economic & social policy research conference: judy cashmore november 2005 towards better...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
Economic & Social Policy Research Economic & Social Policy Research Conference:Conference:
Judy CashmoreJudy CashmoreNovember 2005November 2005
Towards Better Outcomes for Young People
Leaving State Care
Towards Better Outcomes for Young People
Leaving State Care
KEY QUESTIONS KEY QUESTIONS
• What are the longer-term outcomes?
• What predicts better outcomes and not-so-good outcomes?
• What are the costs and benefits of meeting the needs of young people leaving care?
• Implications for policy and practice
Consistent Picture of Vulnerability
Consistent Picture of Vulnerability
Increased risk of: Homelessness and mobility Unemployment Poverty – financial stress Limited social support networks Drug and alcohol use/abuse Early parenthood Poor physical and mental healthConsistent findings since Stein & Carey’s Leeds study, 1986)
WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005
WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005
WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: • Interview group: Interview group: n = 47/ 45 n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged)(4 not discharged)
• Non-interview:Non-interview: n = 44 n = 44 (10 not discharged)(10 not discharged)
• Four interviews: Four interviews: (1) Before discharge(1) Before discharge (2) 3 mths after(2) 3 mths after (n =(n = 47)47)
(3) 12 mths after(3) 12 mths after (n =(n = 45)45)
(4) 4 - 5 years (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41)(n = 41)
Funded by NSW Dept of Community ServicesFunded by NSW Dept of Community Services
WHAT OUTCOMES?WHAT OUTCOMES?
• Education Employment • Adequate income and capacity to manage
financially
• Physical and psychological health & well-being
• Positive relationships (Capacity for trust, reciprocity)
– with peers, partners, and as parents
- perceived security and life satisfaction, meaning
AFTER CARE OUTCOMESAFTER CARE OUTCOMES
• 50% mostly work/study in 4-5 years after care• Av no of moves after care: 8.5 (range 0 – 20+)
• 39% spent some time living with family member• 50% in transitional /temporary housing eg
caravan, garage, refuges cf 0.6% age-mates• 42% completed Yr 12• 4 young people at university, 16 some TAFE study
AFTER CARE OUTCOMES AFTER CARE OUTCOMES
• 1 in 4 reported mental health diagnosis, serious drug problem
• >1 in 3 reported self-harm / suicide attempt *• 1 in 3 said no-one they can call on for support• 57% young women had children cf 6% gen pop• > 40% married, engaged, or de facto relationships
• Violence: 5 / 28 young women had needed AVOs
PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES
• Employment* (ever employed?) *• Living arrangements
• Mobility• Never homeless after leaving care*
• Education (completed high school?)* further education• No problems with drugs / alcohol *• Mental health – suicidality / depression *• No criminal behaviour – self-reported* • Relationships
• Contact, unresolved family issues• Partner, domestic violence * (Domains of Resilience
McGloin & Spatz Widom, 2001)
PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES:
PREDICTORS
PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES:
PREDICTORS • IN CARE FACTORS
• Stability – No of placements, % time in care in one placement• ‘Felt’ security• Delay in entering ward-ship• Experience of being ‘rejected’• No of problems in care
• LEAVING CARE • Education (completed high school?)* further education• Continuing support
• AFTER CARE• Social support• Stable accommodation
SENSE OF SECURITYSENSE OF SECURITY
• Was there anyone ever feel loved you?Was there anyone ever feel loved you?• Anyone ever feel secure with?Anyone ever feel secure with?• Feel as if listened to?Feel as if listened to?• Miss out on things other kids had?Miss out on things other kids had?• Miss out on affection?Miss out on affection?• Grow up too fast – bad thing?Grow up too fast – bad thing?
Coded as positive, negative, mediumCoded as positive, negative, medium
Long-term Short-term
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Stable Unstable
F (3, 37) = 6.1, p = .002
Resilience scores by stability
Insecure Moderate Secure
0
1
2
3
4
5
6F (2,37) - 18.9, p< .001
Mean resilience score by perceived security
Family and carer Carer Worker Family No-one
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 7.3 Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security
Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security
Not secure Moderate Secure
0
2
4
6
8
10F (2,41) = 10.5 p < .001
Mean no of places by perceived security
Number of placements by ‘felt’ security
SOCIAL SUPPORTSOCIAL SUPPORT
• Continuing contact with foster familyContinuing contact with foster family• Positive relationship with at least some Positive relationship with at least some
family members family members (parents, sibs, extended)(parents, sibs, extended)
• Friends to rely onFriends to rely on• Other social networkOther social network (church, community) (church, community)
CONTACT WITH FAMILY 4 - 5 years after care
CONTACT WITH FAMILY 4 - 5 years after care
• 93% have some contact with family• 48% in contact with parent/s at least monthly• 63% in contact with some siblings• 29% with grandparents• 24% with aunts / uncles etc
• 56% have unresolved issues to sort out• Quality of contact and support varied
CONTACT WITH FOSTER CARERSAFTER CARE
CONTACT WITH FOSTER CARERSAFTER CARE
• 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support variedsupport varied• 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo• 2 in ST stable care2 in ST stable care• 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)• 2 in ST unstable care2 in ST unstable care
• 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact
PREDICTING ‘RESILIENCE’ /POSITIVE OUTCOMES *
PREDICTING ‘RESILIENCE’ /POSITIVE OUTCOMES *
• Perceived emotional security in care• Completing high school before leaving care• Social support after care
• Positive family contact and/or• Positive foster family support
• Church, community affiliation • Total number of moves after leaving care• Stability in care: Not add to model ‘after’ security Model accounts for 70%+ of variance
• * * Cashmore & Paxman 2005
KARINA: Doing wellKARINA: Doing well
• Foster family for 16 years - her ‘real family’.
