Lothar Barth – Ein Weg- Lothar Barth – A pioneer of modern ...
Adoption Policy: The research-policy link and implications for dissemination of programs into...
-
Upload
donald-moody -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
2
Transcript of Adoption Policy: The research-policy link and implications for dissemination of programs into...
Adoption Policy:The research-policy link and implications for
dissemination of programs into real-world settings
Richard P. Barth, Ph.D
Dean and Professor
School of Social Work
University of Maryland
Presented at the Improving Outcomes for Adopted Children and Families Conference
Eugene Oregon
November 16, 2010
Structure of the Talk Who is being adopted from foster care after what length
of time? What are the adoptive family selection and preparation
processes like? What are the post-adoption services like now? What are the outcomes regarding the range of positive
and adverse outcomes by case characteristics? What else needs to be done to add effectiveness to:
1. adoptive family selection 2. adoptive family preparation 3. post-adoption support (at different levels of intensity)
What would the challenges be in implementing service changes? 2
Adoption from Foster Care
Who (by age) is being adopted from foster care after what length of time?
What happens to the children?
3
Who Gets Adopted by Whom? 20% of foster children who exit foster care
each year go to adoption (about 55,000/year)
About half (56%) of all children who are adopted are adopted by 5 years of age
66% of adoptive families have a 2 parent family
• 28% are single females
66% are non-relatives
Time to Adoption As many as 50% of all infants placed into
foster care may, ultimately, be adopted Adoptions take a long time—only 29% of
children who are adopted achieve that status within 2 years of entering foster care
Once children are legally free about half of them have a finalized adoption in the next year
4 years is a good estimate of the time from foster care placement to adoption for those who are adopted
5
Adoption Outcomesa. Continuing without clinical intervention (Only 9% of parents report no
MH use since adoption for children 8 or older, NSAP, unweighted)b. Continuing with use of (or need for) clinical intervention (91%)c. Disruption prior to finalization/legalization [never leaves foster care] About 11% over 3-5 yearsd. Dissolution/set aside after finalization/legalization [returns to CWA
custody] About 5% over 3-5 yearse. Displacement [moves to another setting but does not return to
custody of CWA] 15% of children 8 & older have lived away (2 wks) (NSAP, unweighted)f. Other adverse outcomes (run away, move to other kind of custody
[juvenile services or mental health] ????g. Disruption/Dissolution/Displacement/Other (c through f, called
“disruption” for short) About 20% over 10 years (my slightly educated guess)h. Adverse Adoption Outcomes (c through f, unduplicated) ????
6
Child and Family Risk Factors for Adoption Disruption
Older age at time of placement Partial disclosure of information regarding
child’s problems (strengths-based assessments are not enough)
Threatens people, trouble at school, and cruelty to others are indicators of concern
More educated and younger mothers may be more likely to experience disruptions• Rigid or very high expectations for academic
performance and family joining may increase risk7
Child and Family Protective Factors for Adoption Stability (Barth & Berry, 1988)
Younger children Placement of two siblings into home with
no biological children may cut risk Receiving subsidy may increase stability Children with physical handicaps have
reduced risk Sexual abuse, neglect, multiple foster
homes (Simmel, 2007) High Family Sense of Coherence
[Antonovsky] cuts risk (Ji, Brooks, Barth, Kim, 2010)
Expectations that are based on accurate information (Barth,
8
Service Characteristics Associated with Reduced Risk of Disruption
Comprehensive and realistic information about the child (and adoptive family)
Parents participate in group “home study” (peer-to-peer) process
Family receives educational support Family pursues timely adoption preservation
services that are flexible and long-lasting MAPP and PRIDE have shown no effect
• Yet the value of this approach has become canon
THERE HAVE GOT TO BE MORE!9
What Are Adoptive Family Selection And Preparation Processes?
