1. Foster Care Re-entry Study A Hennepin County Project conducted in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the University of Minnesota School of Social Work Susan J. Wells, Ph.D. Project Consultant Andrea Nesmith, Ph.D. Research Associate Cheryl Cowan, M.S.W. Research Assistant Project Completed October 2003

2. Federal Outcomes in Child Welfare Services –Re-entry into foster care –Re-abuse or neglect –A safe & stable home –Length of time to achieve a safe & stable home

3. Federal Oversight Linked to receipt of Title IV-E funding of the Social Security Act States must achieve specified levels of performance or have approved Program Improvement Plans Outcomes are based on overall performance of the states (75 th percentile)

4. How Does Minnesota Stack Up? In the 2001 Federal Review, some areas for improvement in MN were: –Timeliness of initiating investigations (case review) –In-home protective services (case review) –Re-entry into foster care –Stability of foster care –Length of time to adoption

5. How Does Minnesota Stack Up? –Federal Standard: 8.6% of one year’s placements are re-entries in 12 mos. –Minnesota: 22.6% (2001 review) Re-entry Outcomes

6. Re-entry Study Findings Some factors leading to re-entry –Placement for neglect → less likely –Parents incarcerated → less likely –Child’s placement is Title IV-E reimbursable (child is from extremely poor family; would have been eligible for AFDC by 1996 stds.) → more likely

7. Odds of Re-entry For Placement Characteristics in the Logistic Regression Model VariableOdds of Re-entry Duration of Placement 1 was 10 days or over 18.7 times more likely (than those who had placements less than 10 days) Determined to be IV-E eligible [1] [1] 16.7 times more likely (than those who were not IV-E eligible or whose eligibility was unknown) Had any placements less than 72 hours 9.0 times more likely (than those who did not have placements less than 72 hours) Two or fewer living situations during Placement 1 ending in 2000 8.8 times more likely (than those with more living situations) [1] [1] The IV-E eligibility was recorded in SSIS by the end of Placement 1 or sometime thereafter.

8. Prior Research, Case Record Reading Quantitative Findings and Case Record Reading Qualitative Findings Literature ReviewCase Record Reading Quantitative FindingsQualitative Findings Child: Age Children under age 4 whose parents were not incarcerated at initial placement and whose reason for Placement 1 was other than neglect  re-entry --- Health problemsn.s.* --- M.H. /behavioral problems n.s.*More likely as entry reason for Placement 2 African AmericanAmerican Indian less likely to re-enter in certain circumstances--- Parent: Substance abuse problems Substance abuse problems or parental treatment for substance abuse in cases where parents were not incarcerated at the initial placement and Placement 1was made for reasons other than neglect Substance abuse pervasive in re-entry and non re-entry but apparently even more so in re-entry cases Criminal HistoryParental incarceration at the time of placement was associated with lowered risk of re-entry** Incarceration often due to domestic violence, DUI, drug arrests. Severity of problems# of services delivered if parents incarcerated at initial placement or Placement 1 due to neglect --- Parental competency/ caregiving skills If siblings left in the home at the time of the child’s initial placement (for children placed for reasons other than neglect and whose parents were not incarcerated at the initial placement)  lower risk of re-entry Placement 1 for neglect  lower risk of re-entry** --- Factors Associated with Re-entry Continued on next slide

9. Non-resolution of problems prior to reunification Association of family chemical abuse treatment after reunification with re-entry suggests that, in a number of families, problems were not resolved prior to child’s return. Parent works plan; situation not necessarily changed Domestic violence pervasive; somewhat associated with re- entry Social isolation/no support system no data--- Unmet service needsno data--- Housing instabilityInadequate housing  Title IV-E eligibility--- AFDC eligible or living in povertyTitle IV-E eligibility  higher risk of re-entry**--- Placement or Service: Total # of CPS reports on the family n.s.*--- Total # of prior placementsA placement of 72 hours or less; Placement 1 more than 10 days (if Placement 1 due to neglect or initial placement involved parental incarceration) --- Last placement in kin setting associated with non re-entry No data on “last placement” kin setting; if regardless of order of occurrence relationship not significant --- Placement stability2 or fewer different types of living situations during Placement 1  re-entry --- * n.s. = Tested, but not significant in case record reading study ** Statistically significant in final regression analysis Factors Assoc. with Re-entry (cont.)

10. What Do the Findings Mean? Case more likely to involve: physical or sexual abuse, parental drug problem, or abandonment Child’s initial placement did not involve incarceration of parent Child living in extreme poverty

11. Implications of Re-entry Study for Policy & Practice Need programs for emergency alternatives to placement, particularly in case of parental incarceration Will save money in the long run by avoiding placement and starting the cycle of institutional involvement Programs that aid families in financial need are important to avoiding placement Juxtaposition of drug problems, drug treatment and child welfare time frames needs to be addressed