ECAP and Placement Stability Practice

The Revolution in Foster Care Placement

• 50% of children leaving foster care in the United

States have spent one year or more in care

• 2/3 of children in foster care more than 1 year

experience 3 or more placements

1. (Northern California Training Academy, 2008)2. (Noonan, 2009)

It’s a problem…

… and the stakes are high

Children

– poor academic

performance

– school truancy

– emotional

problems

– poor social

interactions

Families

– burnout

– recruitment

problems

– guilt

Agencies

– high costs

– strict government

requirements

– reputation

• Complexity of social interactions– Some behaviors influence outcomes

(some don’t)– Some events influence outcomes

(some don’t)

• Predisposition– Nature vs. Nurture

• Scope of Environment– Family-level

– Community-level

– at school

The Challenges

• Work environment

• No single standard format for data

• Subjectivity vs. Objectivity

– Why did the placement disrupt?

A Lack of Reliable Data

Possible Causes

Policies and Systems

– worker training

– worker turnover

Resource Families

– family training

– willingness to

commit

– # of children in a

home

Children

– age

– prior placement

– placement with

siblings

– behaviors

(Children and Family Research Center, 2004; A. Jones, 2010; Jones & Edwards, 2008; Rolock, 2009; Tarren-Sweeney & Hazell, 2005)

Where do we start?

• Finding and supporting quality resource homes

• Use of multi-agency supports and systems

• Improving the caseworker’s experience

• Improving child-resource parent matching

Strategies for Addressing

Placement Stability

(includes ideas from Peter Pecora’s 2010 research)

The role of MATCHING in

Placement Stability

“The current research shows there is a strong

correlation between a child’s behavior, the

resource parents’ ability to deal with that behavior,

and placement stability.”

(A. Jones, Promoting Placement Stability in Foster Care: A Roadmap Through the Literature 2010, p. 9)

The role of MATCHING in

Placement Stability

• Many different reported practices:

– using specific workers (11 states)

– matching based on foster home availability (5 states)

– assessment tools likes CANS (4 states)

– matching based on capabilities of resource parents (3

states)

– placement matrix system (3 states)

– specialized placement units (2 states)

(Blakey, J. M., Leathers, S. J., Lawler, M., Washington, T., Natschke, C., Strand, T., & Walton, Q. (2012). A review of how states are addressing placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review )

• A new approach to matching

• Validation from KU School of Social Welfare

• Enhancing the system

The Solution

the Solution:

• A web-based decision

support tool

• Manages and tracks foster

children’s placements

• Makes “smart” placements…

• A statistical analysis of past placements

• School of Social Welfare (University of Kansas)

• Increased Placement Stability– Placements were 1.5 to 1.8 times more stable

• Reduced Time to Permanency– Children spent an average of 53 fewer days in care

“Smart” Placements

In one year…

• Prevented 452 unnecessary moves

• Saved TFI over $731,000

• Saved the State of Kansas almost $900,000

The Impact of ECAP’s

“Smart” Placements

Placement Disruption Costs

• Time spent finding a new placement (labor cost)

• Transportation costs associated with moving a child

• Foster parent or case worker reimbursements

• Family meetings

• New school enrollments and treatment services

• Setting up new visitation schedules

• Making changes in case plans

• New court hearings

• Opportunity costs – what else could you be doing?

How ECAP works

• Collect information

• Analyze the information

• Uses the information to make an evidence-

based decision

A profile for each new foster home is completed

A profile called the

Appropriate Placement Level Indicator (APLI)

is completed for each new child referral

Foster home profiles are loaded in to ECAP…

ECAP generates a ranked list of the matching homes for

that child…

Placement workers begin calling homes in the list, logging

each communication as they go…

Administrators and placement workers can also access

various reports that provide timely placement information

Provider Preferences Physical Aggression

Agency Name Will take Will consider Would not prefer Grand Total

Agency1 140 313 193 646

Agency10 1 2 3 6

Agency15 9 15 23 47

Agency6 65 89 150 304

Grand Total 215 419 369 1003

Provider's Answer Column Labels

Row Labels Provider1002 John and Jane Grand Total

Accepted 2 2

Considering 1 1

Declined - Age of Child 2 2

Declined - Availability 6 6

Declined - Due to child's behaviors 2 2

Declined - Restrictions (Pets room sharing etc.) 1 1

Left Message 3 3

Grand Total 17 17

Level of Care & APLI Scoring

First

Placements

Subsequent

Placements

Level of Care & APLI Scoring

• Original APLI:

– 73 items

– (37 were predictive)

• NEW 1st Placement APLI:

– 38 items

– (24 are predictive)

• NEW Subsequent Placement APLI:

– 35 items

– (21 are predictive)

Provider Scoring & Matching

• Only providers within the recommended level of care will appear

• The original Provider Composite Score included:– The family’s preferences

– Proximity from the child’s home

• The new Provider Composite Score now considers:– The family’s preferences

– The child’s level of care needs

– The provider’s record for providing safe and stable placements

Provider Scoring & Matching

• Compared the outcomes of 2 cohorts of foster children– Pre-ECAP: 621 children

– Post-ECAP: 614 children

• Analyzed over 22,000 placement records of TFI foster children

• Analyzed over 2,000 placements that were made using the APLI (46% 1st and 54% Subsequent)

• Suggested improvements for ECAP– Modifications to the APLI format to increase predictive capability

– Separate profile formats for 1st and subsequent placements

KU’s Research Study

• for Children Placed with ECAP:

– 22.5% improvement in the # of days of care per move

• Pre-ECAP: 316

• Post-ECAP: 388

– 12% reduction in the average time to permanency

• An average (median) of 53 fewer days to permanency

– were 1.5 to 1.8 times more stable

Significant Improvements

• for TFI

– Decreased the # of placement moves in a year by

18% (452 fewer)

– Saved over $731,000 in one year in movement costs

– Saved the State of Kansas almost $900,000 in

reimbursement costs

– Met all 3 federal outcomes (meeting only 1 of them

before ECAP)

Significant Improvements

• LLC formed by TFI and the BTBC

• Develops, Supports, and Sells ECAP to

agencies around the world

• Manages and implements ongoing research

projects

Experience + Technology(blending the Tried and True with the Cutting Edge)

• Using technology as a tool (not as crutch)

• Don’t forget about experience (Practice Wisdom)

• The Combination is the Key (evidence-based

practices)

We Believe:

• There are underlying patterns in all of our lives

• Discovering these and acting on them can help

us significantly improve placement stability in

foster care

• Digital technology can help us create cutting-

edge tools to implement these ideas

Contact Us:

FosterCareTech.com

785-856-0625