Racial Disproportionality and

Disparities in the Child Welfare System

Alan J. Dettlaff
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/racial-disproportionality-and-disparities-in-the-child-w
elfare-system-alan-j-dettlaff/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Out of harm s way creating an effective child welfare

system 1st Edition Gelles

https://textbookfull.com/product/out-of-harm-s-way-creating-an-
effective-child-welfare-system-1st-edition-gelles/

Recognizing Child Abuse in Radiology 1st Edition Alan

E. Oestreich

https://textbookfull.com/product/recognizing-child-abuse-in-
radiology-1st-edition-alan-e-oestreich/

Inequality in School Discipline: Research and Practice

to Reduce Disparities 1st Edition Russell J. Skiba

https://textbookfull.com/product/inequality-in-school-discipline-
research-and-practice-to-reduce-disparities-1st-edition-russell-
j-skiba/

Soils and Geotechnology in Construction 1st Edition

Alan J. Lutenegger

https://textbookfull.com/product/soils-and-geotechnology-in-
construction-1st-edition-alan-j-lutenegger/
Creative Compassion, Literature and Animal Welfare
Michael J. Gilmour

https://textbookfull.com/product/creative-compassion-literature-
and-animal-welfare-michael-j-gilmour/

Practices in Power System Management in India J Raja

https://textbookfull.com/product/practices-in-power-system-
management-in-india-j-raja/

Nation Building in the Baltic States Transforming

Governance Social Welfare and Security in Northern
Europe 1st Edition Gundar J. King

https://textbookfull.com/product/nation-building-in-the-baltic-
states-transforming-governance-social-welfare-and-security-in-
northern-europe-1st-edition-gundar-j-king/

Health Disparities, Disasters, And Crises : Approaches

for a Culture of Preparedness 1st Edition Roland J.
Thorpe (Jr.)

https://textbookfull.com/product/health-disparities-disasters-
and-crises-approaches-for-a-culture-of-preparedness-1st-edition-
roland-j-thorpe-jr/

Discrimination and Disparities 2nd Edition Thomas

Sowell

https://textbookfull.com/product/discrimination-and-
disparities-2nd-edition-thomas-sowell/
Child Maltreatment:
Contemporary Issues in Research and Policy 11

Alan J. Dettlaff Editor

Racial
Disproportionality
and Disparities in
the Child Welfare
System
Child Maltreatment

Contemporary Issues in Research and Policy

Volume 11

Series Editors
Jill E. Korbin
Schubert Center for Child Studies
Cleveland, OH, USA
Richard D. Krugman
University of Colorado School of Medicine
Aurora, CO, USA
This series provides a high-quality, cutting edge, and comprehensive source offering
the current best knowledge on child maltreatment from multidisciplinary and mul-
ticultural perspectives. It consists of a core handbook that is followed by two or three
edited volumes of original contributions per year. The core handbook will present a
comprehensive view of the field. Each chapter will summarize current knowledge
and suggest future directions in a specific area. It will also highlight controversial
and contested issues in that area, thus moving the field forward. The handbook will
be updated every five years. The edited volumes will focus on critical issues in the
field from basic biology and neuroscience to practice and policy. Both the handbook
and edited volumes will involve creative thinking about moving the field forward
and will not be a recitation of past research. Both will also take multidisciplinary,
multicultural and mixed methods approaches.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8863

Alan J. Dettlaff
Editor

Racial Disproportionality
and Disparities in the Child
Welfare System
Editor
Alan J. Dettlaff
Graduate College of Social Work
University of Houston
Houston, TX, USA

ISSN 2211-9701 ISSN 2211-971X (electronic)

Child Maltreatment
ISBN 978-3-030-54313-6 ISBN 978-3-030-54314-3 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54314-3

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Contents

Part I Understanding and Identifying Racial Disproportionality

and Disparities
1 Introduction to Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in
Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Alan J. Dettlaff
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality
and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Alan J. Dettlaff
3 Measurement Issues in Identifying and Describing Racial
Disproportionality and Disparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Nancy Rolock, Qiana Cryer-Coupet, and Colleen Janczewski
4 Racial Disproportionality and Disparities Among African
American Children in the Child Welfare System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Jessica Pryce and Anna Yelick
5 Racial Disproportionality and Disparities Among Latinx
Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Michelle Johnson-Motoyama, Rebecca Phillips, and Oliver Beer
6 Racial Disproportionality and Disparities Among American
Indian and Alaska Native Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Terry L. Cross
7 Underrepresented Populations in the Child Welfare System:
Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Rowena Fong and Georgina Petronella

v
vi Contents

Part II Explaining Disproportionality and Disparities

8 Racial Bias as an Explanatory Factor for Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities in Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Marian S. Harris
9 Disproportionate Need as a Factor Explaining Racial
Disproportionality in the CW System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
Brett Drake, Melissa Jonson-Reid, Hyunil Kim, Chien-Jen Chiang,
and Daji Davalishvili
10 Child Welfare System Issues as Explanatory Factors for
Racial Disproportionality and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Michele D. Hanna
11 How Place Matters in Child Maltreatment Disparities:
Geographical Context as an Explanatory Factor for Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
Kathryn Maguire-Jack, Jill E. Korbin, Adam Perzynski,
Claudia Coulton, Sarah A. Font, and James C. Spilsbury

Part III Consequences of Disproportionality and Disparities

12 Individual Consequences of Racial Disproportionality
and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
Reiko Boyd
13 The Community Impact of Racial Disproportionality:
The Racial Geography of Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
Dorothy Roberts

Part IV Preventing and Reducing Disproportionality and Disparities

14 Preventive Intervention: A Key Strategy for Addressing
Child Welfare Disparities and Disproportionality for
African American Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Brenda Jones Harden, Laura Jimenez Parra,
and Melissa Duchene-Kelly
15 Workforce Development Strategies to Address Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities in Child Welfare Systems . . . . . 285
Anita P. Barbee and Becky F. Antle
16 Family Meetings as a System Reform to Address Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
Heather Allan, Mary Elizabeth Rauktis, Joan Pennell,
Lisa Merkel-Holguin, and David Crampton
Contents vii

17 Racial Disparities in Child Welfare: A Decision-Making Ecology

View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
John D. Fluke, Donald J. Baumann, Len I. Dalgleish,
and Homer D. Kern
18 Seeking Racial Equity in the Dependency Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353
Jesse Russell
19 The Institutional Analysis: A Tool for Diagnosing Structural
Contributors to Racial Disproportionality and Disparity in
Child Welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Kristen Weber and Sarah Morrison
20 Creating Comprehensive System Reform to Reduce Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities: The Texas Community
Engagement Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
Joyce James, Donald J. Baumann, Carolyne Rodriguez, Sheila Craig,
and Stephanie Kathan
21 Legislative Solutions to Address Racial Disproportionality
and Disparities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Jessica Dixon Weaver

Part V Conclusion
22 Towards an Anti-Racist Child Welfare Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
Alan J. Dettlaff and Reiko Boyd
 Part I
Understanding and Identifying Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities
Chapter 1
Introduction to Racial Disproportionality
and Disparities in Child Welfare

Alan J. Dettlaff

1.1 Introduction

The overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system has long been
identified as a concern in the field of child welfare. Commonly referred to as racial
disproportionality, this phenomenon has most significantly impacted Black children,
with national data indicating that Black children represent 23% of children in foster
care, although they represent only 14% of children in the general population (KIDS
Count Data Center, 2019; United States Department of Health and Human Services,
2019). This overrepresentation of Black children has been observed in the child
welfare system for more than 50 years (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972), yet persists
as a national problem. While the national dialogue has focused largely on the
overrepresentation of Black children, racial disproportionality has also been
observed among Native American and Latinx children, although to a lesser degree
and with variations by state.
Racial disproportionality among children in foster care results from racial dis-
parities that occur along the child welfare service pathway. Beginning with the
initial report of alleged maltreatment, children who are subjects of these reports
become involved in a process in which multiple decisions are made that affect the
likelihood of their entry into and exit from foster care. These decisions are made not
only by child welfare caseworkers, but also by supervisors, agency administrators,
family court judges, and other legal professionals, as well as professionals external to
the child welfare system and the general public. At each of these decision-making
points, there exists the potential for disparities to occur that differentially impact
children of color. Ultimately, racial disparities that occur in both entries into the
system and exits from the system produce racial disproportionality.

A. J. Dettlaff (*)
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: ajdettla@Central.UH.EDU

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 3

A. J. Dettlaff (ed.), Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in the Child Welfare
System, Child Maltreatment 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54314-3_1
4 A. J. Dettlaff

1.2 Defining and Identifying Racial Disproportionality

and Disparities

The terms disproportionality and disparities have held numerous definitions in the
child welfare literature devoted to this topic. The concept of disproportionality in
child welfare grew from efforts in the juvenile justice system to measure and
understand disproportionate minority contact and arose out of growing awareness
and acknowledgement that children of different races were represented in the child
welfare system at different rates. The initial identification and use of the term
disproportionality was intended to document this phenomenon and to acknowledge
the need to better understand why this was occurring. However, as the understanding
of disproportionality evolved over time, and the identification of racial disparities
emerged as a means of documenting differential outcomes experienced by children
of color, the terms have often been confused or used interchangeably to denote the
presence of racial inequities in the child welfare system. Yet understanding the
meaning of these terms and what they mean for child welfare systems is an important
component in developing an appropriate response to address them.

1.2.1 Disproportionality

The term disproportionality refers to the state of being out of proportion. It describes
a condition that exists when the proportion of individuals of a certain race in a target
population differs from the proportion of individuals of the same group in a reference
population. In the context of the child welfare system, disproportionality is most
commonly used to describe a condition when the proportion of one group in the child
welfare population (i.e., children in foster care) is either proportionately larger
(overrepresented) or smaller (underrepresented) than the proportion of the same
group in the general child population. As stated previously, national data from
2018 show that Black children represent 23% of children in foster care, although
they represented only 14% of children in the general population, indicating over-
representation with a disproportionality ratio of 1.6.1 This represents a decrease in
disproportionality since 2000 when Black children represented 38% of children in
foster care and 16% of the child population, a ratio of 2.5 (Summers, Wood, &
Russell, 2012). In addition to overrepresentation at the national level, Black children
are consistently overrepresented at the state level. In 2015, Black children were
overrepresented in 46 of 50 states with disproportionality ratios ranging from 1.1
(Alabama, Arkansas, Maine, Montana, Tennessee) to 3.5 (Iowa) (National Council
of Juvenile and Family Court Judges [NCJFCJ], 2017).

