Executive Summary
Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress
Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress (Child Welfare Outcomes Report) is the seventh in a series of annual reports from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Department).1 The reports are developed in accordance with section 479A of the Social Security Act (as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997) and provide information pertaining to State performance on the following national child welfare outcomes:2
- Outcome 1—Reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect
- Outcome 2—Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
- Outcome 3—Increase permanency for children in foster care
- Outcome 4—Reduce time in foster care to reunification without increasing reentry
- Outcome 5—Reduce time in foster care to adoption
- Outcome 6—Increase placement stability
- Outcome 7—Reduce placements of young children in group homes or institutions
The outcomes reflect widely accepted performance objectives for child welfare practice. They were established by the Department in consultation with State and local child welfare agency administrators, child advocacy organizations, child welfare researchers, State legislators, and other experts in the child welfare field.
The Child Welfare Outcomes Reports are designed to inform Congress, the States, and the public about State performance on key child welfare outcomes and change in performance over time. The underlying goal of the reports is to promote continuous improvement in the outcomes experienced by children served by child welfare systems throughout the Nation.
The current report includes data on the 12 original outcome measures as well as 15 additional measures that the Department recently developed for the second round of the Child and Family Services Review. |
The first six Child Welfare Outcomes Reports presented data for each State regarding the following: (1) 12 measures that assessed State performance relevant to the seven national child welfare outcomes; and (2) contextual factors to assist in interpretation of State performance on the outcomes. These contextual factors included the number and characteristics of children who were the subject of substantiated child abuse or neglect reports and children who were in the State's foster care system. The current report, Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005, incorporates data on the 12 original outcome measures and data on 15 additional measures that the Department recently developed to assess State performance during the second round of the Department's Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs), which began in March 2007.3
Although the new measures originally were developed for use during the second round of the CFSRs, the Department determined that information regarding performance on these measures should be included in the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports. The new measures assess critical performance areas relevant to the seven national child welfare outcomes established for the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports, and therefore are consistent with the mission of these reports. Data for all measures and contextual factors come from the Federal Government's Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). The data years reported reflect the Federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), unless otherwise noted.
In addition to reporting data on the outcome measures and contextual factors for each State, the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports present findings of analyses conducted across States. These findings pertain to variations across States in performance on the outcome measures, changes in State performance over time, and the relationships between contextual factors and State performance. The Executive Summary provides a synopsis of findings with regard to safety-related outcomes (outcomes 1 and 2), permanency-related outcomes (outcomes 3, 4, and 5), and outcomes addressing placement stability (outcome 6) and placements for young children (outcome 7). The measures relevant to each of these outcomes are described and explained in appendix B.
The change in State performance over time was assessed by calculating a percent change in performance.4 Using a percent change calculation permits an assessment of the extent of change occurring over time by taking into account the size of the percentages being compared. For example, a change from 6 percent in 2002 to 7 percent in 2005 represents a change of only 1 percentage point; however, it reflects a +16.7 percent change. In contrast, a change from 75 percent to 80 percent represents a change of 5 percentage points, but only a +6.7 percent change. Consistent with the Department's approach in prior Child Welfare Outcomes Reports, a percent change of 5.0 or greater was used as an indicator that meaningful change occurred. That is, if the percent change in performance from 2002 to 2005 was not at least 5.0 in either direction (i.e., positive or negative), a determination was made that there was "no change" in performance.
Safety-Related Outcomes (Outcomes 1 and 2)
A primary objective of State child welfare systems is to ensure that children who have been found to be victims of maltreatment are protected from further abuse or neglect. Two outcomes reflect this objective-outcome 1: reduce the recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect, and outcome 2: reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care. |
For the purposes of the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports, a child is considered to be a victim of maltreatment if he or she is the subject of a substantiated or indicated allegation of child abuse or neglect. In 2005, State child maltreatment victim rates ranged across States from 1.6 child victims per 1,000 children in the State's population to 32.1 child victims per 1,000 children in the population. The median for all States was 10.4 child victims per 1,000 children in the population.5 In many States, the representation of African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native children in the victim population is disproportionately high compared to their representation in the State population.
