Turning the Tide: Using Longitudinal Data to Understand the Flow of Children through Foster Care Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University of California, Berkeley Terry Shaw University of Maryland The 12th National Child Welfare Data and Technology Conference Bethesda, MD June 2009 The Performance Indicators Project is funded by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation

Outline Approaches to examining longitudinal data Limitations of these approaches Flow—an expanded perspective Application of flow across a seven-year span Conclusions and next steps

Approaches to Longitudinal Data How do we investigate children’s experience in the child welfare system? Point in time – counts of children on a day. Exits – counts of children leaving care. Entries – counts of children entering care. Ecological – counts of children in a year. --PIT, exits, entries: wulczyn, courtney, et al. --ecological: shaw, magruder, sabol et al. 2004 [lifetable synthetic cohort]

Limitations of Approaches These approaches give a limited view of children’s trajectory and often cyclical involvement with the foster care system. How long was the child in care? How many placements did the child have? Did the child’s placement level step down? How many episodes has the child had? Did the child reenter care? --pit-biased to longstayers --exits biased to shortstayers --entries—don’t examine those already in the ‘stock’, need long follow up time --all 3 look at LOS, moves, episodes for ltd window --ecological has looked at ever in care in a period, but flow expands view to examine this over time [multiple exits and reentries]

Flow through the foster care system Flow—building upon the ecological data approach Fully-longitudinal data are necessary to answer these questions. The following slides look at children’s experience in the child welfare system from 1999 through the end of 2008. Looking at exits Reentries Re-exits and Re-reentries

Data Source Based on quarterly extracts from California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) Extracts are configured into a longitudinal database as part of a collaboration between the California Department of Social Services and the Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) at UC Berkeley 1999-2001 child welfare-supervised care Children 0-11 years old (on first day of year or at entry to care) Followed for 7 years in and out of care (data cut-off: 1/1/09)

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 26,035 1999 102,136 Children 1,168 240 48 2000 77,077 Children

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 24,405+655 2000 77,077 Children 2,129 121 87 54,112 Children 2001

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 2000 77,077 Children 15,077 +1,179 54,112 Children 2001 2,232 73 2002 69 40,084 Children

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 2000 77,077 Children 8,067 +1,431 54,112 Children 2001 2,087 2002 2003 47 32,684 Children 40,084 Children 58

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 2000 77,077 Children 5,640 +1,677 54,112 Children 2001 2,249 2004 27,615 Children 2002 2003 32,684 Children 40,084 Children 70 69

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 2000 77,077 Children 2005 3,515 +1,821 24,506 Children 54,112 Children 2001 2,234 2004 77 27,615 Children 70 2002 2003 32,684 Children 40,084 Children

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 2000 3,670 +2,142 2006 77,077 Children 20,821 Children 2005 2,133 24,506 Children 70 54,112 Children 2001 76 2004 27,615 Children 2002 2003 32,684 Children 40,084 Children

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 17,141 Children (16.8% of original) 3,455 +2,106 2000 66 2006 77,077 Children 1,899 20,821 Children 84 2005 24,506 Children 54,112 Children 2001 2004 27,615 Children 2002 2003 32,684 Children 40,084 Children

Flow through the foster care system 1999 In-care (74,398 children) and Entry population (27,738) Flow through the foster care system 1999 102,136 Children 17,141 Children (16.8% of original) 17,141 children in care on 12/31/2006 (16.8% of the original) 2000 2006 77,077 Children 20,821 Children 11,991 Children never exited from care (11.7% of original – 70.0% of children in care on 12/31/2006) 2005 24,506 Children 54,112 Children 2001 2004 27,615 Children 2002 2003 32,684 Children 40,084 Children

Flow through the foster care system 2000 In-care (71,555 children) and Entry population (26,580) Flow through the foster care system 2000 98,135 Children 15,397 Children (15.7% of original) 15,397 children in care on 12/31/2007 (15.7% of the original) 2001 2007 67,630 Children 19,152 Children 10,653 Children never exited from care (10.9% of original - 69.2% of children in care on 12/31/2007) 2006 22,363 Children 48,238 Children 2002 2005 24,890 Children 2003 2004 28,943 Children 36,446 Children

Flow through the foster care system 2001 In-care (62,392 children) and Entry population (26,835) Flow through the foster care system 2001 89,227 Children 13,355 Children (14.97% of original) 13,355 children in care on 12/31/2008 (14.97% of the original) 2002 2008 62,244 Children 16,968 Children 9,227 Children never exited from care (10.3% of original - 69.1% of children in care on 12/31/2008) 2007 20,124 Children 44,518 Children 2003 2006 22,145 Children 2004 2005 25,617 Children 31,951 Children

1999-2001 Followed for 7 Years Children already in care at start of a period (the ‘stock’) were much less likely to ever exit over a span of 7 years than children entering during the period—though the not-exit proportion appears to be decreasing slightly

1999-2001 Followed for 7 Years African Americans had the highest proportions for never exiting, Native Americans also higher than whites, hispanics and asians. Proportions for all ethnic groups declined slightly [except for asians—small #’s though]

1999-2001 Followed for 7 Years Young school age children [6-10yrs old] at start of a given period [or at entry to period] were least likely to ever exit during the 7 year span.

1999-2001 Followed for 7 Years Of the children who never exited in 7 years for the respective periods, about half were Af. American, and about 2/3 were 6-10 yrs old.

2001 Children Not Exiting in 7 Years by Age & Ethnic Group

Conclusions Children already in care at start of a period (the ‘stock’) were much less likely to ever exit over a span of 7 years than children entering during the period. There appears to be a slight decrease in the never-exit proportion from 1999 to 2001, which holds for almost all ethnic groups. Nonetheless, it is quite notable that one out of ten children already in or entering care in 2001 never exited foster care over a span of 7 years. African Americans and young school-aged children (6-10 year olds) had the highest proportions for never exiting.

Next Steps Examination of flow by county or region (to uncover potential practices worth replicating via PQCR) Application of multivariate model on likelihood of never exiting (using demographic, placement constellation, service history covariates) In addition to ‘non-exiters,’ analysis of children with multiple exits and reentries (‘recyclers’). As time passes, examination of flow with more follow-up time, and for post CFSR years will be instructive. This presentation is very descriptive and exploratory, but that is a necessary and normal part of any new analytical approach. Further study needs to illuminate contributing factors to ‘non-exiters’ (e.g., child or family-specific attributes—ses, functionality, as well as supply of services [availability of adoptive homes?] and efficacy of practices [TDM? Concurrent planning?]/policies that might impact this group)

Questions Daniel Webster dwebster@berkeley.edu 510.290.6779 Joseph Magruder joemagruder@berkeley.edu 510.643.2585 Terry Shaw tshaw@ssw.umaryland.edu 410.706.3811