1
The disproportionality ratio is calculated by dividing the percentage of children in foster care for a
given year from one racial group by the percentage of children in the child population (under 18)
from the same racial group in the same year.
1 Introduction to Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in Child Welfare 5

These patterns differ for children of other races. Native American children
represent approximately 2% of children in foster care although they represent only
1% of children in the general population, indicating overrepresentation with a ratio
of 2.0. Native American children are overrepresented in 20 states, with
disproportionality ratios as high as 13.1 in Minnesota (NCJFCJ, 2017). Latinx
children are underrepresented at the national level, as they represent 21% of children
in foster care although they make up 25% of the general child population. However,
they are overrepresented in 20 states with a disproportionality ratio as high as 9.0 in
Maine (NCJFCJ, 2017). Asian American and Pacific Islander children are consis-
tently underrepresented at both the national and state levels, although they are
overrepresented in one state—Hawaii—with a disproportionality ratio of 1.4
(NCJFCJ, 2017).

1.2.2 Disparity

While disproportionality refers to the state of being out of proportion, disparity refers
to a state of being unequal. In the child welfare system, disparity is used to describe
unequal outcomes experienced by one racial group when compared to another racial
group (in contrast, disproportionality compares the proportion of one racial group in
the child welfare system to the same racial group in the population). Disparities can
occur at every decision-making point in the child welfare system, including the
initial report that brings children to the attention of the system, acceptance of reports
for investigation, substantiation of maltreatment, entries into foster care, and exits
from foster care. For example, if the rate of Black children being reported to the child
welfare system in one state is considerably greater than the rate of White children
being reported to the same system, this would denote a disparity.
Over the past two decades, a considerable number of studies have identified
disparities at various decision-making points along the child welfare service delivery
pathway. These include the initial report of alleged maltreatment (Miller, 2008;
Putnam-Hornstein, Needell, King, & Johnson-Motoyama, 2013), acceptance for
investigation (Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson, & Curtis, 2003; Harris & Hackett, 2008),
substantiation of alleged maltreatment (Font, Berger, & Slack, 2012; Putnam-
Hornstein et al., 2013), placement into out-of-home care (Maguire-Jack, Font, &
Dillard, 2020; Rivaux et al., 2008), and exits from care (Huggins-Hoyt, Briggs,
Mowbray, & Allen, 2019; Miller, 2008). These racial disparities that impact both
entries into foster care and exits from foster care produce and maintain the overrep-
resentation that is persistently observed in child welfare systems across the country.
Thus, understanding where racial disparities exist and why they are occurring is
essential to understanding disproportionality.
6 A. J. Dettlaff

1.3 Organization of This Volume

This text is designed as a comprehensive overview of our current understanding of

racial disproportionality and disparities in the child welfare system, why they exist,
the consequences of their existence, and strategies to address them. Foundational to
this text is an understanding and acknowledgement of racism as the overarching
contributing factor to the existence of racial disproportionality and disparities. This
framework for understanding disproportionality and disparities is presented in
Chap. 2, along with a historical examination of how our understanding of racial
disproportionality and disparities has evolved over time. Chapter 3 presents the
approaches that are used to identify the presence of racial disproportionality and
disparities, as well as some of the challenges associated with measurement. Chapters
4–7 then review the existence of racial disproportionality and disparities as they are
manifested across various populations of children and families.
Part II presents the various explanations for why racial disproportionality and
disparities exist organized around four primary contributing factors identified in the
literature—racial bias, disproportionate need, child welfare system issues, and geo-
graphic context. Each of these chapters address the overarching role of racism as the
underlying contributing factor to their focal issue. Each of these chapters should also
be understood as complementary and related to each other, as disproportionality and
disparities are complex phenomena that result from multiple and inter-related
concerns.
Part III presents a discussion of the consequences of racial disproportionality and
disparities, at both the individual and community levels. The consequences of racial
disproportionality and disparities are often neglected in child welfare literature, and
as such, these chapters provide an important context for understanding what results
from the continued existence of disproportionality and disparities and the harm that
is caused to vulnerable children and families.
Part IV presents various strategies that have been used by child welfare and
related systems to address and reduce disproportionality and disparities, ranging
from prevention to multiple forms of system-level interventions, to legislative
solutions designed to enact change. These strategies are not exhaustive, yet they
represent the types of large-scale efforts that are necessary to bring about meaningful
change.
Part IV concludes with a vision for an anti-racist future that examines what it will
really take if we are to eliminate racial disproportionality and disparities in the child
welfare system. After decades of efforts to address these concerns, we have seen
improvements, yet debates that persist about the causes of disproportionality have
largely stalled efforts to address this, and what has been known to be a problem in
child welfare systems for decades is now viewed by some as an acceptable status
quo. An anti-racist future begins with the acknowledgement that racial inequities in
any social service system, as well as in society at large, are never an acceptable status
quo. Eliminating the racial inequities that exist in child welfare will take bold steps
that completely reimagine our understanding of what child welfare means.
1 Introduction to Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in Child Welfare 7

Ultimately, an anti-racist future envisions a child welfare agency that achieves racial
equity by keeping families together rather than separating them. Only when this
occurs, can real equity be achieved.

References

Billingsley, A., & Giovannoni, J. M. (1972). Children of the storm: Black children and American
child welfare. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanivich.
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate representation of
race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization. Children and Youth
Services Review, 25, 359–373.
Font, S. A., Berger, L. M., & Slack, K. S. (2012). Examining racial disproportionality in child
protective services case decisions. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2188–2200.
Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to
address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 199–215.
Huggins-Hoyt, K. Y., Briggs, H. E., Mowbray, O., & Allen, J. L. (2019). Privatization, racial
disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Outcomes for foster children of color. Children
and Youth Services Review, 99, 125–131.
KIDS Count Data Center. (2019). Child population by race in the United States. Retrieved from
https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/103-child-population-by-race#detailed/
Maguire-Jack, K., Font, S. A., & Dillard, R. (2020). Child protective services decision-making: The
role of children’s race and county factors. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 90(1), 48–62.
Miller, M. (2008). Racial disproportionality in Washington State’s child welfare system. Olympia,
WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (2017). Disproportionality rates for
children in foster care: Fiscal year 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ncjfcj.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/NCJFCJ-Disproportionality-TAB-2015_0.pdf
Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., King, B., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2013). Racial and ethnic
disparities: A population-based examination of risk factors for involvement with child protective
services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 33–46.
Rivaux, S. L., James, J., Wittenstrom, K., Baumann, D., Sheets, J., Henry, J., et al. (2008). The
intersection of race, poverty, and risk: Understanding the decision to provide services to clients
and to remove children. Child Welfare, 87, 151–168.
Summers, A., Wood, S., & Russell, J. (2012). Disproportionality rates for children of color in
foster care. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2019). The AFCARS
report: Preliminary FY 2018 estimates as of August 22, 2019. Retrieved from https://www.acf.
hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport26.pdf

Alan J. Dettlaff is Dean of the Graduate College of Social Work at the University of Houston and
the inaugural Maconda Brown O’Connor Endowed Dean’s Chair. Prior to joining the University of
Houston, Dean Dettlaff served on the faculty of the Jane Addams College of Social Work at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. He received his bachelor’s degree in social work from TCU, and
master’s in social work and PhD from the University of Texas at Arlington. Dean Dettlaff’s
research focuses on improving outcomes for children and youth in the child welfare system by
examining and addressing issues of structural and institutional racism that contribute to the
disproportionate overrepresentation of children of color in this system.
Chapter 2
The Evolving Understanding of Racial
Disproportionality and Disparities

Alan J. Dettlaff

2.1 Introduction

As noted in Chap. 1, racial disproportionality has been observed in the child welfare
system for more than 50 years. Yet although the existence of racial
disproportionality is well documented, the factors that contribute to this problem
have been the subject of debate in recent years. At issue is whether the observed
levels of overrepresentation result from racial bias within child welfare systems or
from differing levels of need among children and families of color. Recent critiques
of efforts to address disproportionality have brought increased attention to this issue,
particularly concerning observed disparities in the incidence of maltreatment and the
subsequent need for intervention. Elizabeth Bartholet (2009), in her paper The
Racial Disproportionality Movement in Child Welfare: False Facts and Dangerous
Directions, contended that the observed differences in the representation of Black
children in the child welfare system occur because Black children are in fact
maltreated at higher rates than children of other races, and thus should be placed
into foster care at higher rates than other children. She contended that higher rates of
maltreatment in Black families are to be expected because Black children are more
likely to be exposed to many of the risk factors associated with maltreatment,
including poverty, substance abuse, and single parenting.
These claims were initially met with resistance, as prior research, most notably
the federally funded National Incidence Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS),
conducted in 1980 (NIS-1), 1986 (NIS-2), and 1993 (NIS-3), had historically shown
no significant differences in the actual incidence of maltreatment across children of
different racial groups (Sedlak, 1991; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Sedlak & Schultz,
2005). However, findings from the NIS-4 (Sedlak et al., 2010), released in 2010,

