Increasing Permanency Options in Child Welfare: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Using Data to Plan Waiver Strategies and Drive Improvements: Key Indicators and Trends April 11, 2012.
Advertisements

Subsidized Guardianship Permanency Initiative. SG Introduction Focuses on improving permanency outcomes for children in out-of-home care through a comprehensive.
Foster Care Reentry after Reunification – Reentry in One or Two years – what’s the difference? Terry V. Shaw, MSW Daniel Webster, PhD University of California,
California Department of Social Services Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation PRESENTED TO THE CHILD WELFARE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 12, 2012 REVISED.
California Child Welfare Indicators Project Q Slides Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California, Berkeley.
How do Macon County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Macon/Piatt Counties Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement14833%
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare in California: 1. A Quick Tour of the Data 2. A Racial Equity Lens.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,
How do Coles County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Clark...Shelby Counties Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement7136%
How do LaSalle County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? LaSalle County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement20755%
How do Morgan & Scott County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Morgan and Scott Counties Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total.
Who lives in Rock Island County? Rock Island County Demographics by Race and/or Ethnic Group, 2009 estimate N = 148,826 White113, % Black or African.
How do McLean County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? McLean County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement23350%
How do Peoria County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Peoria County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement19235%
How do Champaign County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Champaign County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement22548%
How do Sangamon County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Sangamon County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement21638%
How do Logan County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? Logan, Mason and Menard Counties Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total.
California’s Child Welfare Outcomes & Accountability System: Using Performance Measures to Encourage Improvement Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for.
The C-CFSR or Some of My Best Friends are Outcome Measures National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology 8th National Child Welfare Data.
Foster Care Reentry Going Beyond 12 Months of Follow-up Terry V. Shaw, MSW, PhD Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley School of Social.
An overview of basic California foster care data Joe Magruder, MSW Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data Are Your Friends: California’s Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,
Building a Better Child Welfare System for Fresno's Children: Using Data as Our Foundation (and Friend!) Daniel Webster, MSW PhD Center for Social Services.
Reunification for Siblings in Out-of-Home Care Using a Statistical Technique for Examining Non-independent Observations Presented by: Joseph Magruder,
Increasing Child Welfare Permanency Options: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley.
Policy and Practice Options Related to Exit Issues Experimenting and Improving the Recovery Coach Model Joseph P. Ryan, Ph.D. Working Conference on Race.
The California Child Welfare System: Data Snapshot Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW Joseph Magruder, MSW Center for Social Services.
Risks of Reentry into the Foster Care System for Children who Reunified Terry V. Shaw, MSW University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare in California: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Foster Care in California: What the Data Tells Us Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Emily.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,
Contra Costa County Disproportionality – Examples and Changes Ray Merritt; Dorothy Powell; Children and Family Services Research and Evaluation.
AB 636 Mental Health/CWS Partnership Sacramento, CA 3/17/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley.
1 G-FORCE MEETING Division of Family & Children Services September 25, 2009.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Child Welfare: Ethnic/Racial Disproportionality and Disparity Barbara Needell,
Data Quality Initiative-Update May 14, Data Quality Initiative The eWiSACWIS Data Quality Initiative will support counties, the BMCW and the Special.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,
1 Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare Report to the Community January 13, 2006 Jan. – Dec Progress summary of 2005  Safety  Permanence  Well-Being.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts Children’s Roundtable Summit.
AB 12: California Fostering Connections to Success Act Policy Overview and Implications for THP-Plus Presentation to THP-Plus Institute July 28, 2009.
Questions & Answers about Extending Foster Care to Age 21 THP-Plus Institute November 8, 2010 Oakland, CA.
When permanency remains elusive: A longitudinal examination of the early foster care experiences of youth at risk of emancipating Joe Magruder, MSW Emily.
Trends in Child Welfare Outcomes CA Blue Ribbon Commission May1, 2013 The Performance Indicators Project is a collaboration of the California Department.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley CFSR2 Data Indicators: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Center for Social Services.
California Child Welfare Indicators Project YOUTH IN EXTENDED FOSTER CARE Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University of California,
Race and Child Welfare: Exits from the Child Welfare System Brenda Jones Harden, Ph.D. University of Maryland College Park Research Synthesis on Child.
SAFE AND THRIVING FOREVER FAMILIES SOONER Division of Family & Children Services G-Force Meeting June 25, 2009.
Supervisor Core Training: Managing for Results Original presentation was created for Version 1.0 by Daniel Webster, Barbara Needell, Wendy Piccus, Aron.
Overview of California’s Child Welfare Indicator Data Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University.
11/28/12 1 CALIFORNIA FOSTERING CONNECTIONS TO SUCCESS ACT Version 2.0 Assembly Bill 12.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Data Trends & Child Outcomes Center for Social.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Longitudinal Dynamics of Youth in Foster Care Joseph Magruder Emily Putnam-Hornstein.
AB 636 presented at the joint hearing between the ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HUMAN SERVICES and the ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON FOSTER CARE Sacramento, CA.
Measuring Child Welfare Agency Performance: Advantages and Challenges of State, County, & University Collaboration National Association of Welfare Research.
1 DHS Board Meeting Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Overview Mark Washington Division of Family and Children Services August 18, 2010.
RELATIVE GUARDIANSHIPS: INCREASED OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINED PERMANENCY Joseph Magruder, PhD University of California, Berkeley Daniel Webster, PhD University.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Applying Data for System Improvement: Probation Agency Staff Daniel Webster,
Closing the Gap for Skipped- Generation Households.
Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University of California, Berkeley
CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Answer Questions about Key Child Welfare Outcomes Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP August 19, 2016.
Kinship Foster Care in California Testimony to Assembly Select Committee on Foster Care Sacramento, CA 2/15/06 Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social.
Society for Social Work & Research New Orleans 1/14/2017
Equity from the Start Disproportionality and Disparity Among Young Children in the CW System: What the Data Tell Us Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP May 10, 2017.
The Current State of Foster Care in Virginia
CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Understand County Performance on CFSR 3 Measures Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP May 1, 2017.
CCWIP Data Analysis Training Using the CCWIP Website to Answer Questions about Key Child Welfare Outcomes Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP January 19, 2016.
Equity from the Start Disproportionality and Disparity Among Young Children in the CW System: What the Data Tell Us Wendy Wiegmann CCWIP May 10, 2017.
Foster Care in California: What we Know from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research University of California at Berkeley.
BARBARA NEEDELL, MSW, PhD
Presentation transcript:

Increasing Permanency Options in Child Welfare: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University of California, Berkeley Aron Shlonsky Bernard Wong Praveen Sawa Jonathon Schmidt University of Toronto The 11 th National Child Welfare Data and Technology Conference Washington, DC July 2008 The Performance Indicators Project is funded by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

Introduction 1979 Miller v. Youakim decision - relative caregivers serving as foster parents eligible for Title IV-E funding Foster care by relatives increased, peaking –Nationally in 1998 at 29% –California in 2000 at 43% Foster placements with kin are different –More stable –Reunification slower –Reentry less likely for those who reunify –Achieving permanency is more difficult - kin (and social workers) have resisted adoption by kin

Guardianship as a Kin Permanency Option The disparity between foster care and TANF payments is a barrier to kin becoming guardians. In response, states have established subsidized guardianship programs. The California program, “KinGAP” was implemented in January 2000.

KinGAP Requirements To be eligible for Kin GAP the child must: have been a court dependent, have lived with the relative for 12 consecutive months, have had the guardianship established as part of a permanent plan, and concurrently or subsequently have had the dependency dismissed. Payment has been limited to the basic foster care rate (since revised to include difficulty of care rates & clothing allowances ).

Methods California Children’s Services Archive Data System Prospectively followed children who entered care after implementation of KinGAP. Preliminary analysis employed 2-stage probit model to examine potential selection bias --First stage modeled likelihood of exit to KinGAP --Second stage accounted for estimates from first stage, and modeled the likelihood of recurrence of maltreatment & reentry to care within 24 months. Results indicated that stage one had no significant influence on stage 2 (Prob > chi2 = 0.759). Further analysis is ongoing to examine other instrumental variables for predicting the likelihood of exit to KinGAP

Methods (continued) Due to results found in preliminary analysis, and in order to use censored information, ran event history analysis to model recurrence and reentry. Children entering foster care from Jan. 1, 2000 – Dec. 31, 2005 were chosen to allow at least 1 year to see who became eligible for KinGAP (N=51,412)—i.e., had a kin placement of 12 months or more—and at least 1 year of follow up for those who did exit to KinGAP (N=6,704). For multivariate models, children exiting to KinGap were followed from discharge to a subsequent substantiated referral, or reentry to care (or study end date—January 1, 2008).

KinGAP Entries Of children entering care who became eligible for KinGAP, 6,704 (13% of those eligible) left foster care for KinGAP by study date Median Age: 8 years Median Time In Care: 2 years Gender: 51% Female

KinGAP Entries continued Ethnicity#% Black White Hispanic Asian/Other Native American490.7 Missing30.04

KinGAP Entries continued

Net Permanency Gain Post KinGAP

Cumulative % of Children with Substantiated Referrals After Entering KinGAP (n=6,704) ≤ 1 yr ≤2 yrs ≤4 yrs ≤3 yrs Based on data through December 31, ≤6 yrs ≤5 yrs

Use of KinGAP appears to be decreasing, but there has been a “net permanency gain” since its inception Children exiting to KinGAP are relatively unlikely to experience a subsequent substantiated referral (about 3% within 1 year, 13% within 5 years). For those children who exited to KinGAP: Six to ten, and eleven to sixteen year olds were more likely than children less than six to experience recurrence. Females were more likely than males to experience recurrence. Children who entered care in 2002 and 2005 were less likely to experience recurrence than those entering in Children in a second or greater spell when they entered KinGAP were more likely to experience recurrence. Results

Cumulative % of Children Re-Entering Foster Care from KinGAP (n=6,704) ≤ 1 yr ≤2 yrs ≤3 yrs ≤ 4 yrs Based on data through December 31, ≤5 yrs ≤6 yrs

Children exiting to KinGAP are relatively unlikely to reenter foster care (about 1% within 1 year, 6% within 5 years). Reentry for positive reasons (e.g., to reunify, be adopted by relative) were excluded. For those children who exited to KinGAP: Eleven to sixteen year olds were more likely than children less than six to reenter. Children entering care in 2002 were less likely to reenter care than those in Children who had 3 or more moves prior to discharge to KinGAP were more likely to reenter care. Children from Los Angeles were more likely than those from other counties to experience reentry. Results

Discussion Use of KinGAP appears to be decreasing, but there has been a “net permanency gain” since its inception KinGAP children experience low rates of recurrence of maltreatment and reentry to foster care. KinGAP is an innovative program that provides public child welfare with an additional means to achieve permanency. Federal legislation permitting the use of IV-E funding for KinGAP could encourage more use of this permanency option. Future research will seek to make a comparative analysis of disruption rates between KinGAP, reunification, and adoption.