child maltreatment solutions network state of the u.s ... · university of chicago chapin hall...

The Future of Foster Care: New Science to Address Old Problems

Child Maltreatment Solutions NetworkPennsylvania State UniversityNittany Lion InnSeptember 22 & 23, 2019

State of the U.S. Foster Care SystemFred Wulczyn, Ph.D.Center for State Child Welfare DataChapin Hall Center for ChildrenSchool of Social Service AdministrationUniversity of Chicago

University of ChicagoChapin Hall Center for Children

Center for State Child Welfare Data

The Agenda

‣ Overview and commentary on the state of foster care‣ Set the stage for the conference‣ Describe the research agenda at the Center for State Child Welfare Data‣ Odds and ends



Full Disclosure

‣ Raising other peoples children‣ Natural part of community‣ Depends on why‣ The use of state power‣ Residential care ‣ We know . . . what exactly?‣ New science: reorient the well-being conversation to align with human

development



Did You Know?

‣ What is the relationship between Black child poverty and Black child placement rates?

‣ What is the likelihood a child age 10 at the time of admission will age out of foster care?

2% or 4% or 15%‣ Match the age group to their proportion on the caseload

Infants (under 1) 4%

10 year olds 7%

Teens (14 - 15 yr. olds) 24%‣ Of foster parents who are licensed and eligible to accept to children into their home, what

percent never have a child placed in their home: 6% 11% 18% 30%

Positive Neutral Negative



Topics for Discussion

‣ Disparity‣ Entry and Exit Disparity‣ Congregate care and the theory of ecological similarity

‣ Changing face of foster care and outcomes‣ Trajectories - foster care in the context of CPS‣ Foster parents‣ The social sector and research evidence use‣ Freedom From, Freedom To and the human capital framework



Placement Disparity

‣ If versus who, where and when



Disparity in Tn.

‣ Are Black children are over represented in foster care?‣ 22% of all children are Black whereas 28% of foster children are Black

‣ How did/does this happen?

‣ Black child admission rate: 3.78 placements/1,000 Black children

‣ White child admission rate: 2.99 placements/1,000 White children

‣ Disparity ratio: 1.27

‣ Conclusion: Black children are 27 percent more likely to enter care than white children

‣ No difference in exit rates?

‣ Conclusion: Black children leave foster care as quickly as white children do?‣



Entry Rate Disparity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Small Black ChildPopulation

Moderate Black ChildPopulation

Large Black ChildPopulation

Disparity Ratio



Local Disparity Ratios

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Shelby Davidson Hamilton Knox



Exit Rate Disparity - Reunification

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

PP-1 PP-2 PP-3 PP-4 PP-5 PP-6Whites Blacks



Exit Rate Disparity

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

PP1 PP2 PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6White Black

0.00

0.04

0.08

0.12

0.16

0.20

PP-1 PP-2 PP-3 PP-4 PP-5 PP-6Whites Blacks

Guardianship Adoption



Local Differences

0.000

0.500

1.000

1.500

2.000

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6Davidson Knox Montgomery Shelby Hamilton Average



Congregate Care and the Theory of Ecological Similarity

‣ Robert Sampson and others including William J. Wilson‣ Exposure to similar circumstances

‣ Congregate care‣ Is bed supply a factor in demand?

‣ Congregate care placements and Black/white disparities

‣ Does ecological similarity matter?

‣ Measure of supply induced demand‣ Do entry and exits move together over time?



Exits and Entries Are Random Processes



Placements in Congregate Care Over Time



Placements in Congregate Care Over Time



What Does All of This Mean?

‣ The starting point:

‣ Constraints on decisions affect what happens to children

‣ Beds are a constraint

‣ Systems where supply has a strong effect will increase the likelihood of entry into congregate care

‣ Age, prior history of placement in group care, and location are all important

‣ Has consequences for disparity

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Strong Effect Weak Effect No Effect

Supply Effect on Likelihood of Placement into Congregate Care

Odds Ratio

Supply Effect



Black/White Differences in Entry Rates

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

1.40

Black

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6



The Changing Face of Foster Care

‣ 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, 2018‣ 19 states

‣ Age at admission‣ Urbanicity‣ Reason for Leaving‣ Reentry to care

‣ What does it mean for interventions?



