Risks of Reentry into the Foster Care System for Children who Reunified Terry V. Shaw, MSW University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare.

Slides:



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

Working Across Systems to Improve Outcomes for Young Children Sheryl Dicker, J.D. Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Family and Social Medicine, Albert.
Community Based Care in Florida and the IV-E Waiver.
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,
Impact of foster care on sexual activity of maltreated youth Monica Faulkner, PhD, LMSW Center for Social Work Research The University of Texas at Austin.
California Department of Social Services Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation PRESENTED TO THE CHILD WELFARE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 12, 2012 REVISED.
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.
How do LaSalle County Children Enter the Child Welfare System? LaSalle County Indicated reports FY 2010 SourceNumber Percent of total Law enforcement20755%
White Earth Indian Child Welfare Initiative 2010
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%
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.
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.
Substance Abuse and Child Welfare Services: Research Update and Needs Presented at the National Center on Substance Abuse and Child Welfare Researcher’s.
1 Child and Family Services Review Program Improvement Plan Kick-Off Division/Staff Name Date (7/30/07)
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley Data Are Your Friends: California’s Child Welfare Outcomes and Accountability.
Reunification for Siblings in Out-of-Home Care Using a Statistical Technique for Examining Non-independent Observations Presented by: Joseph Magruder,
Vermilion County Action Team Laurie Krolikowski & Susan Werner.
Increasing Child Welfare Permanency Options: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley.
Reunification – Old and New Information Diana J. English PhD Child Welfare League of America May 30, 2007.
The California Child Welfare System: Data Snapshot Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Emily Putnam Hornstein, MSW Joseph Magruder, MSW Center for Social Services.
Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews
Program Staff Presentation 1 Program Staff Presentation.
Taking Research to Practice: Rethinking Outcomes and Performance Measures for the Child and Family Service Reviews John D. Fluke, Child Protection Research.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,
©2008 National Association of Social Workers. All Rights Reserved. 1 CHILD PROTECTION IN THE UNITED STATES Norma Threadgill-Goldson, Ph.D., MSW Eastern.
A Case Study of the Intersection Between the Child Welfare and Criminal Justice Systems Charlene Wear Simmons, Ph.D. Parental Incarceration, Termination.
Measuring a Collaborative Effort a Child Welfare – Drug & Alcohol Family Preservation example Family Design Resources, Inc.  Fawn Davies  Deborah W.
©2008 National Association of Social Workers. All Rights Reserved. 1 Child Protection and Family Care Cora Hardy, LCSW Clinical Director Better Life Children.
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.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
Creating Racial Equity in Child Welfare: What Do We Know? Judith Meltzer, CSSP Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative Fall Convening November 16, 2010.
Sangamon County Action Team Sara Sanders Christy Cunningham Chrissy Gosteli.
Demographics. National Statistics  “America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well- Being, 2009” Report:  In 2008, 73.9 million children 0-17 y/o.
CHMDA/CWDA Partnership Series Child Welfare Services “It Takes a Village” Danna Fabella, Interim Director Contra County Employment and Human Services Department.
CENTER FOR SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH School of Social Welfare, UC Berkeley California’s Child Welfare System: Using Data from CWS/CMS Barbara Needell, MSW,
Family Treatment Drug Court National Evaluation Overview & Phase I Preliminary Results Beth L. Green, Ph.D. Sonia Worcel, M.A., M.P.A. Michael W. Finigan,
A Picture of Young Children in the U.S. Jerry West, Ph.D. National Center for Education Statistics Institute of Education Sciences EDUCATION SUMMIT ON.
Michigan’s Child Welfare System Why is Overrepresentation a Critical Issue?
Foster Care Re-entry Study A Hennepin County Project conducted in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the University of Minnesota.
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.
C hildren and F amily Research Center University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Social Work TM Return to Care: What are the Factors Involved.
Race and Child Welfare: Exits from the Child Welfare System Brenda Jones Harden, Ph.D. University of Maryland College Park Research Synthesis on Child.
NCADS Child Maltreatment 2000 Data about child abuse and neglect known to child protective Services (CPS) agencies in the United States in 2000.
U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE BRIEFING ON KINSHIP CARE IN SUPPORT OF THE KINSHIP CAREGIVER SUPPORT ACT (H.R and S. 661) Presented by Dr. Joseph Crumbley,
Program Evaluation - Reunification of Foster Children with their Families: NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Division of Child Care Evelyn Jones,
Overview of California’s Child Welfare Indicator Data Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD Center for Social Services Research School of Social Welfare University.
The Prevalence of Children with Disabilities in the Child Welfare System: An Analysis of State Administrative Data Elizabeth Lightfoot, PhD Katharine Hill,
1 CHILDREN SAFE AND THRIVING WITH FOREVER FAMILIES, SOONER DIVISION OF FAMILY & CHILDREN SERVICES Isabel Blanco, Deputy Director of Field Operations September.
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.
The Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) February 2008 Update.
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.
The Social and Family Backgrounds of Infants in Care: Predicting Subsequent Abuse Dr. Paul Delfabbro School of Psychology University of Adelaide.
Increasing Permanency Options in Child Welfare: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program Daniel Webster Joseph Magruder University.
RELATIVE GUARDIANSHIPS: INCREASED OPTIONS FOR SUSTAINED PERMANENCY Joseph Magruder, PhD University of California, Berkeley Daniel Webster, PhD University.
Public Children Services Association of Ohio SAFE CHILDREN, STABLE FAMILIES, SUPPORTIVE COMMUNITIES.
Background Objectives Methods Study Design A program evaluation of WIHD AfterCare families utilizing data collected from self-report measures and demographic.
BackgroundBackground ObjectivesObjectives MethodsMethods Study Design 1E-06 One of the biggest challenges for the Child Welfare System is sustaining successful.
Society for Social Work & Research New Orleans 1/14/2017
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.
BARBARA NEEDELL, MSW, PhD
Presentation transcript:

