Straw media, Russian ways to fuss. We all have biases and it's part
to manage. You know, things
that emerge within us when we are exposed
to certain things or when we were
already dealing with things in our own personal
lives, and our values are build
conflicted. This is Lucas grinlely from next
city, a show about change makers
and their stories. Truth is, there
are solutions to the problems oppressing people
in cities. If you're listening, I
hope it's because you want to spread
good ideas from one city to the next
city. Let's start in a classroom
where author else Beth leacock, is talking
to students about her illustrated history book
journeys for Freedom, a new look at
America story. This is a story
of part of American history that affected a
lot of people in the S and
S, and I maybe it's late I
don't know how long this went on. There was something called an orphan train.
The orphanages and sometimes just kids off
the street who weren't being watched or
they were in the wrong place at
the wrong time. Occasionally we're put on
trains and the train hold cars of
babies and they were taken out west and
wherever the train would stop, people
farm families would come out and if they
wanted it, they would look at
all the kids and if they wanted a
kid, they could choose a child. These orphan trains ran for fifty years.
To some historians, the orphan trains
are reminiscent of a time after the
end of slavery when poor black children
from the south were sent to live with
wealthier white families in the north.
The notion was the new families were somehow
better equipped to raise the children,
who commonly became indentured servants in the household.
If you hear someone say the Child
Welfare system has racist roots, this
is part of what they're talking about. Many of these kids had parents alive,
including many of the children on those
socalled orphan trains, and the system
decided the best way to help would
be sending them to live with someone else.
Fast forward to the present day.
Black Americans comprise about thirteen percent of
our country's population, but twenty five
percent of children in foster care in Nassau
County, New York, the Department
of Child Services. They're decided to find
out what happens when decisions about whether
to remove a child from a home are
race blind, would fewer black children
end up in the system. First here
is reporter Steve Volk to help us
understand the problem. Steve is an investigative
solutions reporter at resolve Philly who we
partnered with at next city to produce this
series of stories. I want to
start with the story of Kaisha Lamb,
which is someone who's based in Philly, but the solution then we go to
in Massa County, New York.
So what is it that we have to
learn from the story of Kacia Lamb? Kaisha had an event, I guess
that happens to a lot of parents, where one of her children rolled out
of bed and showed no immediate ill
effects but over the next several days started
to favor one of his arms and
started to show like increasing signs of pain,
and so she took the baby boy
to the hospital and when she got
there they ordered a full skeletal survey, the medical staff did, and they
found another like out a line,
essentially in an x Ray, that looked
somewhat suspect to them. It might
have been consistent with a broken bone and
the baby's leg, which would not
have been consistent with the fall that Kaisha
had described. And so they told
her that they were required to call dhs
and they did so and dhs came
in took both her kids. There was
this two thousand and ten study in
the journal Pediatrics that you cited that said
black families that have infants, who
do not have government health insurance, they
went under greater testing for these skeletal
surveys then did white families. How should
we interpret that? Yeah, well, so the thing they didn't have to
do was sort of the full skeletal
survey, right, but black families are
much more subject to having these surveys
ordered when they come in reporting routine injuries
than are, you know, white
parents, and so, you know,
they even explain to her, apparently
that night that they would be able to
take a subsequent x Ray in a
few weeks to determine if this was even
a break or just kind of a
sign of how the boys bones were growing.
That line could just be, you
know, what's there, right,
and so they would look for signs
of new growth. And in fact,
and this is where things get really
Harry, I think, for Kaisha,
or increasingly so, because she was
in great deal of distress having the kids
taken at all, but she was
being told the whole time, well,
let's see what the next x ray
shows. So they get the next x
Ray and the next x Ray doesn't
show any new bone growth, indicating that
this was not ever a broken bone
in the first place. And so what
they did find, which was a
break in the baby's right arm, was
consistent with the fall she had described
and one would think right that she would
get her children back immediately. But
that's not what happened. Dgs kept her
kids and wanted to put her through
a series of other kinds of like measures
and aspects of the system to assess
her mental health and whether or not the
is any kind of domestic abuse in
the house. And this is something that's
commonly reported in in the system that
you know. DHS comes in for one
reason, they're investigating some kind of
abuse. They don't find evidence of the
abuse, but they find these other
things which one wouldn't think would be,
you know, equal to separating a
family, but they separate the family.
Your sources, when they were not
in the disparity, they compared this to
policing broadly like that. precition sparities
and policing. What is it that they're
getting at with that? Well,
if you look at studies of traffic stops,
right, black monerists are more likely
to be stopped than white motorists and
they're more likely to be searched.