A. J. Dettlaff (*)
University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
e-mail: ajdettla@Central.UH.EDU

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 9

A. J. Dettlaff (ed.), Racial Disproportionality and Disparities in the Child Welfare
System, Child Maltreatment 11, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54314-3_2
10 A. J. Dettlaff

found for the first time that rates of maltreatment for Black children were signifi-
cantly higher than those for White or Hispanic children. In supplemental analyses of
these race differences, the authors concluded that these observed differences were
the result of greater precision of the NIS-4 estimates, as well as an increased disparity
in income between Black and White families since the NIS-3 (Sedlak, McPherson, &
Das, 2010).
The discussion raised by Bartholet and the subsequent findings of the NIS-4 have
led to calls to reevaluate efforts to address disproportionality, particularly those
efforts that have focused on reducing bias within child welfare systems, with critics
suggesting that it is not bias, but rather disproportionate need, that results in
disproportionality (e.g., Drake et al., 2011). Yet others contend that racial bias still
plays a role in contributing to disproportionality, despite differences in rates of
maltreatment (e.g., Dettlaff et al., 2011; Rivaux et al., 2008). The body of research
that has emerged over the past decade and the resulting critiques of efforts to address
disproportionality have begun a debate within the child welfare field that has elicited
strong feelings from many involved, with most scholars aligning themselves with
one side or the other, while those in child welfare agencies and educational envi-
ronments are left questioning the meaning of these research findings and how to
proceed with efforts to address this issue. The result has been that many efforts to
address disproportionality have stalled, and what has been known as a problem in
child welfare for decades remains unresolved.
Yet while findings from the NIS-4, as well as subsequent studies, have
highlighted the role of poverty as a contributing factor, they do not completely
explain the presence of disproportionality and disparities, nor do they sufficiently
explain away the role of racial bias. Further, narratives that present explanations of
racial bias and explanations of disproportionate need as opposing viewpoints lose
sight of the larger problems of structural and institutional racism that contribute to
both. This chapter will discuss how the understanding of disproportionality and
disparities has evolved over time, and present a framework for understanding
disproportionality and disparities that focuses on racism as the overarching cause
of these problems. This understanding of racism as the overarching cause of
disproportionality and disparities is essential to focus our attention on the real
problem we must address in our efforts to achieve racial equity in child welfare
systems.

2.2 Early Understandings of Disproportionality

The overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare system was first
brought to national attention by Billingsley and Giovannoni (1972) in their seminal
publication, Children of the Storm: Black Children and American Child Welfare.
Prior to the 1950s, Black children were largely excluded from child welfare systems,
as the bulk of agencies providing child welfare services were created to serve poor
White immigrants (Hogan & Siu, 1988). Yet as changes in migration patterns
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 11

occurred among Blacks during the 1950s and 1960s, both from rural to urban areas
and from the South to the North, along with an increased focus on integration and
decreasing poverty rates among White children, the involvement of Black children
in the child welfare system grew steadily (Billingsley & Giovannoni, 1972; Hogan &
Siu, 1988). By the end of the 1970s, a number of studies had identified that Black
children had emerged as the most overrepresented group in this system (e.g., Close,
1983; Shyne & Schroeder, 1978). As awareness of this overrepresentation grew
throughout the 1980s and 1990s, this led to increasing calls for states to develop
responses to address this issue, leading to several states passing legislation mandat-
ing system responses in the mid-2000s (e.g., Michigan Department of Human
Services & Skillman Foundation, 2006; Texas Health and Human Services Com-
mission, 2006), as well as national efforts to assist in these responses (e.g., Casey
Family Programs, 2009).
As awareness of racial disproportionality grew, early understandings of
disproportionality were shaped largely by findings of the National Incidence Studies
of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS). The NIS is a mandated effort of the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and has been conducted at varying
intervals since 1978. The goal of the NIS is to provide estimates of the incidence of
child abuse and neglect in the United States and to report changes in incidence over
time. In contrast to official rates of maltreatment, which are determined by substan-
tiated investigations of abuse or neglect conducted by child protective services
(CPS) agencies, the NIS attempts to estimate the actual incidence of maltreatment
by collecting data from community professionals in sentinel agencies, in addition to
data from CPS. Thus, the NIS estimates include children in the official CPS statistics
and those who are not. The NIS employs two standards in identifying maltreat-
ment—the Harm Standard, which requires that an incident resulted in demonstrable
harm to a child, and the Endangerment Standard, which includes children who have
not yet been harmed but were believed to be endangered as a result of maltreatment
(Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al., 2010).
As indicated previously, prior to the release of NIS-4 in 2010, the NIS had been
conducted on three occasions—NIS-1 in 1979 and 1980, NIS-2 in 1986, and NIS-3
in 1993. These prior studies had consistently found no significant differences in
actual rates of maltreatment between Black children and children of other races.
Specifically, NIS-3 reported:
No significant or marginal racial differences in the incidence of maltreatment were found
either within the NIS-3 data or in the comparison of changes since the NIS-2. This was true
for both the Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard findings. It is interesting to note
that this is also the case in the NIS-2. That is, there were no significant race differences in any
category for either standard, and none of the changes between the NIS-1 and the NIS-2 were
modified by child’s race (Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996, pp. 4.28–4.29).

The report went on to state:

The NIS findings suggest that the different races receive differential attention somewhere
during the process of referral, investigation, and service allocation, and that the differential
representation of minorities in the child welfare population does not derive from inherent
differences in the rates at which they are abused or neglected (pp. 8–7).
12 A. J. Dettlaff

Thus, both the findings from the NIS data and the conclusions drawn in the NIS-3
final report suggest rather unequivocally that there are no racial differences in the
incidence of maltreatment and that any differential rates of representation for
children of color are not the result of differences in rates of maltreatment. The report
even raises the issue of “differential attention” as a factor that can explain the
overrepresentation of children of color.
Following the release of this report in 1996, these findings were used to point to a
problem of racial bias in child welfare systems. For example, using data from the
National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCANDS), Morton (1999)
found that Black children were involved in substantiated cases of maltreatment at a
rate that was disproportionate to their percentage in the population in 40 states for
which data were available. In his discussion of these findings, Morton cited the
NIS-3, stating, “This. . .directly contradicts the apparent higher incidence rate
suggested by founded allegations of child maltreatment. How could the reported
incidence based on founded allegations be so significantly out of proportion, given
the NIS-3 findings?” (p. 25). Given the lack of racial differences found in the NIS-3,
he later states, “As a result, one could argue that there should be proportional racial
representation throughout the system. If proportional representation does not exist, a
strong argument is created for the existence of differential treatment by race” (p. 26).
Similarly, in a paper published the same year, Yegidis and Morton (1999) wrote:
All three National Incidence Studies (NIS) conducted by the Department of Health and
Human Services concluded that there are no significant or marginal differences in the
incidence of child maltreatment based on race. Since incidence is measured in rates per
thousand, this means that all groups should be represented in the child welfare system
consistent with their proportion of the population as a whole. If not, then a basis for the
presumption of bias exists (p. 1).

This interpretation of the NIS-3 findings shaped the understanding of

disproportionality throughout the next decade, with many additional studies com-
paring the lack of racial differences in rates of maltreatment as found in the NIS-3
with the consistent overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare system
as evidence of a growing problem.

2.2.1 Subsequent Theories Regarding Disproportionality

Despite being acknowledged since the 1970s, significant national attention

concerning racial disproportionality did not occur until the early 2000s, following
the publication of the NIS-3, which resulted in several prominent calls for action.
This led to a considerable increase in studies examining disproportionality in
attempts to explain this growing problem. By the mid-2000s, several scholars had
proposed theories, based on available evidence, explaining the existence of racial
disproportionality. Hines, Lemon, Wyatt, and Merdinger (2004) reviewed the
existing literature and proposed four potential factors that were likely interrelated:
(1) parent and family risk factors, (2) social factors including poverty and
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 13

community risks, (3) race and class biases in the child welfare system, and (4) the
impact of child welfare policies such as the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA)
and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) on children of color. Barth (2005)
also proposed four models for explaining disproportionality: (1) differential need
resulting from differential risk (although it was acknowledged that this did not fit
well with the NIS-3), (2) racial bias that affects decision-making in child welfare
agencies, (3) placement dynamics, including the increasing use of kinship care,
which may result in longer lengths of stay, and (4) the multiplicative model, which
suggests that the three prior factors are all at play and interact to produce
disproportionality. Similarly, findings from a Government Accountability Office
(2007) study examining disproportionality concluded that there were three major
contributing factors to this phenomenon: (1) higher rates of poverty among Black
families and the resulting risks, (2) bias and cultural misunderstandings in child
welfare systems, and (3) longer stays in foster care due to difficulty in recruiting
adoptive parents and the greater reliance on kinship care in cases with Black
children. Thus, in much of the literature, there was consistent awareness that
disproportionality was a complex phenomenon that likely resulted from multiple
factors, including those within families, within communities, and within the child
welfare system.

2.3 Shifting Dialogue

While awareness of these complexities was emerging in the literature, the problem of
racial bias remained the predominant concern among most within the child welfare
field. This was evident in many of the state-level initiatives designed to respond to
disproportionality in their systems. For example, following a legislative mandate to
address disproportionality in the Texas child welfare system, a priority in the state’s
response was the provision of Undoing Racism training for administrators, front-line
staff, and community stakeholders (James, Green, Rodriguez, & Fong, 2008).
Undoing Racism is a two-and-a-half-day workshop conducted by the People’s
Institute for Survival and Beyond that is designed to educate and empower partic-
ipants to undo the structures of racism that hinder racial equality and to become
effective organizers for change (PISAB, 2006). As of 2010, over 2000 staff and
external stakeholders had participated in the Undoing Racism workshop (Baumann
et al., 2010). According to a policy report released by the Alliance for Racial Equity
in Child Welfare (2009), at least seven other states—including California, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington—have used either
Undoing Racism or Knowing Who You Are, a curriculum developed by Casey
Family Programs highlighting the importance of understanding and addressing racial
identity, as key elements in their overall strategies to address disproportionality.
Yet the dialogue concerning disproportionality shifted considerably following the
publication of the previously mentioned paper by Elizabeth Bartholet in 2009. In this
paper, Bartholet critiqued the assertion that disproportionality was caused by racial
14 A. J. Dettlaff

discrimination or systemic biases in decision-making, stating that those making this

assertion were overly relying on statistics from the NIS, and ignoring evidence to the
contrary. She presented multiple critiques of the NIS data, and stated that the
commonly cited assertion that these data showed no evidence of racial differences
in maltreatment had been effectively debunked. The paper drew upon multiple
studies that documented the increased exposure among Black families to predictors
of child maltreatment, including poverty, unemployment, single-parenting, sub-
stance abuse, and disadvantaged neighborhoods, to make the claim that Black
children were overrepresented in the child welfare system not because of racial
bias, but because maltreatment rates were higher among Black families. Thus,
overrepresentation was not only to be expected but also appropriate.
But in addition to presenting an argument that overrepresentation was the result of
a higher incidence of maltreatment rather than bias or discrimination, Bartholet
directly criticized the emphasis among child welfare systems that focused on
addressing racial bias while ignoring other potential causes, stating, “Focus on the
claimed racism of child welfare workers puts attention on a non-problem, while
ignoring the real problems of the black community—the societal legacy of racial
injustice and the miserable socio-economic conditions that characterize too many
black lives” (p. 878). Of greatest concern, she further contended that this emphasis
on racial bias and the goal of reducing the number of removals of Black children
would ultimately result in harm to those children, stating,
If black children are in fact subject to serious maltreatment by their parents at higher rates
than white children, it is in their interest to be removed at higher rates than white children. If
the child welfare system is wrongfully found discriminatory, and, as a result, stops removing
black children at serious risk for ongoing maltreatment, the children will suffer immediate
and dangerous consequences (p. 874).

