Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the...
Transcript of Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the...
![Page 1: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Children and FamilyResearch Center
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
School of Social WorkTM
Making the Case for Safe Reduction
What Does the Evidence SayMark Testa
Director & Professor
Tampa, Florida
November 5, 2009
![Page 2: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Desired Outcomes
Safety – Ensuring the safe reduction of the number
of children in foster care.
Continuity – Conserving family continuity and
community connections.
Stability – Investing in the stability and quality of
the least restrictive, substitute care.
Permanence – Expediting the timely achievement
of family permanence.
Well-Being – Safeguarding the well-being of the
children who remain and preparing them for
productive and responsible adulthood. .
![Page 3: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
U.S. Foster Care Corrected Trend
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Pe
r 1
,00
0 C
hild
ren
0-1
8
Survey Estimates
Westat
CDF
U.S. Total Foster Care
IV-A/ IV-E Claims
![Page 4: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
U.S., CA, & IL Foster Care Trends
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
Pe
r 1
,00
0 C
hild
ren
0-1
8
U.S. Foster Care
IL Foster Care
CA Foster Care
3.3 per 10002020 Goal
![Page 5: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
IL Caseload Reduction Dynamics
![Page 6: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Maryland’s Place Matters
![Page 7: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Illinois Programs
Front-End Reforms• Alternative Response – Extended Family Support
(EFS) for children in pre-existing kinship care.
• In-Home Services – Child Endangerment Risk
Assessment Protocol (CERAP).
Back-End Reforms• Adoption and Guardianship – Subsidized
Guardianship Waiver Demonstration.
![Page 8: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
PICO Components of Well-Built Question
P – Conditions of the target population for
which one wishes to draw inferences.
I – Intervention or program whose efficacy
and effectiveness one is interested in
evaluating.
C – The alternative course of action with
which one wants to draw a comparison.
O – Intended outcome one hopes to achieve.
![Page 9: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Examples of Well-Built Questions
• Does the offer of subsidized guardianship (I) in addition
to the usual permanency options of reunification and
adoption (C) increase overall family permanence (O) for
children in stable kinship foster care (P)?
• Is the rate of short-term recurrence of indicated
maltreatment reduced (O) for children and young persons
under 18 years old (P) when structured safety assessments
are conducted (I) compared to investigation processes that
do not feature structured assessments(C)?[
![Page 10: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
The Problem of Selection Bias
δ + bias
Outcome
εrror component (unobserved systematic & random influences)
Intervention v. Comparison group
![Page 11: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Selection Bias
• Selection of intervention & comparison groups.
• Is this a valid comparison?
vs.
Intervention Group Comparison Group
![Page 12: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Balanced Groups
• Selection of intervention & comparison groups.
• This is a much better comparison
vs.
Intervention Group Comparison Group
![Page 13: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Approximating the Counterfactual
Randomized controlled experiments
Quasi-experiments
-Instrumental variables
-Regression discontinuity
Observational studies
-Propensity score matching
-Regression analysis
Historical cohort comparisons
Stronger
Weaker
![Page 14: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Illinois SG Waiver Demonstration
• In 1997, Illinois received a IV-E waiver to offer
subsidies to families who assumed private
guardianship of children who otherwise would have
remained in foster care.
• Available to all children who have been in state
custody for one year, resided continuously with a
relative for one year and for whom reunification and
adoption have been ruled out as permanency plans.
• Also available for children aged 12 and older who
reside with an unrelated foster parent.
14
![Page 15: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Randomized Controlled Experiments
δ
Outcome
εrror component (unobserved systematic & random influences)
Intervention v. Comparison group
∆ = 0
![Page 16: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Statistical Equivalence at Baseline
Intervention Comparison Difference
Child characteristics
Age at interview 9.9 10.1 -0.2
Age at removal 4.8 4.8 0.0
Female 49.5% 49.7% -0.2%
White 9.9% 9.4% 0.5%
Black 83.6% 85.3% -1.7%
Caregiver characteristics
Age at interview 51.2 51.8 -0.7
White 10.7% 10.8% -0.1%
Black 82.5% 83.2% -0.8%
Married 32.5% 32.2% 0.3%
Less than high school 40.0% 39.9% 0.1%
High school graduate 17.2% 19.3% -2.1%
Some college 28.5% 24.8% 3.7%
Full-time employment 34.8% 34.2% 0.6%
Not in labor force 47.6% 48.7% -1.1%
Intend to raise child to adulthood 78.7% 79.6% -0.9%
Caregiver-child relationships
Grandparent-grandchild 43.4% 48.3% -4.9%
Aunt/Uncle-niece/nephew 18.0% 18.1% -0.1%
Foster parent-foster child 18.5% 17.2% 1.3%
Matched ethnic backgrounds 2.8% 3.3% -0.5%
Sample N 1,197 1,228
16
![Page 17: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Availability of SG boosted legal permanence …
At wave I of the evaluation (1998)
there was a 8% permanency
advantage for children in the
intervention group who were offered
the choice of subsidized guardianship
compared to children in the
comparison group.
Increase in both adoptions and
guardianships
Experimental Control
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
AlreadyReunified
Already SG Already AA
}8.3%
Illinois
![Page 18: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Internal Validity
δ = 8 per 100 children
Permanence
εrror component (unobserved systematic & random influences)
SG v. Comparison group
∆ ≈ 0
![Page 19: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
External Validity
• Concern: Do these findings generalize beyond
the state’s unique historical circumstances and
distinctive policies on kinship foster care?