But when white motorists are stopped in search
they are more likely to have a
legal contraband. And this is neatly paralleled
really in in this medical setting,
in child welfare, because again, black
families more likely to undergo these full
skeletal surveys, for instance, you know,
even as opposed to white families with
similar injuries to their children. And
yet white families are more likely,
if they're reported for signs of abuse,
to be determined to be guilty of
abuse. And so when I say guilty,
by the way, that's not a
judicial context. It's the child welfare
systems finding, which is very different, and then a criminal court. It
suggests that when they're looking in a
white family there are acting on real indicators
of potential abuse and that's why they
find it more often when they actually look
that deeply at white families, whereas
with black families they're reacting at least in
part the fact that they're black.
So one of the solutions to this is
what's going on in a ssau county
with these blind removal hearings. Can you
explain what applying removal hearing is and
how it would have any effect? So
if an emergency and if a removal
is not conducted in an emergency situation?
Right, so the case worker has
gone there and didn't find that the child
was in such imminent danger that they
had to remove them immediately, but it
still thinks they need to be removed. Right, they're being abused. There's
some kind of meeting that takes place
between the worker and their supervisor and perhaps
some other staff as well. Right. And so what they did in Nassau
County is they changed the the information
that shared at this meeting to remove anything
that might be suggestive of the race
of the family involved. So that's the
ZIP code, that's, of course, the address, that's the names of
people involved, anything that that might
suggest race. And they call these blind
removal meetings, with the idea being
that if you are blinded all this stuff
that might tell you of the black
person or white person involved, what decision
would you make? HMM, and
the result was fewer black children moved from
their families. Yeah, fewer black
children removed from their families over the years.
That number has it first the difference
was unbelievable. Steve Folk reports that
before blind removal meetings began in Nassau
County, the population there was thirteen percent
black, but black children meanwhile represented
over half of the youth and foster care.
After the break, will learn how
things changed quickly. Welcome back to
next city. Nassau County. Wanted
to know if racial information is redacted at
child removal meetings, will that result
in fewer black children being separated from their
birth parents? We're about to talk
with Jessica Price. She was the researcher
whose job it was to determine whether
the experiment had worked. Her Ted talk
about the blind removal meetings being used
in Nassau County has more than one million
views. Here's the moment when she
reveals the results. Blind removals have made
a drastic impact in that community.
In Two thousand eleven, fifty seven percent
of the kids going into foster care
were black, but after five years of
blind removals that is down to twenty
one percent. You can hear the woman
in the audience say Wow, today
Jessica price is the Executive Director of the
Florida Institute for Child Welfare. I
would actually working at the universe city at
Albany when I conducted the blind removal
study, and it all started because there
was a grant provide it to several
areas of New York state, a grant
that was given to folks who were
interested in doing a workaround racial disparity and
race equity, and Nassau County received
that grant and it was my job at
the time to travel around New York
state and do a case study, so
to speak, of what you do
with the grant money. What did you
change? How has there been a
culture shift in your organization around race disparity,
and Nasau County emerged in that research
as an exemplar because of the the
innovation really, that to say,
we want to make this decision solely based
on safety and not based on,
you know, things like how tired a
case worker might be that day or
you know how often you've seen the same
person come in the system. I'm
often due to environmental or contextual things that
are going on in that family and
neighborhood. I'm not too sure. So
maybe you can clarify that the the
overall number of children who were removed from
their homes declined for across all races. Right, but did it reduce the
disproportionality of black children being more often
taken away from their homes? It did,
it absolutely did. And the important
thing to consider what the data,
because the data was being tracked by
Nassau County themselves. It was a the
state was tracking their data, which
prompted them to invite me in to do
interviews and focus groups on, you
know, your perception, as in the
case worker, director supervisor, perception
of how blind removals had impacted their organizational
climate and culture. So the important
thing to know about the data that they
tracked is that it ebbed and flowed. You know, when they started out
their pilot, you know they had
a certain number of black children being removed
from their families and they did this
pilot for five years and it went it
went down and then sometimes it went
back up and then it went down again
and then back up and then it
ultimately at the end of their pilot,
it had decreased by nearly fifty percent, and I think it's important to talk
about that because I don't want people
to think that blind removals is going to
be this automatic decrease in numbers,
because it could be disappointing for them.
So there's not a guarantee that it
will be a steady decrease, but it
is a guarantee. I'm putting quotes
around Heure and see that the folks who
are having their children removed their those
decisions were made based on a safety concern.
Yeah, could you talk for people
who don't maybe appreciate fully why it's
so important to keep a child with
people who already love them? The the
effects of not going into the foster
care system versus staying with your family?
Absolutely, one of those things is
the continuity of that relational connection. There
are so many psychologists and Phinicians that
could talk about this more eloquently, but
there's some how to research about attachment
and children who are separated from their family
and placed in, albeit well being, foster homes deal with attachment disruption.