Rather than focusing their efforts on addressing racial bias, Bartholet suggested
that child welfare systems’ efforts should be directed toward reducing maltreatment
rates among Black children by expanding prevention programs, and through greater
attention, both among child welfare systems and the larger society, to reducing the
underlying social problems experienced by many Black families that increase their
risk exposure.
Although this paper served to raise the dialogue and challenge some previously
held beliefs, many continued to point to the consistent NIS findings of no racial
differences in maltreatment. This changed in 2010, following the long-awaited
publication of the NIS-4 (Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al., 2010). NIS-4 collected data
in 2005 and 2006, and sampled many more counties, as well as more CPS and
sentinel agencies, than in previous versions of the study, which resulted in more
precise estimates than in prior versions. Specifically, NIS-4 sampled 122 counties, in
contrast to 42 counties sampled in NIS-3, and 29 counties sampled in NIS-2 (Sedlak,
1991; Sedlak & Broadhurst, 1996; Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al. 2010). For the first
time, findings from the NIS-4 showed that rates of maltreatment for Black children
were significantly higher than those for White or Hispanic children in several
maltreatment categories. While there were differences according to maltreatment
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 15

type, results of the NIS-4 found that Black children experienced significantly higher
rates of overall maltreatment, overall abuse, physical abuse, and serious harm from
their maltreatment (Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al., 2010). This was found under both the
Harm Standard and the Endangerment Standard used by the NIS-4. The authors also
noted that although the NIS-4 found a general decline in rates of maltreatment since
the NIS-3, that decline was not consistent across racial groups. Rather, maltreatment
rates for White children decreased more or increased less than maltreatment rates for
Black children across several maltreatment categories (Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al.,
2010). In supplemental analyses of these observed race differences, the authors
concluded that these differences were partly the result of the greater precision of
the NIS-4 estimates, as well as an increased gap in income between Black and White
families since the NIS-3 (Sedlak, McPherson, & Das, 2010).
While these findings were initially a surprise to some, Drake and Jonson-Reid
(2011) pointed out that racial differences in maltreatment were in fact present in both
the NIS-2 and NIS-3. In their review of the prior findings, they stated, “Although not
significantly different, the NIS-2 and NIS-3 race point estimates were consistent with
each other and with the NIS-4, both in general magnitude and valence. Black
children were 87% more likely than White children to be victims of maltreatment
in the NIS-2, 51% more likely in the NIS-3, and 73% more likely in the NIS-4”
(p. 17). They point out that the failure to achieve statistical significance in the prior
versions of the NIS was not evidence of a lack of racial differences. Rather, large
confidence intervals in both the NIS-2 and NIS-3 prevented the differences that were
present in the race estimates from achieving statistical significance.
The combination of the Bartholet paper, which rejected the claims of the prior
NIS findings, along with data from the NIS-4 which documented significant racial
differences in rates of child maltreatment, substantively changed the discourse
concerning racial disproportionality and disparities in the United States. The logic
that had previously been used to support the notion that the overrepresentation of
Black children was an indicator of bias in the child welfare system could no longer
be applied, as the most current evidence now indicated that Black children experi-
enced maltreatment at rates greater than children of other races. The Bartholet paper
and the NIS-4 also brought renewed focus to the relationship between poverty and
maltreatment, and the likelihood that greater exposure to poverty among Black
families was a significant contributor to their overrepresentation in the child welfare
system.
Since then, several additional studies have shown a relationship between poverty
and maltreatment among Black families, and have found that when controlling for
the effects of poverty, race is not a significant factor in the observed racial differ-
ences (e.g., Laskey et al., 2012; Putnam-Hornstein, Needell, King, & Johnson-
Motoyama, 2013). Combined with the NIS-4 findings on racial differences in
maltreatment, many have called for a shift in both the discourse on disproportionality
and in the ways in which child welfare systems respond to disproportionality (e.g.,
Bartholet, 2011; Bartholet, Wulczyn, Barth, & Lederman, 2011; Drake et al., 2011).
These calls have advocated for responses that emphasize the role of poverty in
contributing to disproportionality and a focus on prevention programs targeted to
16 A. J. Dettlaff

disadvantaged Black communities as well as broader responses that address the

underlying social conditions that contribute to disproportionately negative outcomes
among Black families.

2.4 Poverty and Evidence of Racial Bias

Although poverty does not cause maltreatment, a large body of research developed
over the past several decades has documented that maltreatment occurs dispropor-
tionately among poor families (e.g., Drake, Lee, & Jonson-Reid, 2009; Drake &
Pandey, 1996; Freisthler, Bruce, & Needell, 2007). This was confirmed in the most
recent NIS-4, which found that children in low socioeconomic status households
experienced some form of maltreatment at a rate more than five times the rate of
other children (Sedlak, Mettenburg, et al., 2010). However, because of the absence
of racial differences in maltreatment in prior versions of the NIS, the relationship
between poverty and the overrepresentation of Black children in the child welfare
system had often been overlooked.
Yet while findings from the NIS-4, as well as subsequent studies, have supported
the role of poverty as a contributing factor, they do not completely explain the
presence of disproportionality and disparities, nor do they provide evidence that
racial bias doesn’t further contribute to this problem. In fact, an emerging body of
research has begun to examine various child welfare decision points, while control-
ling for family income as well as risk of maltreatment, in attempts to isolate the
effects of race and its contribution to racial disparities.
Using data from the Texas child welfare system, Rivaux et al. (2008) examined
two related decision points—the decision to provide services to families, and among
those in need of services, the decision to remove a child from home in lieu of
providing in-home services. To control for poverty, the authors used measures of
family household income gathered by caseworkers as part of the maltreatment
investigation, and to control for risk of maltreatment, the authors used a risk score
constructed by summing the scores of risk scales completed by caseworkers as part
of their assessment. Additional covariates included family and child characteristics,
region of the state, type of reporter, and type of maltreatment. After controlling for
both poverty and risk, results indicated that race was a significant predictor of both
the decision to provide services and the decision to remove children from the home.
Specifically, Black children were 20% more likely to be involved in cases in which
services were provided compared to White children. Among those in need of
services, Black children were 77% more likely to be removed and placed into foster
care in lieu of receiving services in their home when compared to White children.
The inclusion of risk in this study, in addition to family income, allowed for an
important interpretation to be made regarding the role of race as a factor contributing
to these outcomes. In the child welfare system, decisions to remove children and
place them in foster care are primarily based on the assessment of risk of future
maltreatment. When risk is too great to warrant the provision of services within the
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 17

home, removal is deemed necessary. Thus by holding both risk and income constant,
the emergence of race as a significant predictor of removal indicates that the race of
the child influenced the decisions made regarding that child, suggesting that racial
bias in decision-making remains an important factor in contributing to racial
disparities.
The authors of this study also identified an interesting relationship between race,
income, and risk. As would be expected, results of this study found that lower
income was associated with higher perceptions of risk. However, among cases
opened for services and in which children were removed, Black families were
assessed as having lower risk than White families. The authors suggested that rather
than race directly influencing the assessment of risk, the observed disparities may be
better explained by differences in the decision threshold caseworkers use when
making decisions to remove a child or provide services, with the threshold higher
for White children than for Black children. Building from the prior work of Dagleish
(2003), who used a signal detection framework (Tanner & Swets, 1954) to develop a
model of assessment and decision-making, the authors argued that while individuals’
assessments of risk can be similar, their decision thresholds might differ. Factors
influencing the assessment are those associated with the current situation or case
(e.g., income), while factors influencing the decision threshold are those from the
decision makers’ history or experience. In other words, the authors suggested that
although income is a factor that influences risk assessment, it is not a factor that
influences the decision threshold. Rather, the threshold is influenced by factors
associated with the decision-maker, such as their perceptions of race. Thus, their
findings suggested that although Black families were assessed as having lower risk,
there was a different threshold for taking action (i.e., removal or service provision)
for Black children than for White children, with Black children removed at a lower
risk threshold than White children.
Following this study, Dettlaff et al. (2011) used the same data to examine the
substantiation decision. However, to further examine the relationship between race,
risk, and income, two separate logistic regression models were analyzed. The first
model controlled for income in testing the relationship between race and substanti-
ation, while the second model controlled for both income and risk. In the first model,
controlling for income and other covariates, race was not a significant predictor of
the substantiation decision. Rather, income was the stronger explanatory factor with
the lowest income category (less than $10,150) nearly twice as likely as the highest
income category ($40,550 and greater) to predict substantiation. This finding added
support to the theory that it is the disproportionately high number of Black children
living in poverty and the associated risks, rather than their race itself, which
contributes to the observed disparities. However, when caseworkers’ assessment
of risk was included in the second model, the role of income and race as explanatory
factors changed considerably. When controlling for both income and risk, race
significantly predicted the substantiation decision, with Black children 15% more
likely to be involved in a substantiated report compared to White children.
These results provided further support to the theory developed by Rivaux et al.
(2008) of differences in decision-making thresholds. Similar to the prior study, lower
18 A. J. Dettlaff