• Changed schools and living arrangements for Year 12
• Support from woman lived with in Year 12 and church community to raise the deposit for her uni fees.
• At W3, very happy - enrolled full-time study
• living on campus, working part-time in college café
• At W4, moved to Sydney, happy in relationship, study
• renting with another student
• supported by church community, studying youth work.
BEN: High risk throughoutBEN: High risk throughout
• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, unemployed, no stable networkunemployed, no stable network
• Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’• Broke down at 12 - behaviour problemsBroke down at 12 - behaviour problems• Series of temporary respite, restoration attemptsSeries of temporary respite, restoration attempts• Wardship - residential care, offending, detentionWardship - residential care, offending, detention• Very hurt by parents’ Very hurt by parents’ rejectionrejection• Very mobile, in refuges, casual employmentVery mobile, in refuges, casual employment• Relationship difficulties – no supportive networkRelationship difficulties – no supportive network
ADAM: ‘Recovery’ADAM: ‘Recovery’
• Ward at 9: Ward at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges, In foster care, group homes, refuges, foster grandfatherfoster grandfather
• Isolated from familyIsolated from family• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only
completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered childcompleted Year 9, unemployed, fathered child• No stable network No stable network until 3rd interview• Very mobile, casual employment Very mobile, casual employment after W3• Married mother of child, part of religious Married mother of child, part of religious
fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.
LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION
LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION
• UnemploymentUnemployment
46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)• Poor educational performancePoor educational performance• Early parenting – Early parenting – inter-generational effects• Drug and alcohol use - “ “Drug and alcohol use - “ “• Crime? - “ “Crime? - “ “• Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?
• Forthcoming CWAV / Monash studyForthcoming CWAV / Monash study
Policy and practice implications: RELATIONSHIPS Policy and practice implications: RELATIONSHIPS
• Caring – ‘felt’ security• Focus on early stages eg first/second placements• Supporting family contact and stability• “Family for life” where possible
– financial and emotional support beyond 18
• Importance of school links / continuity / • Continuity with agency workers
Policy and practice implications: IN CARE
Policy and practice implications: IN CARE
• STABILITY – minimising placement changes• BUT some moves are positive • Focus on early stages
• eg first/second placements/restoration• Behaviour problems
• ‘Felt’ security – views of child• Tricky balance between normalising life with foster
family life and appropriate monitoring
• Supporting appropriate family contact
Policy and practice implications: REVIEWSPolicy and practice implications: REVIEWS
• Case planning and review rather than “luck of the draw”
• Proper file management -- summaries, organisation, transfer
• Educational decision making eg judges in US• http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf
/judicialeducationchecklist.pdf
• Voice and choice – in practice, real options??
Policy and practice implications: LEAVING CARE
Policy and practice implications: LEAVING CARE
• Preparation and timing • Relative to schooling / education and young parenting• Balance between preparation and destabilisation
• “Family for life” where possible
– financial and emotional support beyond 18
• Supporting family contact• Continuity with agency workers ?
Policy and practice implications: AFTER CARE
Policy and practice implications: AFTER CARE
• Accommodation, housing, accommodation• Continuing social support, mentoring
• Their choice?
• Assistance with further education
Policy and practice implications: RESEARCHPolicy and practice implications: RESEARCH
• Reliable data re entry into care and time in care• Longitudinal vs cross-sectional• Implications for load on system
• Cost effectiveness data?• Longer-term outcomes for children and young
people and families• Proper evaluation of after-care services• Positive feedback loops re research agenda
LEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluationLEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation
Evaluating leaving care schemesEvaluating leaving care schemes
• Biehal, Clayden, Stein & WadeBiehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). (1995). Moving onMoving on..
• Broad (1998).Broad (1998). Young people leaving care .. After the Young people leaving care .. After the Children Act 1989Children Act 1989
• Range of US and Canadian research and Range of US and Canadian research and evaluationevaluation
• egeg Casey : Casey : Pecora et al (2003)Pecora et al (2003)
LEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluationLEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation
Describing circumstances and establishing Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving careneeds of young people leaving care
• Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)• Garnett 1992 (UK)Garnett 1992 (UK)• Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St
Laurence (Vic)Laurence (Vic)• MMaunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). aunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young Young
People Leaving Care and ProtectionPeople Leaving Care and Protection. . NYARS ReportNYARS Report
• Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)• Pecora et al.(2003) Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National Early results from the Casey National
Alumni Study Alumni Study (US)(US)