Research has found that they are are
emotional and behavioral issues that start almost immediately
upon family separation because of the trauma. And then there's this pipeline that is
emerging in the research around children getting
placed in the home of a foster parent.
Some reformists are reframing that terminology as
stranger care instead of foster care because
white literally, it's a stranger to
these children and they're leaving these foster homes
and the pipeline is going into the
juvenile justice system. So there's research on
attachment issues, behavioral and emotional disruptions
and disturbances, and then the pipeline into
the jubinal justice system, and those
three aspects are absolutely diminished and less likely
if a child is kept within the
home of a family member who they already
know and care about. As long
as we're talking about numbers, here's another
important one to know. Those who
work in child welfare talk often about a
goal set by Casey family programs,
which has called for producing the number of
use in foster care by half in
Nassau County. That is exactly what happened.
By two thousand and nineteen the number
of children in Nassau counties foster care
system, regardless of race, had
to kind by sixty percent. In my
opinion, I believe that if we
shift are thinking around removal, the byproduct
will be less children being taken across
the ethnicity board. I believe that and
research, you know, continues to
inform this. Poverty is a huge issue
for families and we know that all
though children of color are disproportionately impoverished,
there are children across the racial spectrum
that live in seemingly intractable poverty. So
a lot of families coming to the
system because of neglect. So I believe
that if we shift our mindset forward, support community strengthening and encouraging kinship care
and kinship connections, I do believe
that this could decrease the numbers of children
coming into care overall. To think
it makes me wonder is, do investigators
feel like they really have enough options
for truly supporting a family who is in
need, who's facing severe poverty,
and they know, you know, the
choices between removing the child or helping
the family, and do they feel like
they can't help the family enough?
Is that part of the reason that then
we just take children away? anecdotely, I heard investigators in case managers say
that very thing. You know,
they they didn't want to admit that,
but they've say of things like,
you know what if our communities, you
know, have long waiting lists and
you know people are dealing with unstable housing
and you know, if I leave
the child in the home there's this risk
of something might have, you know, happening. So they want to take
the child out of the home and
it's pretty heartbreaking for me to hear folks
say that because they feel like their
hands are tied, so to speak,
and I always try to get folks
to think about that front end. How
do we transform prevention so that a
child is not even coming into the system
or that we're not getting as many
reports to the system? You know,
some people are trying to reframe mandated
reporters to mandated supporters. If you suspect
job abuse and it's around things like
mental health, their poverty, how can
we equip mandated supporters to support that
family instead of calling in a very intrusive
and long investigation? So that was
also a long answer to yes, I
think a lot of times there are
enough community resources, but I also don't
want us to get hung up on
that because I don't want us to continue
to make these risk aversive type of
decisions where I'm doing this because this might
happen, especially with this intergenerational trauma
that we're causing with families. I want
us to transform the discussion around instead
of feeling like our hands are tied.
HOW DO WE UNTIE OUR HANDS?
How do we get families that help they
need, not continue to separate them, because we're not getting to the front
end of prevention and community resources.
So why hasn't this practice has been implemented
in more cities? What is holding
people back from taking steps that are for
sure going to result in better protection
for children? We'll get into it after
the break. Welcome back to next
city. Brand removal meetings have been successfully
implemented in Nassau County in New York. Will we see it implemented in other
cities? So it is currently being
implemented in grand rapids, Michigan, and
Los Angeles County is also initiating a
pilot this year in one of their units.
As you know, Los Angeles has
the largest child Bol for agency in
the country. So they, yes, want to roll out blondermovals for the
entire county of La but they are
going to pilot it in one unit,
which is exciting for them. And
I often tell people we need more research,
we need more folks that are adaptive, innovative and want to create evidence
around this model. So those the
two that I know of, but I
can honestly say a lot of people
reach out with interest, but I think
that it's not as easy or straightforward
to get this going in places, I've
realized, even though a lot of
people think it's relatively simple. Let's dig
into that, because that's really interesting. It does sound like, Oh,
it's simple, that the process is
simple, but even in Nassau County and
the stories that we had published when
the idea was suggested, people had pushed
back against it as well. Are
you calling me racist, and is that
part of what slows people down from
adapting it? Is this defensiveness, I
guess. Yeah, what I went
into Nassau County and did interviews with the
case workers and focus groups that that
really emerged as a concern. They said
at the beginning of this I didn't
want to do it. I felt like,
you know, it was this pejorative
type of thing that we were being
punished or called racist, and over
time it seemed they started to catch on.