Year of Admission

Age at Admission 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018

Total 83,091 91,914 81,818 85,243 82,586

Newborns 7,938 10,261 8,097 9,758 10,183

Infants 8,549 10,451 10,353 10,358 9,798

Older Children & Youth 66,604 71,202 63,368 65,127 62,605

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Newborns 10% 11% 10% 11% 12%

Infants 10% 11% 13% 12% 12%

Older Children & Youth 80% 77% 77% 76% 76%

Number of First Admissions to Foster Care by Age and Year



-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

Larg

e Cen

tral

Larg

e Frin

ge

Med

ium

Met

ro

Mic

ropo

litan

Non

core

Smal

l Met

ro

Larg

e Cen

tral

Larg

e Frin

ge

Med

ium

Met

ro

Mic

ropo

litan

Non

core

Smal

l Met

ro

Larg

e Cen

tral

Larg

e Frin

ge

Med

ium

Met

ro

Mic

ropo

litan

Non

core

Smal

l Met

ro

New Borns Infants Other Children & Youth

Number of First Admissions to Foster Care by Age and Urbanicity



Reason for Leaving Foster Care

Age and Time in Care Reunified Relative AdoptionReach

MajorityRun

AwayOther

ReasonsStill-in-

Care

Newborns 30% 8% 58% 0% 0% 4% 0%

Under One Month 80% 12% 1% 0% 0% 7% 0%

One to Two Months 76% 13% 1% 0% 0% 10% 0%

Three to Five Months 74% 14% 3% 0% 0% 9% 0%

Six to Eleven Months 52% 14% 30% 0% 0% 4% 0%

Twelve to Seventeen Months 27% 9% 61% 0% 0% 3% 0%

Eighteen to Thirty-five Months 10% 4% 84% 0% 0% 2% 0%

Thirty-six Months or More 5% 6% 86% 0% 0% 2% 2%

Reason for Leaving Care - Newborns



Reentry to CareAge and Time in Care No Yes Total

Newborns 63% 37% 100%

Under One Month 56% 44% 100%

One to Two Months 62% 38% 100%

Three to Five Months 62% 38% 100%

Six to Eleven Months 65% 35% 100%

Twelve to Seventeen Months 67% 33% 100%

Eighteen to Thirty-five Months 68% 32% 100%

Thirty-six Months or More 70% 30% 100%

Reentry to Care - Newborns



Foster Boarding Homes and Vacancy Chain Management

‣ How many people here shop at the grocery store on Saturday’s at noon for the opportunity to stand in line at the check out counter?

‣ How many people have tried to get to through the security line at the airport on Monday morning early when the road warriors show up?



Number of Days between Licensure and First Placement of First Foster Home Spells

Elapsed Days between Licensure and First Placement Number Percent

0 days 4,928 33%

1-10 days 813 5%

11-20 days 482 3%

21-50 days 1,086 7%

51-100 days 1,128 8%

101-200 days 1,216 8%

over 200 days 710 5%

No placement 4,471 30%



Vacancy Chain Management

Length of ServiceAverage Length of

Time OccupiedAverage % of Time

Occupied

1 to 3 months 0.6 36%

4 to 10 months 3.2 45%

11 months to 2 years 8.8 55%

2 years and above 25.8 63%



Social Sector Agencies and Evidence Use



Evidence Use

‣ Asked agencies about their capacity to use research evidence‣ Does your agency subscribe to journals? 30% yes‣ Have you heard of google scholar? 50% yes‣ Have you heard of the CEBC? 50% yes‣ Do you have a license for stat. software? 10% yes‣ Are you accredited? 45% yes‣ Training - evidence based decision making 33% yes‣ Training in data analysis? 12% yes‣ Do you study your outcomes? 66% yes



Evidence Use and Outcomes

‣ Positive association between permanency rates and evidence use?‣ Do you have a person responsible for CQI?‣ Do you have an electronic case management system?‣ Do you conduct your own outcomes research?

‣ No association between permanency rates and evidence use?‣ Accreditation‣ Budget‣ Research conference



Why is it important? - Agency Variation in Outcomes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Likelihood of Leaving Care for a Family

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Length of Stay in Days



Dynamic Life Course Models of Well-being

‣ Remember algebra class?

