First year after care: How are they doing and what contributes to their life satisfaction? Tamar Dinisman Prof. Anat Zeira The Hebrew University of Jerusalem A longitudinal research

Why care leavers? The change in young people transition to independent lives (Arnett, 2000; Schoeni & Ross, 2005) Different conditions for youth aging out of care: ◦ Abrupt move ◦ Lack of emotional and financial support from parents (Cashmore & Paxman, 1996; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Wade, 2008 ) Gloomy picture of care leavers from varied countries (e.g. Stein & Munro, 2008) Distinctive services and policy in numerous countries Knowledge gaps

The Israeli situation No legislation or general policy Out-of-home placement in Israel: ◦ Vast majority to residential care (80%) ◦ Two main types of residential care: treatment- oriented and educational-oriented The different transition to independent living The present study is a further step in the growing body of knowledge (Benbenishty, Schiff, Zeira) Part of longitudinal survey

The purpose of the study To examine the condition of care leavers on their first year after care, in six life domains To Identify factors, on the verge of leaving care, which contribute to their successful adjustment a year after ◦ The current presentation: Life satisfaction

T1 T2 Work experience Education functioning Self esteem Origin Individual characteristic Staff Peers Close relative Birth parents Social support characteristic Participate in ILPs ILPs in the setting ILPs in the setting Type Well being Normative behavior Social support Transition to Independent living Economic security Housing stability Adaptation to the army Institutional characteristic

Methods First step 272Second step: residential settings in Israel Main sample characteristics: ◦ average age 19 (SD= 1.00) ◦ 60.7% boys ◦ 23% Israeli born, 42.8% Ethiopian,21.2% former Soviet Union Procedures: ◦ First step: self-administered survey in the settings & interviews with the directors about ILPs held in their settings ◦ Second step: phone interview

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Dependent variables: Well being Normative behavior Social support Economic security Housing stability Adaptation to the army

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Well being Normative behavior Social support Economic security Housing stability Adaptation to the army  Adaptation to the unit and duty  Social adaptation

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Well being Normative behavior Social support Housing stability Adaptation to the army Economic security Economic hardships:  Debts  Insufficient money  Cutbacks  Subjective evaluation of general economic state

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Well being Normative behavior Social support Economic security Adaptation to the army Housing stability  Current accommodation  Accommodation stability in the future

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Well being Normative behavior Economic security Adaptation to the army Social support  Relationship with birth parents  Peer support  Contact with residential staff Housing stability

Instruments and Analysis Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Well being Economic security Adaptation to the army Normative behavior  Binge drinking  Involvement with the police Housing stability Social support

Instruments and Analysis Independent variables: Valid and new instruments Independent variables: Economic security Adaptation to the army Well being  Life satisfaction (7-SLSS) 1-4  Mental health Housing stability Social support Normative behavior

Results: The first year Fare adjustment in most life domains Numerous difficulties in two domains ◦ Economic security ◦ Future housing stability Small group with critical difficulties: ◦ Lack of permanent activity ◦ Absence of stable accommodation ◦ Delinquency ◦ Binge drinking ◦ Insufficient contact with birth parents

Main activity

Normative Behavior 82% did not engage in binge drinking in the last month 8.3% were engaged in binge drinking 8.8% were involved with the police Social support network 6.6% do not have any contact with their birth parents Suitable quality of relation with parents: M = 3.65 SD = 0.72 (1-5) Large amount of peer support: M = 4.24 SD = 0.74 (1-5) 67.5% have some contact with staff Life satisfaction (1-4): M = 2.8 SD = 0.67

Economic hardships

Housing stability 7.9% experienced lack in place to stay, since they left care 4.4% (10 youth) did not have a place to stay during the research 24.6% will not be able to stay in their current place for long

Factors contribute to life satisfaction ***p < Model 1 Model 2 VariablesBβ Bβ Learning difficulties *** *** Self-esteem.27.21*** Positive mother- relationship.21.32*** Peer support - tangible Peer support - emotional Peer support - affection Peer support - advice Peer support - interactions.06 Staff support - affection F(df)9.89(2,202)*** 5.52(9,195)*** R2R Δ R ***

Discussion and Implications Is it necessary to establish services and policy for care leavers? Who is prone to hardships? What are the protective factor? The importance of the relationship with birth parents during care and after

Thank you! Dinisman, T., & Zeira, A. (2011). The contribution of individual, social support and institutional characteristics to perceived readiness to leave care in Israel: An ecological perspective. British Journal of Social Work.