Risks of Reentry into the Foster Care System for Children who Reunified Terry V. Shaw, MSW University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare This research is funded by the California Department of Social Services and the Stuart Foundation Presented at the National Resource Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology 8 th National Child Welfare Data Conference

Outline 1.Brief overview of federal outcome measures related to reentries. 2.Overview of prior research on foster care reentries. 3.Discussion of the population and methods used for this project. 4.Examination of the results. 5.Conclusions 6.Implications

Outcomes, outcomes, everywhere (or why bother looking at reentry?) There have been multiple instances of federal legislation calling for the development of Child Welfare outcome measures. Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)

ASFA (the Adoption and Safe Families Act) mandated that outcome reports be given to Congress. Reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect, Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care, Increase permanency for children in foster care, Reduce time in foster care to reunification without increasing re-entry, Reduce time in foster care to adoption, Increase placement stability, and Reduce placements of young children in group homes or institutions. Outcomes, outcomes … continued

Statewide Data Indicators in Child and Family Services Reviews (a subset of the Annual Outcomes) We want to ensure that children are in safe and stable homes. Reentering care is a sign that the reunification was not optimal. Outcomes, outcomes … continued

Child and Family Services Outcomes Safety Child and family well-being Permanency –Children have permanency and stability in their living situations –The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children.

Foster Care Reentries Of all the children who entered care during the year under review, what percent re-entered foster care within 12 months of a prior foster care episode? National Standard 8.6% or less:

Foster Care Reentries Does not follow children through care from their initial entry to the reunification and then to reentry. The federal measure does not look at reentries after 12 months even though Reentry continues to occur well after 12 months. Longitudinal alternative: For all children who enter care and are reunified, what % reenter within 3 mo, 12 mo, 24 mo after reunification?

Festinger, T. (1994). Returning to Care: Discharge and Reentry into Foster Care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Previous Research on Reentry to Care Authors and Articles Courtney, Mark E. (1994). "Factors Associated with the Reunification of Foster Children with Their Families." Social Service Review 68 (1): Wulczyn, Fred (1991). "Caseload Dynamics and Foster Care Reentry." Social Service Review 65: Frame, L., Berrick, J.D., Brodowski, M.L. (2000) “Understanding reentry to foster care for reunified infants.” Child Welfare, 79 (4), pp Frame, L., (2002) “Maltreatment reports and placement outcomes for infants and toddlers in out-of-home care.” Infant Mental Health Journal, 23 (5), pp Wells, Kathleen and Shenyang Guo (1999) “Reunification and Reentry of Foster Children.” Children and Youth Services Review, 21 (4):

Research on Reentry to Care Length of Time in Care prior to Reunification. Type of placement a child experiences in foster care. Number of placements while in foster care. Race/Ethnicity of the Child. Age of child at entry into foster care.

