Massachusetts Family Advisory Committee
2022 Community Listening Sessions
Racial Equity and Cultural Diversity
Presented By: Joseph Sandagato Meri Viano Diversity Committee Co-Chairs
History
The MA Family Advisory Committee (FAC) is committed to assuring that all internal and external interactions are conducted with knowledge of, and adherence to, our standards of conduct in the areas of Diversity and intersectional competencies in the areas of: race, culture, sexual and gender identities. This in combination with our overall commitment to supporting the needs of the varied population that we serve (biological, kinship, foster and adoptive parents) across the Commonwealth.
In both assessing our internal needs, the external needs of the population we serve, and in intersection with our work with the MA Department of Children and Families (DCF) we gained an anecdotal awareness of gaps in policy and consistently applied practices in the MA Child Welfare community. To best qualify these needs, the FAC Diversity Committee conceptualized and undertook a Community Listening Session project to help better inform our own practices and those that we support in intersection with DCF.
Purpose
The Community Listening Sessions (CLS) were conducted across the Commonwealth with a specific eye upon addressing regional differences, as well as upon drawing parallels that occurred statewide. The sessions were scheduled between March and June of 2022 within three specific geographic areas: Western MA (Western DCF Region), Central MA (Central DCF Region), and Eastern MA (North, South, Boston DCF Regions). In each session participants were invited to listen to panelists from within the community who provided reflection upon their experience as non-white participants in the child welfare process. This included perspectives as formerly engaged biological parents, former youth in care, and those who experienced multi-generational inclusion in child welfare (as youth and adults). These experiences helped to frame the second part of the CLS which included discussion from panelists who shared their own perspectives upon the impact of race and culture, as related to the MA Child Welfare System.
Executive Summary
The Diversity subcommittee held a robust conversation in a safe place, confidential and with a power differential that was leveled. It was important for all participants to have a voice.
Top findings include:
⇒ 100% of participants participated in some portion of the conversation
⇒ 95% had a solution to offer and or idea of how to make things better for families, parents and the people that work in the system.
⇒ Majority felt that biases, implicit biases and the lack of understanding both culture (ethnicity, spiritual, sexuality) and family culture got in the way of having families feel heard.
⇒ Majority of people who identified as being diverse held a fear of waking up everyday and not having a community that was safe.
⇒ Majority of the people whom attended had direct lived experience with the Department, several had inter-agency involvement for their families.
⇒ Professionals/Providers in the field also noted the need to work in a collaborative fashion to support families that need the support to work together.
In hearing from both an adult, youth and family of multiple age differences the most impactful thing learned was that removal is traumatizing, and for the social workers that give the messages along with community members (school/police) it is critical for the young people to understand that it is not their fault, and that it was not something that they can fix with the family when removed.
Joseph Sandagato
Meri Viano
Promotional Materials
The promotional flier on the left is an example of one of the marketing tools distributed directly to families, community partners, and other agencies to promote the event. Other channels included social media distribution across multiple channels, direct engagement calls and outreach, and collaborative initiatives.
There were three sessions statewide; one in Western MA, one in Central MA, and one in Eastern MA.
Framework
INTRODUCTION: The FAC Executive Co-Chair opened the meeting with an explanation of the ongoing work, the commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion, and reviewed the work of the Diversity Committee.
PANEL DISCUSSION: Members of the community with lived experience opened each of the Community Listening Sessions and offered varied perspectives on their engagement with the MA Child Welfare system and the Department of Children and Families.
COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSION: Community members were given the opportunity to respond to a variety of questions about their experiences with the child welfare system, to reflect upon how race impacted their interactions, and were given an opportunity to share broader reflections upon race, culture, and ethnicity in their everyday community engagements.
Participants included biological parents, kinship caregivers, foster and adoptive parents, as well as community service providers. The range of experience included those who were newer to the child welfare process, as well as those who were well enculturated into the child welfare process. The varied perspectives, lenses of race and culture, as well as lived experience not only as parents, but also lived experience with race in everyday interactions led to candid and robust discussions. The level of respect and consideration among the participants should be noted, considering the sometimes raw and controversial topics being discussed.