The median performance across States on the measures relevant to outcomes 1 and 2 is presented in table 1 for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 for measure 1.1, and for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005 for measure 2.1.6 For comparison purposes, data are presented only for States that provided data for the measures in all of the relevant years.7
Table 1. Median of State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 1: Reduce the recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect, and outcome 2: Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care
| Outcome Measures | Median Performance by Year | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002* | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Outcome 1: Reduce recurrence of child abuse and/or neglect | ||||
| Measure 1.1: Of all children who were victims of substantiated or indicated child abuse and/or neglect during the first 6 months of the reporting period, what percentage had another substantiated or indicated report within a 6-month period? (N=42) | 7.5% | 7.3% | 6.8% | 6.6% |
| Outcome 2: Reduce the incidence of child abuse and/or neglect in foster care | ||||
| Measure 2.1: Of all children who were in foster care during the reporting period, what percentage were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member? (N=41) | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.42 | |
Of the States submitting data for all 4 years, 64 percent demonstrated an improvement in performance on the measure of maltreatment recurrence. |
As shown in table 1, the median of State performance on the measure pertaining to maltreatment recurrence (measure 1.1) improved from 7.5 percent in 2002 to 6.6 percent in 2005 (a 12.0 percent change). In addition, 64 percent of the 42 applicable States (N = 27) demonstrated improved performance on this measure from 2002 to 2005, compared to 26 percent of States (N = 11) exhibiting a decline in performance.
In 2005, the percentage of children who experienced a recurrence of maltreatment (as assessed by measure 1.1) ranged across States from 1.9 to 13.4, with a median of 6.6 percent (N = 49 States).
One possible explanation for this variation in State performance is that performance regarding maltreatment recurrence is related to variation in State victim rates. For example, many States that had a relatively high child victim rate in 2005 also had a relatively high percentage of children who experienced a maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period (Pearson's r = 0.63).8 In addition, the data for both variables may be affected by differences in State statutes, policies, and practices regarding definitions of child maltreatment and evidentiary requirements for substantiation of a child maltreatment allegation. The data also may be affected by the kinds of decisions that are made regarding investigations of maltreatment allegations. For example, whether an allegation is "screened out," and therefore not investigated, or whether an allegation is referred for an alternative response rather than an investigation. Research would be useful to explore these and other possible explanations.
State variation in the percentage of maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period also may be affected by the implementation of an "alternative response" approach to maltreatment allegations. In alternative response approaches, child welfare agencies respond to a maltreatment allegation that is considered to involve minimal risk of harm to a child with a referral for a family assessment rather than with a formal investigation to determine the disposition (i.e., the validity of the allegation). In some States, when reports are referred for an alternative response, no formal investigation is conducted and there is no disposition regarding the allegation. In these situations, the children who are the alleged victims are not reported to the NCANDS Child File. Consequently, these children are not counted as victims in NCANDS.9
In addition, in some States, the data for the measure of maltreatment recurrence may not reflect the actual incidence of recurrence because maltreatment allegations involving children in open child protective services cases often are not formally investigated but are referred to the existing caseworker and supervisor for follow up. Again, since there is no formal disposition, the child who is the subject of the report often is not reported to the NCANDS Child File.
In State data for 2005, there were correlations between maltreatment recurrence and the types of maltreatment experienced by victims. These were the following:
- Many States with a relatively high percentage of children who were victims of sexual abuse also had a relatively low percentage of maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period (Pearson's r = -0.33).
- Many States with a relatively high percentage of children who were victims of physical abuse also had a relatively low percentage of maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period (Pearson's r = -0.38).
- States with a relatively high percentage of children who were victims of neglect also had a relatively high percentage of maltreatment recurrence within a 6-month period (Pearson's r = 0.35).
Child maltreatment recurrence is more likely to involve neglect than either physical or sexual abuse. |
These correlations suggest that child maltreatment recurrence is more likely to involve neglect than either physical or sexual abuse, a finding that is supported by the results of multiple research efforts.10 The relationships between recurrence and types of maltreatment may be due to the fact that substantiated allegations of sexual or physical abuse often are followed by legal actions against the perpetrators as well as actions designed to ensure that the perpetrator is prevented from further unsupervised contact with the victim until identified problems have been resolved. In contrast, substantiated allegations of neglect often are not followed by these actions unless the neglect is considered extremely severe.