income was associated with higher risk, while Black families in both substantiated
and unsubstantiated cases were assessed by caseworkers as having lower risk than
White families. Yet when controlling for risk, it was not poverty that significantly
predicted substantiation, but rather race that emerged as the significant predictor.
Again, this suggested that although income may influence the assessment of risk, it is
not a factor that influences the decision to act. Rather, the findings suggested that
there are racial differences in the threshold used by caseworkers in making the
substantiation decision. Specifically, the decision threshold for substantiation is
higher for White children than it is for Black children.
While the results of these studies have provided important evidence concerning
the potential for racial bias to impact decision-making in child welfare, and thus the
overrepresentation of Black children, it is important to note that other studies using
different sources of data have not found a relationship between race and observed
disparities after controlling for measures of poverty (e.g., Laskey et al., 2012;
Putnam-Hornstein et al., 2013). However, this line of research has highlighted the
need for continued research that includes measures of income and risk in attempts to
understand the explanatory factors contributing to disproportionality and disparities.
In addition to studies that have used statistical analyses to demonstrate the role of
racial bias, a large body of qualitative studies have documented the experiences of
Black families as the recipients of bias in their interactions with child welfare
systems. These studies have consistently documented Black families’ experiences
of differential treatment and standards, lack of cultural sensitivity, cultural mis-
understandings, negative perceptions of differing parenting styles, lack of engage-
ment, lack of culturally appropriate services, and judgments against a White
parenting standard (e.g., Dettlaff & Rycraft, 2008; Harris & Hackett, 2008; Miller,
Cahn, Anderson-Nathe, Cause, & Bender, 2013; Miller, Cahn, & Orellana, 2012). In
studies that have included the voices of child welfare and legal professionals, these
professionals have consistently affirmed the experiences of Black families, acknowl-
edging the role of racial biases in their own decision making (Dettlaff & Rycraft,
2010; Miller et al., 2012; Miller et al., 2013). In each of these studies, professionals
consistently point to a problem of racial bias among the child welfare workforce as a
significant factor contributing to disproportionality, which includes not only their
decision-making, but also racial biases in assessment measures, licensing standards,
interventions used to assist families, and the inconsistent implementation and
enforcement of child welfare policies.

2.5 Current Understandings of Disproportionality

and Disparities

In their review and analysis of the body of research on racial disproportionality and
disparities in child welfare, Fluke, Harden, Jenkins, and Ruehrdanz (2011) provided
four explanations of these phenomena based on the most current available evidence:
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 19

(1) disproportionate need resulting from differential risk that exists due to the
disproportionate number of children and families of color living in poverty, as
well as other risk factors associated with child maltreatment; (2) racial bias and
discrimination, which may be present at the individual level among child welfare
staff and community and mandated reporters, as well as institutional racism which
may be inherent in the policies and practices of child welfare agencies; (3) child
welfare system factors, including a lack of resources to adequately address the needs
of children and families of color, as well as the characteristics of child welfare
agency staff, and (4) geographical context, including neighborhood effects such as
concentrated poverty on maltreatment rates, as well as other community contextual
factors that may contribute to differential rates of maltreatment or placement
outcomes.
The similarity of these explanatory factors to those that had been posited prior to
the shifting dialogue resulting from the Bartholet article and the findings of the
NIS-4 suggests that, despite acknowledgement of racial differences in maltreatment
and the role of poverty, racial disproportionality and disparities are complex prob-
lems that are caused by multiple factors that each warrant attention and consideration
by child welfare systems. While it can be debated which factors contribute most to
the resulting disproportionality and disparities, a more holistic approach would be to
acknowledge the contribution of each and to support the continued exploration and
understanding of these problems.
Further, despite acknowledgement of multiple contributing factors, the debate
that has occurred over the past decade has focused almost solely on the competing
causes of racial bias and disproportionate need, and has largely framed these as
opposing viewpoints. This has occurred despite the fact that much evidence exists in
support of both explanatory factors. The result of this debate has only served to slow
efforts to address disproportionality and what was once viewed as a prominent
concern for child welfare systems is now viewed by many as an acceptable status
quo. Narratives that frame disproportionate need as the predominant contributing
factor have led some child welfare systems to believe disproportionality is some-
thing that occurs beyond their control, and as a result, believe there is nothing they
can do to address it. These narratives are typically coupled with critiques of efforts to
address disproportionality through anti-racism or cultural competence training,
which have led some child welfare systems to no longer feel a responsibility to
address issues of racial bias and in some cases, to deny it even exists.
As stated previously, the result of this debate has been that attention to
disproportionality and the allocation of resources to address disproportionality
have largely stalled in many states and jurisdictions. Yet, as documented throughout
this chapter, racial disproportionality and disparities continue to exist in child
welfare systems across the country. The result of this failure to act to address this
ongoing problem is the perpetuation of harm against children and families of color.
20 A. J. Dettlaff

2.6 Racism as the Underlying Cause of Racial

Disproportionality and Disparities

In addition to hindering efforts to address disproportionality, the current debate in

child welfare on whether disproportionality and disparities are the result of racial
bias or disproportionate need distracts from the larger societal problem that contrib-
utes to both of these issues—racism. Whether disproportionality and disparities
result from racial bias, disproportionate need, or both, racism is the root cause of
each of these issues, as well as every other causal factor that has been identified in the
literature. As has been presented within this chapter, a consistent body of research
has documented the influence of racial bias on decision-making in child welfare
systems. This occurs not only in the form of explicit and implicit biases among
decision makers, but also through the implementation and enforcement of child
welfare policies that are based largely on White standards of parenting. External to
the child welfare system, poverty and disproportionate need are the result of centu-
ries of structural and institutional racism that have created the conditions of risk that
exist within children and families of color that lead to maltreatment. Beginning with
the forced enslavement and dehumanization of Black people in the United States, the
history of this country was founded on the gradual and continual development of
laws and policies designed to maintain the supremacy of White people. The enduring
consequences of these racist laws and policies include racial residential segregation,
the increasing wealth gap, unequal access to quality education, and implicit and
explicit biases in housing and employment that each act to perpetuate and maintain
the disproportionate need experienced by Black families that contributes to their
involvement in child welfare systems.
Thus, the debate that exists in the child welfare field about the causes of racial
disproportionality only serves to perpetuate harm against the children and families
who are impacted by this, as it allows for this inequity to continue. Failure to
acknowledge racism as the underlying cause of the racial disproportionality and
disparities we continue to observe among children and families of color only serves
to facilitate their oppression. The over-surveillance and over-removal of children of
color by the child welfare system not only separates parents from children, but also
contributes to feelings of anger, hostility, and distrust of government systems
(Dettlaff & Rycraft, 2008; Roberts, 2002). Overrepresentation of children of color
also serves to perpetuate many of the oppressive conditions and negative stereotypes
that have historically and continue to affect them. In addition to the trauma caused by
the involuntary forced separation of children from parents, multiple studies docu-
ment the harmful effects of placement into foster care, which include low educa-
tional attainment, homelessness, unemployment, economic hardship, unplanned
pregnancies, mental health disorders, and involvement in the criminal justice system
(Courtney et al., 2011; Pecora et al., 2005). For children of color who spend time in
foster care, these risks serve as sources of compound disadvantage in a society where
they are already at risk of harmful outcomes due to societal racism and inequality.
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 21

This harm to children and families of color by the child welfare system will continue
to occur as long as racial disproportionality and disparities are allowed to exist.
Racial inequities that cause disproportionate harm to one or more groups of
children cannot be acceptable in any social service system. Although improvements
have been made and reductions in the involvement of children of color have been
observed, racial disproportionality and disparities persist in child welfare systems
across the country. Decades of research have documented not only the existence of
racial disproportionality and disparities, but also the harmful effects of
disproportionality and disparities to children and families of color. Yet attention to
these problems has waned in recent years, and this harm continues. Child welfare
systems have a responsibility to act to minimize the impact of this harm and to work
towards the achievement of racial equity. Until this is done, they will continue to be
complicit in perpetuating a harmful and oppressive system.

References

Alliance for Racial Equity in Child Welfare. (2009). Policy actions to reduce racial
disproportionality and disparities in child welfare: A scan of eleven states. Washington, DC:
Author.
Barth, R. (2005). Child welfare and race: Models of disproportionality. In D. Derezotes, J. Poertner,
& M. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of Black children in
the system (pp. 25–46). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
Bartholet, E. (2009). The racial disproportionality movement in child welfare: False facts and
dangerous directions. Arizona Law Review, 51, 871–932.
Bartholet, E. (2011). Race and child welfare: Disproportionality, disparity, discrimination:
Re-assessing the facts, re-thinking the policy options. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.
edu/programs/about/cap/cap-conferences/rd-conference/rd-conference-papers/rdconceptpaper
%2D%2D-final.pdf
Bartholet, E., Wulczyn, F., Barth, R. P., & Lederman, C. (2011). Race and child welfare. Chicago,
IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Baumann, D. J., Fluke, J., Graham, J. C., Wittenstrom, K., Hedderson, J., Rivaux, S., et al. (2010).
Disproportionality in child protective services: The preliminary results of statewide reform
efforts in Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Family and Protective Services.
Billingsley, A., & Giovannoni, J. M. (1972). Children of the storm: Black children and American
child welfare. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanivich.
Casey Family Programs. (2009). Breakthrough series collaborative: Reducing racial
disproportionality and disparate outcomes for children and families of color in the child welfare
system. Washington, DC: Author.
Close, M. M. (1983). Child welfare and people of color: Denial of equal access. Social Work
Research & Abstracts, 19(4), 13–20.
Courtney, M. E., Dworsky, A., Brown, A., Cary, C., Love, K., & Vorhies, K. (2011). Midwest
evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth: Outcomes at ages 26. Chicago, IL:
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.
Dagleish, L. I. (2003). Risk, needs and consequences. In M. C. Calder (Ed.), Assessments in child
care: A comprehensive guide to frameworks and their use (pp. 86–99). Dorset: Russell House
Publishing.
22 A. J. Dettlaff

