1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 [lifetable synthetic cohort]

4. 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]

5. 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

6. 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
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)

7. 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

8. 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,
2000
77,077 Children
2,129
121 87
54,112 Children
2001

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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 % 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

17. 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 % 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

18. 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

19. 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]

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. 2001 Children Not Exiting in 7 Years by Age & Ethnic Group

23. 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.

24. 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)

25. Questions Daniel Webster dwebster@berkeley.edu 510.290.6779
Joseph Magruder
Terry Shaw