2010-2012:
n While there were too few 2012 cases to calculate a new RRI, deaths among minority children served by CPS decreased from 13 in 2010 to 5 in 2012. During the same period white child deaths increased from 9 to 12. Both total child deaths and the disproportionate rate of deaths among minority children decreased substantially from 2010 to 2012.
n The other changes during this period were smaller:
The RRI for assignments for African-American youth decreased from 1.72 to 1.57.
The RRI for out-of-home placements for Hispanics increased from 1.37 to 1.56.
The RRI for termination of parental rights for Hispanics decreased from 1.21 to 0.95.
The RRI for aging out of foster care for African Americans increased from 2.00 to 2.67.
l In Michigan in 2010:
n Child abuse/neglect complaints assigned for investigation among African-American youth were 1.7 times more likely to occur than child abuse/neglect complaints for white youth.
n Child abuse/neglect Category 1 dispositions among Hispanic youth were 1.25 times more likely to occur than child abuse/neglect Category 1 dispositions for white youth.
n Out-of-home placements among American-Indian or Alaska-Native youth were 1.6 times more likely to occur than out-of-home placements for white youth. For African-American youth, out-of-home placements were 1.3 times more likely; for Hispanic youth, 1.4 times more likely than white youth.
n Terminations of parental rights for Hispanic youth were 1.2 times more likely to occur than terminations of parental rights for white youth.
n African-American youth were 2.3 times more likely to die while in the foster care system than white youth.
l In Michigan in 2011:
n Child abuse/neglect complaints assigned for investigation among African-American youth were 1.6 times more likely to occur than child abuse/neglect complaints for white youth.
n Out-of-home placements among both Hispanic and American-Indian or Alaska-Native youth were 1.6 times more likely to occur than out-of-home placements for white youth.
n Terminations of parental rights for African-American youth were 2.1 times more likely to occur than terminations of parental rights for white youth (this rate is 0.94 for the state of Michigan)
n Adoptions for African-American youth were 1.1 times more likely to occur than for white youth, and reunifications for African-American youth were 1.4 times more likely to occur than for white youth. Since adoption and reunification are the goals of the child welfare system, these figures indicate that in Michigan in 2011, white youth did not fare as well as African-American youth in exiting the foster care system in the most-preferred ways. However, African-American youth were also 2.5 times more likely to age out of the foster care system than white youth.