Dettlaff, A. J., Rivaux, S. R., Baumann, D. J., Fluke, J. D., Rycraft, J. R., & James, J. (2011).
Disentangling substantiation: The influence of race, income, and risk on the substantiation
decision in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1630–1637.
Dettlaff, A. J., & Rycraft, J. R. (2008). Deconstructing disproportionality: Views from multiple
community stakeholders. Child Welfare, 87(2), 37–58.
Dettlaff, A. J., & Rycraft, J. R. (2010). Factors contributing to disproportionality in the child welfare
system: Views from the legal community. Social Work, 55, 213–224.
Drake, B., Jolley, J. M., Lanier, P., Fluke, J., Barth, R. P., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2011). Racial bias in
child protection? A comparison of competing explanations using national data. Pediatrics, 127,
471–478.
Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2011). NIS interpretations: Race and national incidence studies of
child abuse and neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 16–20.
Drake, B., Lee, S. M., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2009). Race and child maltreatment reporting: Are
Blacks overrepresented? Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 309–316.
Drake, B., & Pandey, S. (1996). Understanding the relationship between neighborhood poverty and
specific types of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20, 1003–1018.
Fluke, J. D., Harden, B. J., Jenkins, M., & Ruehrdanz, A. (2011). A research synthesis on child
welfare disproportionality and disparities. In Disparities and disproportionality in child wel-
fare: Analysis of the research (pp. 1–93). Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social
Policy.
Freisthler, B., Bruce, E., & Needell, B. (2007). Understanding the geospatial relationship of
neighborhood characteristics and rates of maltreatment for Black, hispanic, and White children.
Social Work, 52, 7–16.
Harris, M. S., & Hackett, W. (2008). Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to
address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(2), 199–215.
Hines, A. M., Lemon, K., Wyatt, P., & Merdinger, J. (2004). Factors related to the disproportionate
involvement of children of color in the child welfare system: A review and emerging themes.
Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 507–527.
Hogan, P. T., & Siu, S. (1988). Minority children and the child welfare system: An historical
perspective. Social Work, 33, 493–498.
James, J., Green, D., Rodriguez, C., & Fong, R. (2008). Addressing disproportionality through
undoing racism, leadership development, and community engagement. Child Welfare, 87,
279–296.
Laskey, A. L., Stump, T. E., Perkins, S. M., Zimet, G. D., Sherman, S. J., & Downs, S. M. (2012).
Influence of race and socioeconomic status on the diagnosis of child abuse: A randomized study.
The Journal of Pediatrics, 160, 1003–1008.
Michigan Department of Human Services & Skillman Foundation. (2006). Equity: Moving toward
better outcomes for all of Michigan’s children. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Human
Services.
Miller, K., Cahn, K., Anderson-Nathe, B., Cause, A. G., & Bender, R. (2013). Individual and
systemic/structural bias in child welfare decision making: Implications for children and families
of color. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1634–1642.
Miller, K., Cahn, K., & Orellana, E. R. (2012). Dynamics that contribute to racial disproportionality
and disparity: Perspectives from child welfare professionals, community partners, and families.
Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2201–2207.
Morton, T. D. (1999). The increasing colorization of America’s child welfare system: The over-
representation of Black children. Policy and Practice, 57(4), 23–30.
Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., Williams, J., O’Brien, K., Downs, A. C., English, D., et al. (2005).
Improving family foster care: Findings from the northwest foster care alumni study. Seattle,
WA: Casey Family Programs.
People’s Institute for Survival and Beyond. (2006). Anti-racist principles for effective organizing
and social change. Retrieved from http://www.pisab.org
2 The Evolving Understanding of Racial Disproportionality and Disparities 23

Putnam-Hornstein, E., Needell, B., King, B., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2013). Racial and ethnic
disparities: A population-based examination of risk factors for involvement with child protective
services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 33–46.
Rivaux, S. L., James, J., Wittenstrom, K., Baumann, D., Sheets, J., Henry, J., & Jeffries, V. (2008).
The intersection of race, poverty, and risk: Understanding the decision to provide services to
clients and to remove children. Child Welfare, 87, 151–168.
Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Civitas.
Sedlak, A. (1991). National incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect 1988: Revised
report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Sedlak, A. J., & Broadhurst, D. (1996). Third National Incidence Study of child abuse and neglect:
Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Sedlak, A. J., McPherson, K., & Das, B. (2010). Supplementary analyses of race differences in child
maltreatment rates in the NIS-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Sedlak, A. J., Mettenburg, J., Basena, M., Petta, I., McPherson, K., Greene, A., et al. (2010). Fourth
national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS–4): Report to congress. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.
Sedlak, A. J., & Schultz, D. (2005). Racial differences in child protective services investigation of
abused and neglected children. In D. Derezotes et al. (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare: The
overrepresentation of Black children in the system (pp. 97–118). Washington, DC: CWLA
Press.
Shyne, A. W., & Schroeder, A. G. (1978). National study of social services to children and their
families: An overview. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Tanner, W. P., & Swets, J. A. (1954). A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological
Review, 61, 401–409.
Texas Health and Human Services Commission. (2006). Disproportionality in child protective
services: Statewide reform effort begins with examination of the problem. Austin, TX: Texas
Health and Human Services Commission.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). Black children in foster care: Additional HHS
assistance needed to help states reduce the proportion in care (GAO Publication No. GAO-07-
816). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Yegidis, B., & Morton, T. D. (1999). Ideas in action: Item bias and CPS assessments. Atlanta, GA:
Child Welfare Institute.

Alan J. Dettlaff is Dean of the Graduate College of Social Work at the University of Houston and
the inaugural Maconda Brown O’Connor Endowed Dean’s Chair. Prior to joining the University of
Houston, Dean Dettlaff served on the faculty of the Jane Addams College of Social Work at the
University of Illinois at Chicago. He received his bachelor’s degree in social work from TCU, and
master’s in social work and PhD from the University of Texas at Arlington. Dean Dettlaff’s
research focuses on improving outcomes for children and youth in the child welfare system by
examining and addressing issues of structural and institutional racism that contribute to the
disproportionate overrepresentation of children of color in this system.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 RESPUESTA DE VASQUIRAN
INTERROGANDO
Á FLAMIANO
Bien me plaze hauerte oydo lo
que dizes. Veamos agora,
Flamiano, ¿tu mal e tu passion no
es e nace del demasiado amor
que a Belisena tienes? Si. Tú no
dizes qu'el bien que la quieres en
estremo te trae en lo que estas?
Si. Tu desseo que es galardon de
tus seruicios? Si. Y este galardon
que desseas que se ver cumplida
tu voluntad? Si. De qué te
quexas, de que su voluntad va
lexos de lo que la tuya queria? Si.
Tú no quieres, segun dizes y es
razon, más a ella que a ti? Si.
Pues desta manera o tú no sabes
lo que quieres o es falso lo que
dizes. No dizes, como es, que en
ella está el fin e medio comienço
de toda la virtud, e nobleça e
perficion? Si. Pues si tal es, como
es, e tu voluntad e desseo
fuessen buenos, no
desconformaria dello su voluntad,
por consiguiente, o ella no es qual
tú dizes, o tu desseo es malo; si
es malo, ¿cómo dizes que bien la
quieres e le desseas mal?
Hagamos agora que tu voluntad
fuesse buena y la suya buena
como es, no dizes que la quieres
mas que a ti? Pues si más que a
ti la quieres, razon es que quieras
más lo qu'ella quiere que lo que tú
quieres, pues si lo qu'ella quiere,
quieres, no ternás de quexarte; no
teniendo quexa no ternás mal, no
teniendo mal, ganado haure yo la
question.

FLAMIANO A VASQUIRAN
No me contenta lo que dizes
porque no satisfaze a lo que digo;
yo te digo que ninguna cosa se
haze sin esperança de algun fin,
como vemos claramente.
Dexando agora lo de arriba que
no es razon que en ello
hablemos, pero en lo de acá;
¿porqué seruimos al rey a quien
deuida obligacion nos obliga? ¿no
le seruimos por lo que somos
obligados? Si. Si pues le somos
obligados, ¿porqué nos
quexamos si de nuestros
seruicios algun seruicio no nos
haze, e si de nuestros fauores
algun galardon no alcançamos? Y
por consiguiente de nuestros
mismos padres lo mismo
queremos e si no lo hazen lo
mismo quexamos, y aun como el
vulgo dize, a los santos no querria
seruir si galardon no esperasse,
pues para seruir a estos no nos
fallesce amor, pero si satisfecha
no es nuestra voluntad no nos
falta quexa, e quanto mal
nuestros seruicios e voluntad han
sido, tanto más nos da pena e
congoxa lo poco que nos es
agradecido. Luego ¿qué hare
qu'en satisfacion de lo que bien
quiero soy aborrecido que es el
mayor mal, en pago de mis
seruicios e passion no alcanço
mas de disfauores, menosprecios,
desdenes e mill ultrajes? Pues si
mi querer no puede mudarse, mi
passion no puede afloxar,
esperança de más no la espero,
remedio no le hay ni le hallo, qué
mayor mal quieres quel mio?