There was a couple of quotes that
emerged folks saying, you know,
I did realize that, you know, my biases would emerge when I heard
of certain neighborhoods and heard a name
that I had a case on a year
ago. So yeah, I think
it started to become they started to adjust
better to it after they gave it
a chance. So yes, that was
a long answer to say. That
is one of the questions or the concerns
or the pushback that I get folks
that are saying, you know, we're
not racist, we're making decisions based
on safety, you know, we're not
using our biases to do this.
And my answer to that, and it's
a short answer right now, but
it's obviously more complicated. But my short
answer to focuses. We all have
biases and it's hard to manage, you
know, things that emerge within us
when we are exposed to certain things or
when we're all already dealing with things
in our own personal lives and our values
are feeling conflicted. I feel like
this is going to come up not only
in child welfare but in basically every
system in which we recognize that the system
is racist or as racist foundations that
then to fix it. People are going
to feel like we're going after them
individually. Instance. The reaction always is,
well, I'm not racist, so
why would we need to change this
and I wonder if people really are
coming out of Nessau counties recognizing the ways
in which they had inherent biased,
because sharing that realization would maybe help other
people feel like, you know,
less attacked about wanting to fix these systems
that they're put in. I don't
know how you feel about it. I
do agree with that and I we
did a Webinar, a closed Webinarar,
recently with the pilot team in La
County and I had I had some folks
from grand rapids hop on and do
just what you talked about, discussing how
it has truly transformed the way they
talk about families and the level of discussion
they have. It's much more strength
based. It's much more what can we
do to keep this family together,
even if that means the child may not
be in their family of origin,
but there would grandma, older sibling,
cousin, uncle, maybe even a
teacher. You know, we're trying to
reframe placement. You know, if
we get to a safety decision, you
know we want folks to ask who
already loves this is child. We have
these couple more cities that are trying, at Los Angeles to be a huge
one and then what are you hoping
will come out of it? What would
you hope will be found so that
then it can go more places? I
mean maybe it doesn't work every place, I don't know. I would make
that assumption, but more places for
sure. And the are there other things
that need to happen, maybe systemically, to enable this to work in other
places? Absolutely. I often tell
people that this is a piece of a
puzzle right, it's not the silver
bullet, so to speak, and there
needs to be a big effort in
prevention, which is what Nassau County did
as well. They were in the
community creating partnerships and relationships with clinicians and
therapists and addiction specialist. They were
out there doing their provinction work as well,
I'm you know, with the goal
of not just sending a family to
someone but saying, you know,
I know this person at this facility,
they know you're on the way or, you know, doing one of those
soft handoffs where you're not just saying
here's a list of things you can go
do yourself. But there was a
big push for that. So I always
encourage folks to do the front in
work as well. And then of course
there's always going to be an importance
of what are we doing for families that
stay together after a blind removal meeting? You know, in a blind removal
meeting, if we decide as a
team this family should stay together, now
we have to work overtime to get
them what they need. So now we
have to also think about if we
decide to keep them together, what can
we do? So when folks reach
out and say I really want to do
blunder movals, I absolutely ask them
what are you already doing? Because if
the answer is not much, then
I don't recommend doing blinder movels because I
think people get really stuck on a
certain strategy and don't work on this comprehensive
approach to race equity and child safety. So I wanted to offer that out.
I also, you know, someone
asked me recently with a great question.
They said, is there any reason
not to do this? And I
love that question with it is there
any reason why we should not do blinder
movals? And it took me aback
for a moment but then I reiterated sort
of what I just said. I
said the what I would say for folks
who are asking is their reason not
to do this? My answer is,
if you haven't thought through that front
end, prevention effort and work, and
then the back end, what do
you do if a family stays together?
Because to what end if we keep
double the number of families together that we
otherwise would have taken apart, if
we're not strengthening them and building capacity and
getting them the help they need?
We can't have a bag of honor saying
that blind re moveals kept this many
families together. I think the next thing
is and what happened with those families? How are they doing? Are we
helping them stay together even longer?
I we hope you enjoyed this episode of
next city, a show about change
makers and their stories. Together we can
spread good ideas from one city to
the next city. Thank you for listening
this week. Thank you to Steve
Volk, who is investigative solutions reporter with
our Partner Resolve Philly. Thank you
to our guests, Jessica Price from the
Florida Institute for Child Welfare. Our
audio producer is Silvana Alcala. Our scriptwriter
is Francesca Mamlin. Our executive producers
are Tyler Nielsen and Ryan Tillotson. By
the way, next city is a
news organization with a nonprofit model. If
you like what we're doing here,
please consider pitching in to support our work.
Visit next city dot Org, slash
membership to make a donation, and
we'd love to hear any feedback from
our listeners. Please feel free to email
us at Info at next city dot
Org and, if you haven't already,
subscribe to the show on Apple,
spotify or anywhere you listen to your podcasts.