‣ For more information about child protection and human capital, please download the full report:

https://fcda.chapinhall.org/uncategorized/freedom-from-freedom-to-rethinking-child-well-being-in-the-child-protection-context/



Toward a Structural Model



Structural Model of Life Course Dynamics

!"#$% = '"%(!", *"+,, . ∈ {1, 2}, 4 ∈ {0,2, … , 8}, 9 ∈ {:, ;, <}

a denotes the age of the child at which measurement is conducted, l is an index that identifies whether the skill is cognitive (C) or non-cognitive (N) and k indicates the

type of risk or protective factors the child experienced at age a. For the sake of illustration, risk and protective factors can only occur at the parent (P), environment

(E) or School (S) level.



Human Capital as Wellbeing

‣ Human capital is the diverse bundle of skills that young people need to manage the next set of challenges life puts in front of them‣ The skills involved are diverse: soft skills, hard skills, ability, know-how,

education, and experience.

‣ The skills acquired are age-dependent and cumulative ‣ Time scale can be daily or across the life course - transitions are how

narrative coheres‣ In time, the bundle of skills is what differentiates adults and children.

‣ Adults possess the skills needed to manage relationships with other adults, relationships with the community, and a relationship with the workforce.



Foundational Ideas

‣ Formation of human capital starts early‣ The rudimentary skills of language, numeracy, motor skills, emotional regulation‣ The formation of human capital follows a trajectory

‣ Human capital begets human capital‣ The rate at which human capital forms is a function of the stock of human capital

plus risk and protective factors‣ Easier to make gains in kindergarten if you have a larger vocabulary, etc.

‣ By rebalancing risk and protective factors, the rate of human capital formation will accelerate

‣ Raise protective factors by addressing the micro-social interactions between adults and children and improving the institutional structures that bring children together with adults (i.e, day care, housing, etc.).



Underpinnings



Underpinnings

Person

Context



Underpinnings

Person

Context

What bio-physiological-psychological processes influence how a child develops in the settings where they grow-up.



Underpinnings

Person

Context


These are bi-directional processes. Our challenge is to identify the contextual elements most likely to manifest themselves as bio-psychological influences and vice versa.



Underpinnings

Person

Context


These are bi-directional processes. Our challenge is to identify the contextual elements most likely to manifest themselves as bio-psychological influences and vice versa.

What features of context - contextual determinants - influence development?

Whether they are human-built (health care/child welfare) or natural (families), systems are a key feature of context.



Human Capital Over Time

Stock ofHuman Capital

High

Low

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . . . . . 18

Time / Development

Human capital is a diverse bundle of assets - skills (cognitive, social emotional), experience, know-how, etc.

The stock of human capital changes over time. The rate of change - the trajectory - is relevant for policy and practice

Risk factors slow the rate at which human capital forms

Protective factors raise the rate at which human capital forms. The stock of human capital is a protective factor.

Legend:



Risk and Protective Factors Over Time

Wellbeing

High

Low

Time / Development

0 1 2 3

Human Capital is a function of:

The person period as a developmental construct - as young people grow older change occurs in accordance with developmental changes, caregiver skills, and the interaction between the two, etc.

Person-period characteristics measured as attributes of the family and the community. During the person-period, the absence or presence of these factors affects wellbeing depending the risk/protective nature of contextual influences that happen to be present.



Risk and Protective Factors

Wellbeing

High

Low

Age/Time / Development

0 1 2 3

Risk and protective factors are distal and proximal. They also vary in importance given the developmental trajectory.