Feedback Captured In-Session
In meeting with the families represented in this work, it was clear that there were several overarching themes that were raised by panelists and attendees alike:
1. For those with racial identities (other than white) there were several experiences with DCF that came to light, which many felt could be improved through education of social workers:
a. Participants often stated that they didn’t work with or have easy access to social workers that “looked like them”. Some suggested that was barrier to advancing in their work with DCF out of fear of repercussion, or because they didn’t have faith that the worker could relate to their circumstances.
b. When fathers or young men (or in reflecting upon younger engagements with DCF) had interactions with DCF they noted an absence of male social workers who they felt that they could relate to (of any race). In addition, many expressed the same concerns as the general group in #1 above.
c. In some sharing there were experiences shared by some non-white participants regarding interactions with non-black/Latinx social workers who were supportive, but who seemed to lack an awareness or knowledge of struggles that affected these youth/families which were specific to the black or Latinx communities.
i. Socio-economic challenges
ii. Housing availability (quality of housing)
iii. Cultural “norms” as related to raising children
iv. Resources specific to communities related to the above
d. When discussing the topic of placement, many former child welfare engaged youth noted that the race of the family that they were placed with dictated some outcomes. Even in circumstances when DCF placed a youth with a family of similar racial and cultural make-up, there still were some noted challenges amongst the former youth served:
i. Family didn’t support or allow equal access (as bio children) to supports or resources
ii. Family treated the youth in a way that was similar to what the youth would have anticipated from a white caregiver (i.e. Latinx caregiver treated a Latinx youth poorly based upon darker skin color).
e. Community engagement for many non-white panelists and participants was reported as less supportive overall by those non-white participants than by their white counterparts. This included not only EOHHS agencies, but extended to police, emergency and other generally accessible community emergency supports. Indeed, many reported having to dramatically alter their normal behavior, travel within specific areas, and a general conscious adjustment to their persona in order to avoid unnecessary harassment in areas/situations where a white counterpart wouldn’t need to do the same. This led to discussion of overarching and overall systemic racism outside of the MA Child Welfare space.
f. In different parts of the state there were examples of former youth in care expressing that their caregivers expected them to be “happy to be saved” vs. having greater or different needs as part of the non-white community. There also appeared to be disparity in expectations around how a non-white child should respond vs. a white child.
Regional Perspectives
There were three regional sessions which opened discussion and connection with each other. The important place of having a safe , confidential and level playing field of power was a priority to supporting each conversation. In total there were 37 attendees representing viewpoints from across the Commonwealth.
16 people attended the Western MA session, 15 attended the Central MA session, and 6 attended the Eastern MA session.
After hearing the panelists speak there was a leading question of, “What is the first thing was you think of when you wake up?”.
Answers ranged from coffee, gratitude, young adults, smiling that God gave them another day and then conversations lead into culture. More often than not, people of color that attended mentioned fear of having a child that was black/brown and if they would come home. Concerns of safety , police interaction or being in the wrong place, and that they could possibly be “blamed” for something that they didn’t do (simply because of the color of their skin) which could impact returning home. One person discussed how family traditions of prayer were important and often not understood by systems. Adopted families added in that the culture and background of adopted biracial families was often similar in how to keep families safe in all white communities.
On immediate reflection for the group was to hear a mom talk about it how it was a high standard to teach her black son of the impact of being black from a young age.
Another story lead into the impact of being from an island and then getting to America and understanding the amount of similarly “cultured” peoples that lived in very low-income settings, with few resources, and a challenge to understand “how the system works”. Specifically naming the education system and child welfare system. Discussions on discipline was discussed and how intergenerational enculturation plays a part of the learning process.
A parent in the recovery community identified how it was important to understand what was support that would “help you” vs. the support that would “take your child away” if you were honest with concerns. This parent noted that the connection to lived experience roles played a key role in their success and said that it was the person that keep believing in her that allowed her to succeed. “ I am believing in myself today because someone told me I mattered”.
Another community member and parent notes how a “drop of black blood” allowed the system to create disparities and put my family member in a category of less success than others. We heard form a person that identified as Asian Pacific Islander who talked about how it is often not recognized that needing support when it is difficult.
The group heard from each other on how the expectations of institutions are often mismatched to the cultural needs. Reflections from participants also talk about how it is often hard to have people from “institutions” be neutral and not get into their own biases and stigmas. Most participants stated that they were invested in being part of the change that is needed in allowing the learning to understand individual biases.