10
Home Studies & Parent Preparation Purposes
• To educate and prepare foster and adoptive families for child placement
• To gather information about the family for purposes of matching parent capacities and interests to child
• To evaluate the fitness of the family (Children’s Bureau, 2004)
Process• Training (MAPP, PRIDE); individual and joint interviews;
home visits; health documentation; financial information; criminal background checks; references
No evidence of impact on outcomes
• Wide variability across agencies and jurisdictions• Little research over the last 30 years (Crea et al., 2007)
11
Adoptive Family Selection & Matching Adoptive parents are not rigorously screened
• No standardized home study• Many home studies fail to ask hard questions
about alcohol, violence, pornography, juvenile services history (not as rule outs but as conditions needing evidence of mitigation)
• There is no demonstration of parenting Matching of children’s needs with family
strengths and capacities is very informal and often based only on availability of parent and overt characteristics such as county they live in or parent and child race
12
Adoptive Family Preparation
MAPP and PRIDE adoptive and foster care preparation programs have vast reach but no evinced effectiveness• Mixed Goals
Recruit Screen Prepare
• Very Attachment Based• No application after child arrives in
home13
Increasing Effectiveness of “Intake” What needs to be done to add
effectiveness to:• Standardized home studies that actually
screen families while also looking to recruit them
• Routine post-adoption services planning based on information that is gathered during home study
• Need some kind of “Family Check-up” at outset of adoption
14
Post-Adoption Processes
Conventional procedure is to have 6-months of home visits from adoption agency (about 4 visits) after child is placed into the home that involve some observation and meetings with child(ren) and families
PAS is not well-funded or administered• There is some federal funding but it is not
designated for PAS• Almost no research exists on outcomes 15
Summary: Do Post-Adoption Services Reduce Disruption?
No affirmative clinical trials showing changes in interim benefits or disruption reduction
Yet, there is substantial need for PAS because of:• Behavior problems of adopted children • Inadequacies of Medicaid funded services• Dangerous and extreme methods in use
(e.g., holding therapy)
16
Research Regarding the Path to Adoption Disruption
The Path to Adoption Disruption Inadequate pre-adoption preparation Children fail to meet parent expectations
• Children’s behavior does not improve• Children do not act in ways that parents
view as showing closeness or appreciation
School related distress Injury or harm to birth children or parent Sometimes signaled by subsidy
adjustments in size or location of family• Rarely through abuse & neglect and removal
Pathways to Problems II Poor information prior to and during
adoption Family is unable to obtain needed
educational support Difficulty with child does not decrease with
time (staying the same is not good enough) Family pursues help that is too late or
focuses only on child treatment (rather than family and environmental qualities)
Perceived continued harm to biological children or parents if adoption continues
Length of Time until Dissolution (NC)
The number of days between the final adoption decree and subsequent dissolution
About 50% of these dissolutions occurs within 3 years of finalization of adoption
Post-Adoption Services & Support
CFS: Most Commonly Identified Family Needs
Relationship issues (47%)
Child – self-image (44%)
Birth family grief/loss (42%)
Child-peer/adult relationship (41%)
Child behavior at home (37%)
Prevention--education/info/support (35%)
School related (35%)
Post-Adoption Services & Supports: Types and Effectiveness
Self-help groups Warm-lines Increase subsidies to allow purchase
of services (e.g., residential care) Intensive Adoption Preservation
Services General Adoption Preservation
• Illinois Model• Maine GUIDES• Missouri• Oregon model???
23
Hard to Find Evidence of Impact of PASS
Homebuilders demo in 1980s failed (55% success rate)
Adoption preservation program in IL failed:• Restructured into longer program• Added educational advocate
Maine Adoption Guides failed• Program dominated by attachment
perspective as if adoption needs its own theory of family life 24
25
Missouri Did Better (Berry)
Slightly extended IFPS model (6 to 26 weeks; N=99)• Oldest child in the family at risk of
placement (mean age = 15.3 years)• Services began an average of two months
into the placement 9% disrupted before services began 83% of all the adoptive families were intact six
months later (8% disrupted after services)• Longer services were associated with
better outcomes at 1-year
Summary: Do Post-Adoption Services & Supports Reduce Disruption?
No affirmative clinical trials showing changes in interim benefits or disruption reduction• Disruption is not a well performing DV
Yet, there is substantial need for PASS• Behavior problems of adopted children • Inadequacies of Medicaid funded services• Dangerous and extreme methods in use
(e.g., holding therapy)• High rates of displacement
26
Building on Empirically Based Interventions
Develop empirically-based post-adoption services approaches based on other successful—or very promising--treatments for youth• PMT-O• Project KEEP• Abuse Focused-CBT• TF-CBT• Common Elements Approach of Weisz and
Chorpita
Add adoption sensitivity to improve the engagement of adoptive parents in EBPs: no need to create an entire set of interventions using attachment theory
27
Post-Adoption Competency Training
Examples of Clinical Adoption Competencies• Issues in the adoption triad• Legal issues in adoption• Differences between adoptive and not-
adoptive families• Loss, grief, separation, trauma,
attachment• Genetics, neuroscience, prenatal exposure
to stress and drugs• Openness in adoption• Advocacy 28
Challenges & Opportunities
What challenges (and opportunities) are there for implementing service changes?