VASQUIRAN A FLAMIANO
Harto es poco tu mal si más razon
no tienes de la que dizes para él;
muy lexos van tus palabras e
razones de tus congoxas, pero o
hagamos que sea como dizes, o
llevemos las cosas por razon;
digamos lo que dizes que sea
razon, que sin la razon que nos
obliga seruir al rey deuamos
esperar mercedes e satisfacion
de nuestros seruicios e hagamos
ygual este seruir con lo que a
Belisena sirues; yo quiero que
assi sea como dizes e ansi te
mostraré como en una manera no
tienes razon de quexarte y en otra
te mostraré como eres satisfecho.
Digo que no has razon desta
manera. Los seruicios que tú al
rey hazes en que le sirues? O le
sirues en sus guerras y
conquistas en guarda e defension
de su persona y estado, o en
acrecentamiento de sus reynos
con peligro de la tuya, o le sirues
en la paz acompañandole e
siguiendo su corte con mucha
costa que te cuesta, de manera
que todos tus seruicios son
buenos e merecen hauer bien.
Pues veamos a Belisena si la
sirues en nada de esto. Digo que
no. ¿Pues en qué la sirues?
¿Sabes en qué? En apocar su
honrra, en alterar su fama, en
poner en juyzio de mal
sospechantes su bondad, en
todas las cosas que peor juyzio le
pueden hazer, en dessear por tu
bien su mal, o por tu voluntad su
mengua. Y quiereslo ver? El
mayor bien e mas honesto que en
tu desseo pudiesse hauer seria
que sin cargo alcanzasses lo que
de otra dama que ygual te fuesse
alcançar podrias; pues eso no se
podria hazer sin que ella de su
estado al tuyo baxase, luego mal
le desseas. Podrias dessear que
Dios te subiesse a tanto que
ygual le fuesses? La pena que
desto recibirias no te la da ella
sino lo que en ti falta. Luego sin
razon te quexarias. Tornando al
proposito digo que si al rey
siruiesses en cosa que le
perjudicasse, ni él te lo deueria
agradecer, ni tú quexarte de su
ingratitud. Pero aun de otra
manera digo que eres satisfecho
de lo que te quexas; bien sabes tú
que hay muchas maneras de
seruicios en las quales hay
algunas que en la misma obra
dellas está el galardon, estas son
aquellas de que obrandolas
ganamos honrra, pues que esta
es la cosa mas desseada como
sea señalarse el hombre en una
batalla de campo o de tierra, en
otra semejante afrenta hecha en
seruicio de señor o persona tal o
de que el que la haze, assi por
señalarse, como por la calidad de
aquel a quien sirue, queda
honrrado. Pues parecete a ti que
solo este nombre sea poca gloria
e fama e honrra? tú sabes que es
mucha ser seruidor de quien eres
siendo más publico que oculto, no
pueden tanto merecer tus
teruicios que esto no sea más; no
seran jamas tan grandes tus
passiones e tormentos que esta
gloria mayor no sea; ningun dia
puedes tanto penar que su vista
no te dé mas descanso, ninguna
congoxa te puede dar tu desseo
que tu pensamiento no te dé
mayor gloria. Mi mal es de doler
por que en él no hay remedio; en
los plazeres agenos yo peno; en
las passiones e males de los
otros, los mios se doblan, y esto
te basta para que esta question
baste, e acabo.

RESPUESTA DE FLAMIANO
Poco a poco me echarias de la
tierra con tus argumentos de
logico, ante que lo fagas quiero
tornar al comienço de nuestra
question e digo que nunca mis
males menos de grandes los
senti, ni nunca los tuyos más de
pequeños los juzgué; desta
manera que a mi se me figura
como nunca otra cosa conoci, que
mal es que ningun mal con el mio
se yguala.
La lengua es vn instrumento en
qu'el dolor del coraçon suena, e
desta manera la mia haze el son
que oyes. A ti como el plazer has
perdido figurasete que tienes
mucha raçon e que pues que la
raçon es mucha que la causa es
grande; assi que te quexas como
quien mucho bien ha perdido, yo
me quexo como quien mucho mal
ha passado e passa y el bien
nunca vió. Pues si tú has habido
bien e grande, yo mal e grande, tú
has sabido qué es bien, yo sé que
es mal; agora tú sabes qué es
bien e mal; yo mal e mal; claro
está qué más mal es el mio que el
tuyo. A mi me parece qu'es tanta
mi pena que con el más penado
trocaria, creyendo que no es tanta
la suya. Tú goçando tu bien tan
contento estauas, que con el más
gozoso no trocaras, creyendo que
no hauia más bien que goçar. Yo
querria saber a qué sabe por
juzgar tu perdida quanto es
grande, porque a mi se me figura
que el mayor daño mio es el mal
con que tú lo hazes menor,
diziendo que pues nunca tuve
bien, que no puedo sentir qué es
mal; yo digo que harto mal es
saber qué es bien, despues
passar mal, pero mayor es nunca
saber qué es sino mal, y aun te
digo vna cosa, pues los consuelos
que tú me das bastarian para vn
rustico que nunca de ningun bien
gozó e poco del le pareceria
mucho, o para un grosero que en
su entendimiento no entra ni lo
que dessear se deue, ni lo que
penar se puede, que este con
cualquier cosa que le acaeciesse
seria satisfecho como tú quieres
que yo haga, pero para mi que
desseo lo que dessearse puede
de bien e padezco lo que padecer
se puede de mal, no me parece
que yerro como dizes, ante que
tengo raçon de llorar de mis
males su dolor e de los bienes
agenos su enuidia. E assi estó
puesto en el estremo que vees
para no poder venir en
conocimiento de tu raçon, porque
todo lo que hablamos tiene dos
sentidos; tú les das el que te
parece ó sientes, yo les doy el
que parece o siento, e assi seria
insoluble nuestra porfia. Ponerla
en manos de quien la determine
no la consiente su causa, mejor
seria dexarla suspensa.

RESPUESTA DE VASQUIRAN
No quiero, Flamiano, que
suspensa quede, sino que se
determine e que tú seas el juez, e
no quiero sino en breve darte la
determinacion que has de hazer,
y es que juzgues qual de nosotros
más mal padece, que esto es
todo el fin desta question. Tu mal
no puede ser mucho sino siendo
grande el amor que a Belisena
tienes, e si tal no es, no es tal tu
mal como dizes. Si tal no es,
como dizes, fingido seria, e assi
seria mayor el mio. Pues si tú
quieres mucho como yo creo e
creo que tu passion es grande,
mas digo que la mia es mayor. Tú
dizes que querrias saber a qué
sabe mi mal por mejor juzgarlo;
bien sé que no lo dizes por lo que
agora yo padezco sino por lo que
he gozado. Mal has hablado,
porque no podrias saber lo vno e
lo otro sino passando por todo,
pero pues que dicho lo has,
sobr'esto quiero hazerte juez de la
causa. Hagamos agora que la
uentura te ayudasse para que de
Belisena gozasses ni mas ni
menos que yo de Violina; que tu
gozo y el tiempo e vuestras
voluntades conformes fuessen
tanto e con tanto contentamiento
como el nuestro fue, con tal
condicion que Dios dende agora
te contentasse, e que a cabo de
otro tanto tiempo tu señora en tu
poder muriesse en tu presencia y
tú sin ella quedasses como yo sin
la mia he quedado qual me vees,
aceptarlo yas? Di la verdad e
conoceras que si mi gozo fue
grande, que mi mal es grande, e
que si tú agora tan gran gozo
alcançabas que seria mayor tu
bien que agora es tu mal; pues
desta manera quando tan gran
bien perdiesses, quál seria mayor
mal, el que entonces sentirias en
perderlo, o el que agora sientes
en dessearlo? No te quiero mas
dezir; juzga lo que querras, que si
esto niegas, quanto has dicho
negarás e seria fengido de lo que
padeces.

RESPUESTA DE FLAMIANO
Mejor seria, Vasquiran, qu'esta
question no houiessemos
començado, que no que a este
paso houiessemos llegado,
porque temo que la ponçoña de
nuestras passiones nuestras
amistades alteren.
No puedo responderte a esta
partida porque en mi boca no
puede caber tal raçon, ni quisiera
que en la tuya houiera cabido; no
ha hecho Dios los dias de
Belisena para que en nuestras
lenguas termino les pongamos,
no por comparacion como agora
has hecho. Baste esto, que
todauia me parece segund lo que
siento que es verdad lo que digo;
creo que lo mismo hazes. El mal
de los infernados tenemos, qu'el
menos penado trocaria con el que
más pena, juzgando mayor la
suya que la del otro; yo me refiero
a lo que he dicho e tú no menos.
Dexemos nuestro processo
abierto, determinenlo los que lo
leyeren, pues que ya está
determinado que cada vno de
nosotros tiene tan poca alegria,
que no nos cabe llorar duelos
ajenos.
Mudemos la platica en otras
cosas, que pues que tan poco
plazer tenemos, pesar no nos
faltará sin que le busquemos.
Bien sé que sabes que tu mal
más que a nadie me duele, bien
sé que mi descanso mas que otro
lo desseas. El dia que fuymos a
casa de la señora duquesa me
parece que te vi hablar con la
señora Yssiana; no me soy
acordado agora de pedirte qué
passaste con ella; agora que me
acuerdo, te aviso que te guardes,
que tiene mala mano. Podria ser
que si mucho la mirasses, que
como agora de tu mal plañes que
del mio llorasses, e quiça
entonces juzgarias de nuestra
question lo que agora no
conosces.

RESPUESTA DE VASQUIRAN
Bien sabia que a tal estrecho te
hauia de traer como has llegado.
En tu alteracion conozco lo que
en mi passion conoces, hacerte
quiero contento, mudasme de
nuevas, quiero te responder a lo
que pides. Lo que con essa
señora passé, fue que
hallandome la señora Belisena,
ella se llegó con nosotros e
dixome que me esforçase e me
allegrase, que no juzgaba menos
discrecion en mi seso, que dolor
en mi pesar, e que la fortuna me
pudo quitar lo que pudo, pero no
la virtud que en mí quedaua que
era más. Yo le respondi que Dios
le diesse tanta parte del bien en la
tierra, quanto de su hermosura le
hauia dado de la del cielo, pues
que estaua en ella más aparejado
el merecer para ello, que en mí el
consuelo para ser alegre, e que
bien sabia yo que si possible
fuera que en mí pudiera haber de
remedio para mi tristeça
esperança, que della a solas la
esperaua, pero que no solo me
faltaua remedio, mas esperança
dél. Respondiome que no hauia
cosa sin remedio viniendo, e que
lo mucho que le dolia verme tal, y
el desseo que tenia de verme con
menos tristeça le offrecia a
consentirme que la siruiesse, e
que dello seria contenta, e que
assi me aceptaua por su seruidor
con prometimiento de
fauorecerme de manera que sin
perjuicio suyo que algo de mi
congoxa afloxaria. Yo le respondi
que lo hauia por impossible. E por
no poderle más responder al
presente, la enbié despues estas
coplas sobre el caso mesmo.

