Transcript NZ Children's issues Centre

Towards Better Outcomes for
Young People
Leaving State Care
Economic & Social Policy Research
Conference:
Judy Cashmore
November 2005
KEY QUESTIONS
• What are the longer-term outcomes?
• What predicts better outcomes and not-sogood 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
 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 health
Consistent findings since Stein & Carey’s Leeds study, 1986)
WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY
Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005
WARDS discharged over 12 mth period:
• Interview group:
n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged)
• Non-interview:
n = 44
(10 not discharged)
• Four interviews:
(1) Before discharge
(2) 3 mths after (n = 47)
(3) 12 mths after (n = 45)
(4) 4 - 5 years
(n = 41)
Funded by NSW Dept of Community Services
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 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
Labour force activity throughout
32.5% 13
20.0% 8
Work/study
Mostly work/training
Parenting
Mostly unemployed
15.0% 6
32.5% 13
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
• 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
• 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 SECURITY
•
•
•
•
•
•
Was there anyone ever feel loved you?
Anyone ever feel secure with?
Feel as if listened to?
Miss out on things other kids had?
Miss out on affection?
Grow up too fast – bad thing?
Coded as positive, negative, medium
Resilience scores by stability
F (3, 37) = 6.1, p = .002
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Long-term
Stable
Short-term
Unstable
Mean resilience score by perceived security
F (2,37) - 18.9, p< .001
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Insecure
Moderate
Secure
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Family and carer Carer
Worker
Family
No-one
Mean 'resilience'
scores by source of 'felt' security
Figure 7.3 Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security
Number of placements by ‘felt’ security
Mean no of places by perceived security
F (2,41) = 10.5
p < .001
10
8
6
4
2
0
Not secure
Moderate
Secure
SOCIAL SUPPORT
• Continuing contact with foster family
• Positive relationship with at least some
family members (parents, sibs, extended)
• Friends to rely on
• Other social network (church, community)
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 CARERS
AFTER CARE
• 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of
support varied
• 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo
•
2 in ST stable care
•
8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)
•
2 in ST unstable care
• 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact
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 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 throughout
• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9,
unemployed, no stable network
• Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’
• Broke down at 12 - behaviour problems
• Series of temporary respite, restoration attempts
• Wardship - residential care, offending, detention
• Very hurt by parents’ rejection
• Very mobile, in refuges, casual employment
• Relationship difficulties – no supportive network
ADAM: ‘Recovery’
• Ward at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges,
foster grandfather
• Isolated from family
• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only
completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered child
• No stable network until 3rd interview
• Very mobile, casual employment after W3
• Married mother of child, part of religious
fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.
LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE
PROVISION
• Unemployment
46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)
• Poor educational performance
• Early parenting – inter-generational effects
• Drug and alcohol use - “
“
• Crime? - “ “
• Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?
•
Forthcoming CWAV / Monash study
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
• 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:
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
• 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
• Accommodation, housing, accommodation
• Continuing social support, mentoring
• Their choice?
• Assistance with further education
Policy 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 CARE
Research and evaluation
Evaluating leaving care schemes
•
•
Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on.
Broad (1998). Young people leaving care .. After the
Children Act 1989
•
Range of US and Canadian research and
evaluation
•
eg Casey : Pecora et al (2003)
LEAVING & AFTER CARE
Research and evaluation
Describing circumstances and establishing
needs of young people leaving care
•
•
•
•
•
•
Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)
Garnett 1992 (UK)
Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St
Laurence (Vic)
Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young
People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report
Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)
Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National
Alumni Study (US)