With regard to maltreatment of children in foster care (measure 2.1), the data presented in table 1 indicate no noteworthy changes in median performance from 2003 (0.41%) to 2005 (0.42%). In addition, although 46 percent of the States exhibited improvement in performance on this measure, another 46 percent demonstrated a decline in performance.
In general, the data for the two safety-related measures indicate that across all States, fairly small percentages of child victims reported to NCANDS experience another maltreatment incident within a 6-month period, and even smaller percentages of children in foster care are reported to NCANDS as victims of maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. However, because these events have considerable implications for children's safety and their immediate and future well-being, even small percentages are to be viewed with concern.
Permanency-Related Outcomes (Outcomes 3, 4, and 5)
Outcome 3: Increase permanency for children in foster care
State child welfare agencies are responsible for ensuring that permanent homes are found for all children in foster care; foster care is intended to be a temporary, not permanent, living arrangement for a child. For the Child Welfare Outcomes Report, a child has achieved permanency when the child is reported to AFCARS as discharged from foster care and the reason for discharge is one of the following: (1) reunification with parents or primary caretakers, (2) living with other relatives, (3) legally adopted or (4) living with a legal guardian.11
Foster care is intended to be a temporary, not permanent, living arrangement for a child. |
In 2005, the foster care entry rate across States ranged from 1.8 children entering foster care per 1,000 children in the State's population to 10.4 children entering foster care per 1,000 children in the State's population, with a median of 4.7. Also in 2005, in many States the representation of African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native children in the State's foster care entry population was disproportionately high compared to their representation in the State's child population.
Table 2 provides the medians of State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 3: increase permanency for children in foster care. The data are shown for 2002 through 2005 for some measures and for 2004 and 2005 for other measures.12 For comparison purposes, data are presented only for States that provided data for the measures in all of the relevant years.
Table 2. Median State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 3: Increase permanency for children in foster care
| Outcome Measures | Median Performance by Year | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Measure 3.1: Of all children who exited foster care during the reporting period, what percentage left to either reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship (i.e., were discharged to a permanent home)? (N=52) | 85.7% | 86.1% | 87.4% | 87.8% |
| Measure 3.2: Of all children who exited foster care and were identified as having a diagnosed disability, what percentage left to either reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship (i.e., were discharged to a permanent home)? (N=49) | 79.8 | 78.6 | 79.0 | 79.0 |
| Measure 3.3: Of all children who exited foster care and were older than age 12 at the time of their most recent entry into care, what percentage left to either reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship (i.e., were discharged to a permanent home)? (N=52) | 71.7 | 71.3 | 72.3 | 73.1 |
| Measure 3.4: Of all children exiting foster care to emancipation, what percentage were age 12 or younger at the time of entry into foster care? (N=52) | 26.7 | 28.4 | 28.1 | 27.6 |
| Measure C3.1: Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the fiscal year, what percentage were discharged to a permanent home by the last day of the year and prior to their 18th birthday? (N=51) | 25.0 | 26.4 | ||
| Measure C3.2: Of all children who were discharged from foster care during the fiscal year, and who were legally free for adoption, what percentage were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday?*(N=51) | 96.8 | 95.7 | ||
| Measure C3.3: Of all children who either (1) were discharged from foster care prior to age 18 during the fiscal year with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care, what percentage were in foster care for 3 years or longer? (N=51) | 47.8 | 48.2 | ||
As shown in table 2, there was no noteworthy change in median performance across States for most measures relevant to increasing permanency for children in foster care. The one exception to this was the measure assessing permanency for children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the fiscal year (measure C3.1). Median performance on this measure improved from 25.0 percent in 2004 to 26.4 percent in 2005 (a 5.6 percent change).
The analysis of change in performance for individual States did not reveal national patterns for most measures pertaining to outcome 3. Across these measures, many States demonstrated improved performance, but many States also demonstrated performance declines. Again, measure C3.1 was an exception. For this measure, 55 percent of the States (N = 28) exhibited improvement from 2004 to 2005, while only 20 percent (N = 10) demonstrated a performance decline.
Children emancipating from foster care at age 18 face the considerable responsibilities of independent living at a young age. |
The data in table 2 also indicate that, for all years, the majority of children exiting foster care (measure 3.1) were discharged to a permanent home (the 2005 median across States = 87.8 percent). The remaining 12.2 percent of children exiting foster care did not achieve permanency at the time of discharge. Most of these children leave foster care when they reach the age of legal majority and/or are emancipated.13 Consequently, they face the considerable responsibilities of independent living at a young age and usually without the supports that often are provided by a family.