• Fact: Two replications of Illinois’ waiver
demonstrations in Tennessee and Milwaukee
find that subsidized guardianship increases
overall family permanence.
19
![Page 20: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Waiver Findings
Intervention Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Guardianship
Reunificatioon
Custody to Kin
Adopted
} 6.6%
Illinois
(June, 2007)
Intervention Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Guardianship
Reunificatioon
Custody to Kin
Adopted
Intervention Comparison
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Guardianship
Reunificatioon
Custody to Kin
Adopted
}19.9%
Wisconsin
(November, 2007)
} 15.0%
Tennessee
(November, 2008)
![Page 21: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
No Adverse Impact on Reunifications
Concern: SG will discourage CW agencies from
reunifying children with their parents.
Fact: All three randomized experiments find that
reunification rates were not significantly
different between families offered subsidized
guardianship vs. families denied this choice.
21
![Page 22: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
No Adverse Impact on Reunifications
Intervention Comparison Difference
Illinois (June 2007) 5.2% 7.7% -2.6%
Tennessee (December 2008) 13.2% 13.7% -0.5%
Wisconsin (November 2007) 9.6% 8.6% 1.0%
Differences in Reunification Rates, Intervention vs. Comparison Groups
22
![Page 23: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Cost-Effective
Concern: SG will end up costing more money in the
long-run.
Fact: In Illinois after 10 years, offering families the SG
option reduced the average length of foster care by
269 days or 22% compared to what would have
happened in the absence of the offer. In Wisconsin
after 3 years, offering family the SG option reduced
the average length of foster care by 133 days or
24%. In Tennessee, analysis is underway.
23
![Page 24: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01
Pe
r 1
00
0 C
hil
d P
op
ula
tio
n
Fiscal Year Entry Cohorts
Sexual Abuse
Physical Abuse
SEI
Lack Supervision
Other Neglect
Risk of Harm
Extended Family Support
Alternative Response
24
![Page 25: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Safety Assessment: CERAP
• Secular trend study examines recurrence rates
before and after the point in time (December 1,
1995) when the implementation of CERAP
occurred.
• This is the date that all Department of Children
and Family Services (DCFS) workers and
private providers had been trained in the use of
the protocol and over 99 percent had been
successfully certified.
25
![Page 26: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
60-day recurrence rates for first reports in
time period: Sequence A, Excluding PCs,
2.63 2.652.79
2.23
1.77 1.80 1.84 1.79
2.30
1.73
1.47
1.26
1.08 1.11
0.850.73
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
12/85 -
11/86
12/86 -
111/87
12/87 -
11/88
12/88 -
11/89
12/89 -
11/90
12/90-
11/91
12/91 -
11/92
12/92 -
11/93
12/93 -
11/94
12/94 -
11/95
12/95 -
11/96
12/96 -
11/97
12/97 -
11/98
12/98 -
11/99
12/99 -
11/00
12/00 -
11/01
12/01 -
11/02
Implementation
Year
26
![Page 27: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Recurrence by Race
![Page 28: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Investigator Rotational Assignment
• Most families are effectively randomized to
investigators.
• Different investigators have different
removal propensities (strict to lenient).
• What happens to cases when
investigators disagree about removal
recommendations?
![Page 29: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Approximating the Counterfactual
The key variable is how lenient or strict an investigator is when it comes to making removal decisions.
In the language of economics, we call this variable an ―instrumental variable‖ if it meets two primary conditions:
(1) investigator removal differential predicts the likelihood of removal from from the home; and
(2) the differential itself doesn’t have a direct impact on the outcome, except through its effect on removal.
![Page 30: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Instrumental Variable Model
δ
Outcome
Population conditions
Intervention (v. Comparison group)
β
Z (Instrumental variable)
π
εrror component
Here, Z = Investigator Removal Differential: In
cases other than a particular family’s case, what
fraction of children investigated by that family’s
investigator are placed, relative to placement rates
of other investigators on the same team in a given
year.
![Page 31: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
Marginal Cases
High Safety Risk
Always placedNever placed
SR1 SR2
Inv’gator 1 Inv’gator 2
Strict Investigator 1 removes if SR > SR1 Lenient Investigator 2 removes if SR > SR2
Low Safety Risk
Area of
Disagreement
![Page 32: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Children at the margin of removal perform worse when
they are removed from home1:
– 3x Higher Arrest Rate
– 3x Higher Delinquency
– 2x Higher Teen Motherhood
– 40% Lower Employment
– No Effects for Childhood Burns / Broken Bones;
– But 3x more likely to receive well-child visits.
32
Detrimental Impact of Foster Care
1Doyle, J. J. (2007a). Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the effects of
foster care. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583—1610. Doyle, J. J. (2008).
Child protection and adult crime: Using investigator assignment to estimate causal
effects of foster care. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4), 746—770.
![Page 33: Making the Case for Safe Reduction · 2009. 12. 2. · 2 Desired Outcomes Safety –Ensuring the safe reduction of the number of children in foster care. Continuity –Conserving](https://reader034.fdocuments.us/reader034/viewer/2022051811/602765880c0aaf5585015791/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Conclusions
• Strong evidence that subsidized guardianship is a
cost-effective program for reducing the number of
children in long-term foster care with relatives.
• Weaker but compelling evidence that alternative
response to children in pre-existing kinship care and
the use of structured safety assessment can safely
reduce the number of foster care removals.
• Moderately strong evidence that children at the
margin of removal fare better when they remain
home.
33