Two members that identified form the Latinx community talked about the fear and triggers that the families and communities that identify have when speaking about child welfare. It is often a lack of communication, understanding, and also seeing families pulled apart.
What Participants Learned…
”The need to reimagine our approach in helping systems and/or institutions to address inequities impacting BIPOC families and children.”
“It unfortunately reinforced my experience that DCF is a system that will be slow to change, is challenged in being open to feedback, and that the structures/pathways reporting to be opportunities to provide feedback are only performative and further prevent authentic conversations about how our communities are experiencing interactions with DCF.”
“I learned MA DCF is the first in the country to have a policy for families (parent/child) with a disability. It was very helpful to obtain a copy of that policy.”
“The foster children and foster parent perspective.”
“People are passionate about families. DCF has come a long way in regards to race and gender issues but it’s still a long way to go.”
“I am being more open-minded to the trauma left in the wake of removals. I would like to assist in any way that I can to build stronger families and stronger agencies to support those families should a crisis occur.”
Panelists agreed that we need more conversations and not less. It was appreciated that it was run by parents with lived experience, and all agreed that the diversity of the conversation was but only a start.
What Participants Wanted to Share With DCF…
“DCF should consider working with community cultural brokers to establish an understanding of cultural beliefs and parenting practices in contrast to the Department’s standards of parenting.”
“Require all staff within the agency to take a DISC training. And also require all staff and foster parents to attend or facilitate a parenting group.”
“DCF can increase their awareness of how BIPOC families are extra fearful of DCF and as a result are not as willing to ask questions, advocate from themselves, or seek services in the community for fear of family separation. BIPOC families need to have DCF workers who understand how racism impacts the children, the parents and the extended family and the history of how racism has impacted BIPOC families. Because of systemic racism, BIPOC families need more outreach, welcoming, strength-based and validating messages and direct information about how they can navigate the DCF system.”
“I believe the communications need to get better. They need to get kinder. Just in getting more sensitive to culture and bias. I am a firm believer in leaving personal bias at the door and bringing full professionalism into a role such as the Department of Children and Families. In such a crucial role, there is very little room for error. Mindfulness, nurturing, and compassion go a long way. Having knowledge of resources and willing to work with and connect a family to the necessary resources is crucial. Personal bias and judgment cannot be a factor when working with families. I believe there needs to be more training within the Department on working with compassion, sensitivity, and non-bias. Diversity, equity, and inclusion are a must!”
“Authentically address systemic and implicit bias in their policies and practices. Do the hard work to make the changes so that we do not continue to see disproportionate impacts to children and families of color, those living in poverty and those with special needs.”
“Social workers could learn from people with lived experience. I felt that my value was taken away at the first time my child was removed, and nothing helped it get better until I met the social worker that believed in me and did not just read my file.”
“Communication from the department when there is turnover would benefit all of us rather than continuing to have new faces show up and not be aware.”
“It would benefit the Department to spend time understanding not only the ethnic culture but the family culture of raising children with needs, and the parents that are trying but may need more skills. Parents that have been repeating cultures they were raised in is a shift everyone has. Difference is often do you know and are you aware.”
“Unique needs often do not succeed with cookie cutter approaches and if we can partner together to create true, authentic individualized support – more families could stay together.”
“When you get a worker that cares they go over and beyond- is there a way that in the Department there could be social workers to mentor other social workers on what works and does not so that the investment is faster with the family?”
“Action plans were mentioned that families felt it was not individualized and could we support having an approach that would improve connection and real goals to accomplish.”
The Massachusetts Family Advisory Committee (FAC) is a community service organization working in partnership with the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families to assure that the needs of our community members are represented in child welfare practice and policy here in the Commonwealth.
Executive Team
Executive Co-Chairs
Joseph Sandagato & Lori Sousa
Treasurer Jennifer Rambridge Secretary Rebecca Zwicker
Leadership Team
Richard Benoit - Julia Brachanow - Oonagh Brault - Wilbur Brown
Xavier Cardona - Cheryl Haddad - Eileen Sandberg - Shareef Smith - Meri Viano
For More Information Contact:
Joseph Sandagato & Lori Sousa
FamilyAdvisoryCommitteMA@gmail.com