29
Challenges & Opportunities The framework for adoption support is
limited• Just starting to do any “extra” licensing home
studies of foster parents (SAFE)• No history of parenting assessment• No history of post-placement Family Check up or
parenting services (beyond minimal checking prior to legalization)
• Adoption workers are not often clinically trained Home study workers are often contract workers
• Federal Safe and Stable Families funds are very limited and mostly used for recruitment 30
CHALLENGES: Post-Adoption Services Have Been Dominated by Attachment
Theories and Therapies Assumes that adopted children are more different
than the same as not-adopted children• Not-adopted children rarely, if ever, get
attachment focused treatments Assumes that the stress and disinhibitory responses
of adopted children are from attachment rather than other contributors (OSLC Investigators & Colleagues have shown otherwise)
Too often assumes that attachment is a practice theory that works across age groups and not a developmental theory for young children.
31
Opportunities Growing recognition of needs of
adoptive families expected from NSAP PP[ACA] may support more mental
health treatment for adoptive families As number of foster children drops the
resources from IVE may be freed to respond to “post-permanency” needs
Adoptive families are strong advocates International post-adoption problems
now getting recognition in State Dept.32
Take Home Points The US does more adoptions than all other
countries combined• More US children are in adoptive homes than in FC
We have a limited sense of the path to adverse adoption outcomes and need to know much more
Adoption interventions have been a disappointment
• Very little science has been applied Improvements in adoption outcomes are likely
to require pre-adoption advances as well as improved PASS
Improving adoption services offer the promise of teaching us about successful approaches to other difficult family problems
33
Partial References Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2003). Creative strategies for financing post-adoption
services. A White Paper. Baltimore, MD: Casey Family Services The Casey Center for Effective Child Welfare Practice.
Barth, R. P. (2002). Outcomes of adoption and what they tell us about designing adoption services. Adoption Quarterly, 6, 45-60.
Barth R. P., & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rates, risks and resources. New York: Aldine.
Barth, R. P., & Brooks, D. (1997). A longitudinal study of family structure, family size, and adoption outcomes. Adoption Quarterly, 1, 29‑56.
Barth, R. P., & Miller, J. (2001). Building effective post-adoption services: What are the empirical foundations? Family Relations, 49, 447-455.
Barth, R.P., Wildfire, J., Lee, C.K., & Gibbs, D. (2003). Adoption subsidy dynamics. Adoption Quarterly, 7(2), 3-27.
Berry, M., Propp, J., & Martens, P. (2007). The use of intensive family preservation services with adoptive families. Child & Family Social Work, 12(1), 43-53.
Brooks, D. (2000). Outcomes of adoptions from the adoptee’s perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation available from the author at University of Southern California, School of Social Work.
Brooks, D. & Barth, R.P. (1999). Adjustment outcomes of adult transracial and inracial adoptees: Effects of race, gender, adoptive family structure, and placement history. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 87-102.
Chorpita, B. F., Becker, K. D., & Daleiden, E. L. (2007). Understanding the common elements of evidence-based practice: Misconceptions and clinical examples. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46(5), 647-652.
Partial References Coakley, J. F., & Berrick, J. D. (2008). Research Review: In a rush to permanency:
preventing adoption disruption. Child & Family Social Work, 13(1), 101-112.Cohen, J. A., Mannarino, A. P., Zhitova, A. C., & Capone, M. E. (2003). Treating child abuse-
related posttraumatic stress and comorbid substance abuse in adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 27(12), 1345-1365.
Foulkes Coakley, J. (2005). Finalized adoption disruption: A family perspective. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Berkeley.
Gibbs, D., Barth, R. P., & Houts, R. (2005). Family characteristics and dynamics among families receiving post-adoption services. Families in Society, 86, 520-532.
Goerge, R.M., Howard, E.C., Yu, D., Radmosky, S. (1995). Adoption, disruption, and displccement in the child welfare system (1976-1995). Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.
Ji, J., Brooks, D., Barth, R. P., & Kim, H. (2010). Beyond preadoptive risk: The impact of adoptive family environment on adopted youth's psychosocial adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80, 432-442.
Lahti, M., Detgen, A. (2005). Main Adoption Guides Project: Final Evaluation Report. University of Southern Maine.
Smith, S. L., Howard, J. A., Garnier, P. C., & Ryan, S. D. (2006). Where Are We Now?: A Post-ASFA Examination of Adoption Disruption. Adoption Quarterly, 9, 19-44.
Wind, L. H., Brooks, D., & Barth, R. P. (2007). Influences of Risk History and Adoption Preparation on Post-Adoption Services Use in U.S. Adoptions*doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2007.00467.x. Family Relations, 56(4), 378-389.