For 2005, the median percentages across States with regard to achieving permanency for children with a diagnosed disability (measure 3.2, median = 79.0 percent), and for children who were older than age 12 when they entered foster care (measure 3.3, median = 73.1 percent) were less than the median percent for all children exiting foster care (measure 3.1, median = 87.8 percent). This pattern was true for all 4 years shown in the table and suggests that greater efforts are needed to achieve permanency for these children.
Another key finding with regard to achieving permanency for children exiting foster care is that the majority of children in all States who were legally free for adoption at the time of exit from foster care in both 2004 and 2005 were discharged to a permanent home (measure C3.2, 2005 median = 95.7 percent). This finding is critical because, when a State terminates the parental rights of a child's parents, it is important for the State to ensure the child has an alternative legal parent before the child leaves foster care. Even small percentages of legally free children not exiting foster care to a permanent home should prompt concern.
Substantial percentages of children in foster care are spending many years of their childhood without a permanent home. |
Although, across States, most children exiting foster care are discharged to a permanent home, the data presented in table 2 also indicate that many children who eventually achieve permanency or who are emancipated from foster care have been in foster care for long periods of time. For example, measure C3.1 assesses the percentage of children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year who achieve permanency by the end of the year. Performance on this measure ranged across States from 9.1 percent to 37.7 percent, with a median of only 26.4 percent. This indicates that, in all States, the majority of children in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the year were still in foster care on the last day of the year. In addition, in at least one-half of the States, about 50 percent or more of the children who were discharged from foster care to emancipation had been in foster care for at least 3 years (measure C3.3; median = 48.2 percent). In at least one-half of the States, about 28 percent or more of the children emancipated from foster care were age 12 or younger when they entered foster care (measure 3.3, median = 27.6 percent). The data for all these measures suggest that, in many States, substantial percentages of children in foster care are spending several years of their childhood without a permanent home.
Outcome 4: Reduce time in foster care to reunification without increasing reentry
Most children who enter foster care eventually will be reunified with their parents or other family members. It is important that children be returned to the care of their families as quickly as possible and that, when the children are returned, the family receives adequate services to support the reunification and prevent the recurrence of safety or risk factors. Outcome 4 addresses the importance of achieving reunifications as quickly as possible after the child enters foster care and ensuring the reunifications are "permanent" (i.e., the child does not reenter foster care shortly after being reunified). Table 3 provides the median State performance for key measures relevant to outcome 4.14
Table 3. Median of State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 4: Reduce time in foster care to reunification without increasing reentry
| Outcome Measures | Median Performance by Year* (numbers are expressed as percentages except median months, as noted) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Measure 4.1: Of all children who were reunified with their parents or caretakers at the time of discharge from foster care, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months from the time of entry into foster care? (N= 52) | 68.1 | 71.2 | 70.0 | 71.0 |
| Measure C1.1: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the fiscal year and who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percentage were reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home (including the trial home visit adjustment, if relevant)? (N= 51) | 69.9 | 70.2 | ||
| Measure C1.2: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the fiscal year, and who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay in months from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification (including the trial home visit adjustment, if relevant)? (N=51) | 6.5 mos. | 6.9 mos. | ||
| Measure C1.3: Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the 6-month period just prior to the fiscal year, and who remained in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percentage were discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home (including the trial home visit adjustment, if relevant)? (N=48) | 39.3 | 39.9 | ||
| Measure C1.4: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the target fiscal year, what percentage reentered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? (N=48) | 15.2 | 14.8 | ||
As shown in table 3, there are no noteworthy changes over time in the median performance across States for the measures relevant to outcome 4 (i.e., for all measures, the calculated percent change was less than 5.0 in either direction). In addition, the analysis of individual States did not reveal national patterns of change in performance over time. Although many States exhibited improved performance on the measures, many other States exhibited performance declines or no change in performance.