COPLAS QUE VASQUIRAN

EMBIÓ
A YSSIANA SOBRE QUE LE
MANDÓ QUE LE SIRUIESSE
Tan llagada está mi vida
de los males de mi mal
que por ser la causa tal
no ay do quepa otra herida,
de manera
que si mi mal tal no fuera,
solo veros
me forçara de quereros
por cuya causa viuiera.
Mas estoy como el herido
que la raçon e natura
le descubren en la cura
no poder ser guarecido,
bien que cierto
vuestra beldad e concierto
daran vida
a quien la tenga perdida,
pero ya passo de muerto.
Porque si'l morir recrece
do la vida se dessea,
con la muerte se pelea
pues llegado s'aborrece,
pero quando
vive el viuo desseando
s'el morir,
aquel tal es de dezir
que es más que muerto
penando.
Desta suerte, dama,
muestro,
siendo vuestras gracias tales,
que la sobra de mis males
no m'an dexado ser vuestro,
ni soy mio,
porque mi franco albedrio
es verdad
que no'stá en mi libertad
mas está en el daño mio.
Pues si vos no me sanays
yo no quiero guarecer,
no quiero querer poder
aunque vos, dama, querays;
¿sabeys porqué?
Porque ya murió mi fe,
e pues no es viua
 no será jamas captiua
sino de quien siempre fue.
No, porque mi desuentura
con su mucha crueldad
a mi fe e mi libertad
las metió en la sepultura
con aquella
por quien viue mi querella
assi penando,
yo la muerte desseando
más que no viuir sin ella.

LO QUE SE CONCERTO
ACABADO LA HABLA
ENTRE ELLOS DOS
Assi pussieron silencio por
entonces en su contienda,
mudando en otras cosas su
passatiempo, e dende a pocos
dias, estando vn dia sobre tabla
razonando el vno con el otro,
Flamiano con muy ahincados
ruegos rogo a Vasquiran que
quissiese ser contento que los
dos tuviessen vna tela de justa
real, pues que avnque cosa de
fiesta e plazer fuesse para los
atribulados del mal que ellos lo
estauan, tanto para publicar sus
apassionados dolores daua
aparejo como a los alegres e
contentos de plazer les abria
camino. Porque no holgauan
menos los vnos en manifestar su
mal, que los otros en publicar su
bien con sus intenciones, e que
en esto no solo él haria señalada
gracia e merced, mas aun a todas
las damas haria gran seruicio. A
lo qual Vasquiran le respondio:
Verdaderamente, Flamiano, más
aparejo hay en mi para llorar
como vees, que no para justar
como quieres, pero pues que el
amistad nuestra me forço en tal
tiempo venir a verte, e el amor
que te tengo me obliga a
complazerte en todo lo que
possible me será. Assi que
ordena lo que te parecera, que de
aquello sere contento, no en esto
que es poca cosa, mas donde la
vida e honrra en todo peligro se
pussiese lo seria. En especial que
yo recibo tanta pena en ver la que
con la mia te doy, que desseo
hallar algo con que te pueda
complazer. Flamiano
agradeciendoselo mucho,
respondio: Si tan complido te
hiziera la fortuna de ventura como
de virtud, jamas viuieras
descontento. E assi los dos
caualgaron disfraçados e se
fueron a casa del cardenal de
Brujas que era vn notable
cauallero e mancebo, e tan
inclinado a las cosas de la
caualleria, aunque perlado,
quanto en el mundo lo houiesse,
e assi llegados a su posada,
retraydos todos tres a solas, su
pensamiento e a lo que eran
ydos, le hizieron saber, de lo qual
él holgo demasiadamente. Pues
en la misma hora, todos tres
vestidos de mascara, al palacio
del visorey se fueron. El qual con
mucho plazer los recibio, e assi
todos quatro en la camara de su
guarda ropa sentados a vna
ventana que sale sobre la mar,
hablaron todo el caso porque alli
eran venidos, e con mucho
contentamiento e plazer fue dello
contento. E hauiendo assi estado
vna gran pieça de la tarde, los
tres se tornaron a casa del
cardenal, donde cenaron con
muchos otros caualleros que alli
acostumbrauan venir a comer, y
en la cena se publicó la tela que
querian tener, lo qual puso en
mucho plazer e regocijo a todos.
E hauiendo cenado, en presencia
de todos, se ordenó el cartel con
las condiciones siguientes e
diosse a vn albardan que la
pregonasse.

LAS CONDICIONES DEL

CARTEL
Dado fue el cartel a vn albardan
para que lo pregonasse, el qual
con muchos atabales e trompetas
e menestriles, fue publicado en
todos aquellos lugares que les
parecio que publicarse deuia. En
el qual cartel se contenian las
condiciones siguientes:
Primeramente se daua al que
mas gentil cauallero a la tela
saliesse con paramento e cimera,
vna cadena de oro de dozientos
ducados. Dauase mas seys canas
de brocado al cauallero que con
lanças de fiesta mejores quatro
carreras haria, e que no pudiesse
justar a este prez quien al otro no
tirasse, esto es, sin paramentos ni
cimera. Dauase mas a la dama
que mejor e mas galanamente
vestida aquel dia a la fiesta
saliesse, vn diamante de cien
ducados de peso[288]. Mas al
galan que a la noche a la fiesta en
casa del señor visorey saldria
mejor e mas galan vestido, vn rico
rubí. A este precio de la noche los
tablajeros tirauan. Fueron juezes
de los caualleros el señor Visrey y
el principe de Salusana y el
almirante Vilander y el conde
Camposalado. Juezes de las
damas fueron la señora Reyna e
Nobleuisa e la señora duquesa de
Meliano e la duquesa de
Francouiso, todas tres viudas.
Tuuose el renque dia de Santiago,
que hauia quarenta dias desd'el
dia que el cartel se publicó hasta
aquel dia. En el qual tiempo todos
los caualleros e damas se
adereçaron de la manera que
adelante se dirá. De lo que en
este tiempo se siguio ninguna
cosa aqui se cuenta hasta el dia
de la tela.

COMO LAS DAMAS SALIERON

EL DIA
DE LA TELA
En el dia de la fiesta la señora
Reyna con sus damas, e la
señora duquesa de Francouiso se
vinieron a comer con la señora
duquesa de Meliano, porque assi
juntas se fuessen a la tela, donde
houo muchos galanes e muy
ricamente vestidos que hasta alli
las acompañaron e de alli hasta la
tela. De los quales atauios aqui
no se haze mencion, saluo que
hauiendo comido todas tres
caualgaron con sus damas e
salieron desta manera. La señora
Reyna salio vestida de negro
como siempre va; verdad es que
en vna gorra y en vnas mangas
de vna saya de terciopelo que
lleuaua, hauia muchas pieças de
oro e joyeles muy ricos e muchas
perlas.
Lleuaua vn cauallo blanco con
vna guarnicion rica e veynte
moços de espuelas vestidos con
sayos de grana guarnecidos de
terciopelo negro sobre raso
amarillo, con jubones de damasco
naranjado, vna calça negra e otra
azul e amarilla.
La señora duquesa de Meliano
salio su persona vestida de negro
con vn cauallo morcillo con vna
guarnicion de terciopelo negro;
doze moços d'espuelas vestidos
con sayos morados guarnecidos
de raso pardillo. Jubones de raso
negro con vna calça negra, otra
negra e morada.
La señora duquesa de Francouiso
salio vestida de negro. Los moços
d'espuelas vestidos todos de
leonado.
Salio la señora Belisena con vna
saya de brocado raso blanco
cubierta de raso negro, cortado
todo el raso de vnas cortaduras
muy espessas que se hazia dellas
vna obra como vnos manojos,
atadas todas las cuchilladas con
vnos torçales de oro, e de seda
encarnada con los cabos hechos
de perlas; vn collar de oro hechas
las pieças a manera de las
cortaduras de la saya, esmaltadas
todas las pieças de negro. Hauia
en la saya en cada pieça de
terciopelo vna pieça de oro de
martillo que hazia la obra de las
cortaduras, vna gorra de raso
encarnado guarnecido de las
pieças del collar; vn cauallo
blanco con vna guarnicion de
plata toda esmaltada con muchos
floques de oro y encarnado que
salian por las pieças de la
guarnicion muy largos. Doze
moços d'espuelas vestidos de
amarillo y encarnado.
La señora Yssiana sacó vna saya
de terciopelo leonado e brocado
pardillo hecha a tableros como vn
marro; estauan las costuras
juntadas con pestañas de tafetan
amarillo. Hauia en cada pieça de
la seda e del brocado vna cifra
trocada de lo vno en lo otro
bordadas con cordones de plata.
Vna gorra de raso leonado llena
de cabos de oro hincados a
manera de vn erizo, muy llena
con collar de pieças de manera
delas cifras.
Sacó la señora Graciana vna
saya de raso azul con vna reja
encima de terciopelo azul sobre
pestañas de raso amarillo, e con
vnas lazadas de vnas madexas
de hilo de oro que ataua las
juntas de la reja. Vna gorra de
terciopelo azul llena delas mismas
madexas trauadas vnas de otras;
vn collar hecho de madexas de
hilo de oro tirado muy rico.
Todas las otras damas de la
señora duquesa salieron vestidas
con saya de raso morado, con
barras de brocado negro sobre
pestañas de tafetan blanco; con