Outcomes:Traditional Child Protection Framework




Safety Permanency Wellbeing




Safety Permanency Wellbeing

Cognitive Functioning

Health

Behavioral Health



Policies and Programs that Support Human Capital Formation The Pivot



Outcomes: Child Welfare Framework

Human Capital

Safety Permanency Cognitive Functioning

Health Behavioral Health



Health


Human Cap

SafetyPermanency

Cognitive Ability

Behavioral Health



Health


Human Cap

SafetyPermanency

Cognitive Ability

Behavioral Health



System Structures in a Child Welfare Framework

Human Cap




Human Cap

Child Welfare

ECE, Schools

Health Care B. H. Care

Child Welfare




Child Welfare

ECE, Schools

Health Care B. H. Care



Human Capital Formation




Early Years Later in Life






Disruptions

Huma

n Cap

ital

Time



Person and Place Through Time:







Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home

Time

Wave III

Wave II

Home

Wave I




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home

Time

Wave III

Wave II

Home

Wave I




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home

Developmentally HomogeneousGroupings of Children

Time

Wave III

Wave II

Home

Wave I




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home


Time

Wave III

Wave II

Home

Wave I




Group Settings

Foster Care

Kinship Care

Home


Child(i) Biographical Physical health Soc./Emotional Cognitive devel. Exp./Skills Reflective

Context(j) Community Home/Family Caregiver

Services(k) Child welfare Health/MH Education/day care

Maltx. History(l)

What is measured at a given observation?

Time

Wave III

Wave II

Home

Wave I



Human Capital Formation and Living Arrangements

0 1 2 3 4 5

Living in Out-of-Home Care (Kin)

At Home

Living in Out-of-Home Care

(Foster Home)

Residential Care

Living in Out-of-Home Care (Kin)

At Home

Living in Out-of-Home Care

(Foster Home)

Residential Care

0 1 2 3 4 5



A Longitudinal Model

Human Capital

High

Low0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 . . . . 18

Time / Development

Distal risk factors

Proximal risk factors

Distal protective factors

Proximal protective factors



Empirical Results - Language Skill

Developmental Baseline Wave 5

Indicators Frequency Percent StdErr Percent StdErr

Mean Score 1106 98.2 1.2 92.7 1.5

Normal 796 75% 2.1 66% 3.9

-2 Std Dev below mean 273 22% 1.9 17% 3.2

>2 Std Dev below mean 37 3% 0.9 17% 2.5

Total 1106 100% 100%



Language Scores (PLS) Over Time

Figure 2. Plot of Preschool Language Score and Child Age at Four Waves, with Quadratic Curve Fitted

pl s

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

Age of Chi l d i n Mont hs

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90



Parameter Model 1 P Model 2 P Model 3 P Model 4 PIntercept 66.413 *** 61.652 *** 48.924 *** 34.374 **

Child Age (months) 0.663 * 0.802 ** 0.757 ** 0.921 **

Child Gender Female vs. Male 5.229 ** 5.060 ** 4.028 * 4.523 *

Other Abuse vs. physical abuse -8.661 * -8.818 * -9.696 **

Place: adoption vs. in home 11.969 ** 11.544 ** 5.806

Marriage: married vs never marry -3.163

Education: less than HS. vs. HS plus -6.729 *

Education: high school vs. HS plus -0.621

Inc < Poverty Line -3.250 †

CG Home-Scale Score 1.387 **

Baseline PLS Score 0.173 ** 0.168 **

Table 5. Survey Regression Models for Preschool Language Skill (PLS-3 Score) of Children at Wave 3

Center for State Child Welfare DataChapin Hall Center for Children

University of Chicago

Mean PLS Score by Wave and Time of Adoption:Infant Subsample of NSCAW I

These results show that children at home when the wave 1 interviews took place had good language skills. By wave 5 children at home fell behind. The same can be said for children who spent some time in foster care but where never adopted. Children who were adopted improved their language skills by wave IV, regardless of when the were adopted.

Wave of SurveyTime of Adoption Wave 1 Wave 3 Wave 4 Wave 5

Always home 97.8ab 85.5d 85.0hi 92.4l

Foster care 95.8c 83.3e 84.7jk 91.6m

Adopted at wave 1 93.9 87.0 83.7 95.0

Adopted at wave 3 94.4 91.1defg 91.3hj 94.9

Adopted at wave 4 94.8a 86.2f 87.2 96.0lm

Adopted at wave 5 91.3bc 83.3g 89.0ik 95.9

Significance level: p <0.01 for b, e, h, j ; p<0.05 for c, d, g; and p <0.1 for a, f, i, k, l, m.

child maltreatment solutions network state of the u.s ... · university of chicago chapin hall...

Documents