Also as shown in table 3, the timeliness of reunification is measured in a variety of ways in order to capture State performance from a range of perspectives. One way timeliness of reunification is measured by focusing on all children exiting foster care to reunification (an exit cohort analysis) and assessing the length of time that they were in foster care prior to reunification. The measures that assess the timeliness of reunification of children exiting foster care (measures 4.1, C1.1, and C1.2) indicate that, in the majority of States, many children who are discharged to reunification are reunified in a timely manner. In 2005, for example, the majority of reunifications in at least one-half of the States occurred in less than 12 months from the child's entry into foster care (median = 71.0 percent for measure 4.1, and 70.2 percent for measure C1.1), and the median length of stay in foster care for children reunified was 6.9 months.
Another way to measure timeliness of reunification is to follow children from the time of entry into foster care over time (e.g., 12 months) to determine the percentage that are reunified within a particular timeframe (entry cohort analysis). A somewhat different picture emerges from the data for this (measure C1.3, median across States = 39.9 percent). Performance on this measure in 2005 indicates that, in one-half of the States, fewer than 40 percent of the children entering foster care are discharged to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of entry. Although not all of these children will exit foster care to reunification, many of them eventually will be reunified, and they will have been in foster care for 12 months or longer.
The data for 2005 also suggest that many States experience challenges in ensuring that children who are reunified do not reenter foster care within a 12-month period (measure C1.4, median = 14.8 percent). In five States, 25 percent or more of the children exiting foster care in 2004 reentered in less than 12 months. In addition, many States that, in 2005, had a relatively high percentage of children reunified in less than 12 months, also had a relatively high percentage of children reentering foster care in less than 12 months (Pearson's r = 0.45). The relationship between these measures has been a consistent finding reported in the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports and raises the following concerns: (1) children are reunified with their families before all of the problems that resulted in the child's initial entry into foster care were adequately resolved, and/or (2) at the time of reunification, new problems emerged that were not sufficiently addressed during or after the reunification process.
The challenges that older children present to State child welfare systems can be quite different from those presented by younger children and their families. |
A relationship also was found between performance on the measure of foster care reentry (measure C1.4) and the percentage of children entering foster care who were age 13 or older. Many States with relatively high percentages of foster care reentry also had relatively high percentages of children entering foster care who were age 13 or older (Pearson's r = 0.48). This finding is important because the challenges that older children and their families present to State child welfare systems with regard to meeting their short- and long-term reunification needs often are different from those presented by younger children and their families.
Outcome 5: Reduce time in foster care to adoption
Achieving adoptions in a timely manner is an important goal for our Nation's child welfare systems. The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 includes statutory requirements relevant to achieving timely adoptions for children in foster care. In 2005, many States that had a high percentage of reunifications occurring in less than 12 months also had a high percentage of adoptions occurring in less than 24 months (Pearson's r = 0.51). This relationship suggests that some States are generally effective in achieving permanency for children in a timely manner, regardless of whether it is through reunification or adoption. Table 4 presents the median performance across States for measures pertaining to the timeliness of adoptions.
Table 4. Median of State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 5: Reduce time in foster care to adoption
| Outcome Measures | Median Performance by Year* (numbers are expressed as percentages except median months, as noted) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Measure 5.1: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the fiscal year, what percentage were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? (N=52) | 25.5 | 23.9 | 24.9 | 28.5 |
| Measure C2.2: Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the fiscal year, what was the median length of stay in foster care in months from the date of latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption? (N=51) | 32.4 mos. | 31.5 mos. | ||
| Measure C2.3: Of all children in foster care on the first day of the fiscal year who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percentage were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the fiscal year?** (N=51) | 20.2 | 20.7 | ||
| Measure C2.4: Of all children in foster care on the first day of the fiscal year who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and who were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percentage became legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the fiscal year? *** (N=51) | 8.9 | 9.1 | ||
| Measure C2.5: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the fiscal year, what percentage were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free? (N=48) | 45.8 | 44.1 | ||
As shown in table 4, median State performance with respect to adoptions occurring in less than 24 months of the child's entry into foster care (measure 5.1) improved from 25.5 percent in 2002 to 28.5 percent in 2005 (an 11.8 percent change). An additional key finding is that 63 percent of States (N=33) exhibited improvement in performance on this measure, while only 25 percent of States (N=13) demonstrated a performance decline.