Research on Reentry (continued…) Reason for removal from home or entry into the foster care system. Caregiver Drug/Alcohol use. Poverty status (children receiving AFDC). Marital status (single or multi-parent homes). Geographic location (urban/rural). Child health factors.

Study Population First Entries to Child Welfare Supervised Foster Care in California ( ). Initial stays greater than 5 days. Children reunifying within 12 months of initial entry into foster care. Missing placement types excluded. Question: What are the differences between the children who reenter care within one year after reunification and those who do not?

Variables Examined Child’s Race/Ethnicity Child’s Gender First Entry Year Reason for removal from home. Time in Care prior to reunification. Predominant Placement Type Placement Moves

Variables Examined (continued…) Title 4e Eligible –Whether the child was found eligible for AFDC or not. Did the parent(s) receive drug or alcohol services? –Inpatient or Outpatient Substance Abuse Services. –FP – Drug Treatment –Substance Abuse Services and Testing –12-Step Program Family structure child was removed from.

Variables Examined (continued…) Primary language spoken at home. Number of placement moves while in foster care. Entry Rates at the census tract level. Population characteristic (census tract). –Percent Female Headed Households –Percent Below Poverty. –Percent Unemployed.

Note: California child population is 7% Black, 35% White, 44% Hispanic 10% Asian/Other, 0.5% Native American, 3.5% two or more.

Gender characteristics Reunification Reentries 49%51% 48% 52%

Overall Population of children who reunified by First Entry Year

Results Sibling correction was used allowing for the inclusion of all siblings in a sibling group. Adjustments in standard errors made by using GEE (Generalized Estimating Equations) as part of a logistic regression analysis. Adjusts the standard errors to account for potential correlation due to clustered data – in this case due to sibling groups.

Limitations The data for this study is based on an administrative data system. Measures of drug/alcohol services only examine recommended services, not whether the services were used.

Models Used Bivariate analysis Interim model –Does not account for community indicators, poverty indicators, or services Full model –Contains all of the variables discussed earlier

White Black Hispanic Asian Native American Other Bivariate ns 0.31 Interim Model ns 0.29 Full Model 1.00 ns 0.35 Odds of Reentry - Ethnicity

Odds of Reentry – Reason for Removal Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Other Abuse Bivariate ns Interim Model ns Full Model 1.00 ns

Odds of Reentry – Length of time in Care 0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months Bivariate 1.00 ns Interim Model Full Model

Odds of Reentry – Age at Entry Age 0 Age 1-5 Age 6-10 Age Bivariate Interim Model ns Full Model ns

Odds of Reentry – Predominant Placement Kinship Care Foster Care FFA Court Spec. Group Shelter Guardian Bivariate ns ns Interim Model ns 1.23 ns Full Model ns ns

Odds of Reentry – Other Factors Title 4e Eligible Drug/Alcohol Services Single Parent Primary Language Placement Moves Bivariate ns Full Model ns

Odds of Reentry – Other Factors, pt 2 Percent Female Headed Household Percent Below Poverty Entry Rate Percent Unemployed Bivariate 1.01 ns 1.10 ns Community Model ns

Conclusions When variables measuring poverty, drug and alcohol services, and marital status are added into the model – ethnicity is not a significant predictor of reentry. Gender is not a significant predictor of reentry. A longer stay in care initially is protective. (The shorter the initial stay in care the higher the likelihood of reentry).

Conclusions (continued…) The older a child is at first entry the less likely they are to reenter compared to infants. Compared to kinship care, different predominant placement types increase a child’s odds of reentry. Children who are 4e eligible are over 2X more likely to reenter care than non-4e eligible children.

Conclusions (continued…) Children whose parent(s) are assigned drug/alcohol services are over 2X more likely to reenter care than other children. Coming from a primarily non-English speaking home is protective. Children from primarily non-English speaking homes are 2/3 as likely to reenter care. For every 1% increase in the pct of female headed households in the census tract there is 1.01X the odds of reentering care.

Conclusions (continued…) For every 10 per 1,000 increase in the entry rate at the Census Tract level there is 1.08X increase in the odds of reentering foster care. Gender, Entry Year, Number of placement moves, Percent Below the Poverty Line and Percent Unemployed were not significant predictors of reentry.

Implications For children in care for only a short period of time - post-reunification services should be available for at least 12 months. Workers need to be aware of how severe of an effect poverty has on children's risk of entry/reentry. Formalized coordination with drug/alcohol services, and mental health services are needed.

The End! Terry V. Shaw – (510) Center for Social Services Research Web Page