Despite improvements in adoptions occurring in less than 24 months, achieving adoptions in a timely manner is still a challenge for many States. |
Despite improvements in achieving adoptions in less than 24 months from the time of the child's entry into foster care (measure 5.1), performance on the other measures pertaining to outcome 5 suggest that achieving timely adoptions remains a challenge for many States. For example, across States in 2005, the median length of stay in foster care prior to adoption (measure C2.2) was 31.5 months; only 25 percent of States had a median length of stay prior to adoption that was less than 30 months. Also in 2005, the medians indicate that, in most States, only small percentages of children in foster care for 17 months or longer at the start of the fiscal year either were adopted by the end of the fiscal year (measure C2.3, median = 20.7 percent), or became legally free within the first 6 months of the fiscal year (measure C2.4, median = 9.1 percent). These latter measures (measures C2.3 and C2.4) reflect the statutory requirements of ASFA that States pursue adoption as a permanency option for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless there is a compelling reason why pursuing adoption would not be in the best interests of the child.15
Placement Settings While in Foster Care (Outcomes 6 and 7)
State child welfare agencies are responsible for ensuring that children who are removed from their homes are placed in settings that are stable and appropriate to the age and needs of the children. The outcomes that relate to these issues are outcome 6: increase placement stability, and outcome 7: reduce placements of young children in group homes or institutions. Table 5 presents the findings with regard to median State performance on measures pertaining to these outcomes.16
Table 5. Median of State performance on measures pertaining to outcome 6: Increase placement stability, and outcome 7: Reduce placements of young children in group homes or institutions
| Outcome Measures | Median Performance by Year* (numbers are expressed as percentages except median months, as noted) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | |
| Measure 6.1a: Of all children served in foster care during the fiscal year who were in care for less than 12 months, what percentage had no more than two placement settings? (N=52) | 84.2% | 83.9% | 83.5% | 83.3% |
| Measure 6.1b: Of all children served in foster care during the fiscal year who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percentage had no more than two placement settings? (N=52) | 57.3 | 58.8 | 58.5 | 59.4 |
| Measure 6.1c: Of all children served in foster care during the fiscal year who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percentage had no more than two placement settings? (N=52) | 35.3 | 33.5 | 32.1 | 32.3 |
| Measure 7.1: Of all children who entered foster care during the fiscal year and were age 12 or younger at the time of their most recent placement, what percentage were placed in a group home or institution? (N=52) | 8.6 | 8.1 | 7.2 | 7.2 |
As shown in table 5, States are generally effective in achieving placement stability for children in foster care for less than 12 months (measure 6.1a, 2005 median =83.3 percent). The median of State performance on this measure did not change substantively from 2002 to 2005 (i.e., the percent change was less than 5.0 in either direction), and 77 percent of States (N=40) exhibited no change in performance on this measure from 2002 to 2005. The lack of change in performance on this measure may be attributable in part to the already high percentages of placement stability for children in foster care for less than 12 months in 2002.
The longer children are in foster care, the more placement settings they experience. |
The data in table 5 also demonstrate that in 2005, as well as in prior years, placement stability declined dramatically for the measure that focuses on children in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months (measure 6.1b, 2005 median = 59.4 percent). It then declined even further for children in foster care for 24 months or longer (measure 6.1c, 2005 median = 32.3 percent). In addition, 60 percent (N= 31) of the individual States exhibited a decline in performance on this latter measure (measure 6.1c) from 2002 to 2005.
Child welfare organizations and State agency administrators and staff frequently have suggested that, for some States, poor performance on the measures of placement stability is due to the large number of adolescents in their foster care systems. However, the findings of the data analyses conducted for the Child Welfare Outcomes Report do not support this interpretation. States with relatively high percentages of children age 13 or older either entering foster care in 2005, or in foster care on the last day of the fiscal year, are neither more nor less likely to have low percentages of children experiencing placement stability, regardless of the length of time the children are in foster care. In fact, the correlations among these factors are close to zero.
With regard to placements of young children in group homes or institutions (measure 7.1), the data in table 5 indicate that median State performance changed from 8.6 percent in 2002 to 7.2 percent in 2005 (a 16.3 percent change). In addition, 77 percent of the States (N=40) exhibited improvement in performance on this measure compared to only 15 percent (N=8) exhibiting a performance decline.
Summary
The findings reported in Child Welfare Outcomes 2002-2005: Report to Congress suggest that, although States are improving in some areas with regard to achieving positive outcomes for children who come into contact with State child welfare systems, many challenges remain. The specific issues associated with these challenges will be identified for individual States through the second round of the Department's CFSRs. The data presented in the Child Welfare Outcomes Report may serve as a guide to point the way to those areas where States are experiencing the greatest challenges.
1 The unit of the Department that has primary responsibility for this report is the Children's Bureau within the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, in the Administration for Children and Families. All of the years shown in the report and tables represent the Federal fiscal year (October 1-September 30) unless otherwise noted. Back
2 In this report, the designation of "State" includes the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Therefore, the report provides information on 52 States. Back
3 Key measures are presented in the tables included in the Executive Summary. The measures that the Department recently developed for the CFSRs are preceded by a "C." All measures presented in the data pages of the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports are described in appendix B. Back
4 Percent change is calculated by subtracting "old" data from "new" data, dividing by old data, and multiplying by 100. For example, if maltreatment recurrence was 9.2 in 2002 and 7.6 in 2005, the percent change would be [(7.6–9.2)/9.2] x 100 = –17.4 percent change. Back
5 Children with more than one report of substantiated or indicated maltreatment may be counted more than once. Back
6 Data for measure 2.1 begins with 2003 rather than 2002, because a change in the NCANDS reporting period from a calendar year to a fiscal year in 2003 resulted in a change in the specifications of the measure. Back
7 The identifying numbers for each of the measures correspond to the identifying numbers for the measures used in the State Data Pages. These also are used in the description of the measures provided in appendix B. Back
8 A correlation coefficient describes the extent of the relationship between two variables. It does not describe a causal relationship between the variables. The Child Welfare Outcomes Reports use Guilford's suggested interpretations for correlation coefficients: (1) a correlation of 0.20–0.40 indicates a low correlation; (2) a correlation of 0.40-0.70 indicates a moderate correlation; (3) a correlation of 0.70–0.90 indicates a high correlation; and (4) a correlation of 0.90–1.00 indicates a very high correlation. See Guilford, J. P. (1956). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Back
9 In 2005, there were two States that reported "alternative response victims" to NCANDS and 10 States that reported "alternative response non–victims." Back
10 See the following for examples: (1) Drake, B., Jonson–Reid, M., Way, I., & Chung, S. (2003). Substantiation and recidivism. Child Maltreatment, 8(4), 248–260; (2) Lipien, L., & Forthofer, M. S. (2004). An event history analysis of recurrent child maltreatment reports in Florida. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(9), 947–966; and (3) Fluke, J. D., Shusterman, G. R., Hollinshead, D., & Yuan, Y–Y.T. (2005). Rereporting and recurrence of child maltreatment: Findings from NCANDS. Retrieved (2004) from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/child-maltreat-rereporting/index.htm Back
11 For the Child Welfare Outcomes Reports and the CFSRs, the discharge reasons of "reunification with parents or primary caretakers" and "living with other relatives" are combined into the category of "reunification." Back
12 The measures that only have data for 2004 and 2005 are those that were developed for the second round of the CFSRs. Data for earlier years are not available for those measures. Back
13 Other possible discharge reasons are "transfer to another agency," or "death of child." Back
14 Calculations for three of these measures (measures C1.1, C1.2, and C1.3) exclude children who were discharged from foster care in less than 8 days from the time of entry into foster care and incorporate, when relevant, what is termed the "trial home visit adjustment." Additional information on these measures and adjustments is provided in appendix B. Back
15 ASFA requires State child welfare agencies to file a petition to terminate parental rights and pursue adoption for a child who has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless the agency documents a compelling reason why such action would not be in the best interests of the child. A 17-month rather than a 15-month time frame was chosen for the measure because, in accordance with ASFA, a child is considered to have "entered foster care" (for purposes of starting the clock for the 15 of 22 months) on the earlier of:
(1) the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to abuse and neglect, or
(2) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home.
The 17–month time frame is used in the measure because AFCARS does not collect information pertaining to the date of the first judicial finding. Back
16 For the Child Welfare Outcomes Report, a child is considered to have achieved placement stability if the child experiences two or fewer placement settings during a single foster care episode. Back
| << Acknowledgements | Introduction >> |
