10th Annual Spring Child Welfare Conference

Details

Date: April 22, 2009
Time: 9:00 AM-12:00 PM
Location: Cowles Auditorium, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, and broadcast to Greater MN Host Sites
Companion Publication: Spring 2009 CW360°, Permanency or Aging Out: Adolescents in the Child Welfare System

3 CEHs were available for this event.


Participant Packet (includes Agenda)

Keynote Presenter

Mark Courtney

Professor, School of Social Work at the University of Washington and Executive Director of Partners for Our Children

 PowerPoint Presentation (PDF)

Panel Presentation

Michelle Chalmers, Co-Executive Officer of Ampersand Families
Claire Hill, Consultant, Adolescent Services, MN Department of Human Services
Elizabeth Hinz, Liaison for Homeless and Highly Mobile Students for the Minneapolis School District

Q & A

Below is a list of questions from distance sites that we were not able to pose to the presenters due to time constraints, as well as some questions that were submitted after the conference through participant evaluations. We extend our gratitude to our presenters who generously gave their time to compile thoughtful responses.

Further clarification: I am curious to know if living in different areas of the state provide better or worse resources for their children aging out of care.

Mark Courtney’s response: The reports on the Midwest Study of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth (Midwest Study) include state-specific reports. Those reports compare self-reported service receipt between major urban areas (e.g., Cook County in Illinois and Milwaukee County in Wisconsin) and the remainder of the state.  There are some differences in service receipt; service receipt is sometimes, but not always, higher in urban than in rural areas.

Full question: The data presented on incarceration rates and lack of educational attainment parallel those of African Americans in the larger society; do you believe the intersections of race and involvement in foster care are skewing your data? This may also be true for the data on children out of wedlock.  (From UMN Twin Cities) It will be helpful to hear what you attribute the outcomes to if it is not foster care, race, etc. (From an evaluation) If the system is the “parent” of youth in care and the majority of youth in the system are of color and the majority of leaders and decision making power in the system are white, then: How are we failing youth of color? Parents of color can teach their kids how to survive racism, can empathize, and recognize the effects of racism – can the system?

Mark Courtney’s response: These questions, in one way or another, ask for further clarification of the study findings given that youth in foster care are disproportionately youth of color, and that youth in care come from low-income families. 

The Midwest Study was not designed to assess the “impact” of foster care placement, net other background characteristics and experiences of foster youth, on outcomes during adulthood; we do not have a comparison group of children and youth who never entered out-of-home care but otherwise exhibited all of the characteristics of the youth in the Midwest Study.  The study was designed to assess transition outcomes, and, for the foster youth population, predictors of those outcomes.  Such information is useful to policymakers and practitioners as they try to craft approaches to improving outcomes for foster youth in transition. 

Midwest Study reports demonstrate that young adult outcomes for foster youth in transition are, on average, much poorer than those of other people the same age.  The authors of the Midwest Study reports believe that this is evidence of the need for more effective supports for foster youth in transition and reject the argument that foster youth, because they come from low-income families and communities of color, should not be expected to experience any better outcomes than those we observe.  Moreover, although the reports focusing on the full three-state sample do not generally allow for much comparison of outcomes between racial/ethnic groups, a reading of the state-specific reports makes clear that outcomes for foster youth are generally poorer than those of their age peers, regardless of race/ethnicity.  For example, Iowa’s foster care population is overwhelmingly Caucasian but its outcomes are generally much poorer than those of the national comparison group.  Similarly, outcomes for youth outside of Milwaukee County in Wisconsin and outside of Cook County in Illinois (i.e., in parts of those states with predominantly Caucasian foster youth populations) are poorer than for the national comparison group.

Mark Courtney’s response: We have not to date identified any protective effect of remaining in care past age 18 on incarceration rates, but our analysis of crime outcomes is ongoing.

That is, what were the reasons for the children being placed in out of home care (e.g., abuse, neglect, youth delinquency, etc)?

Mark Courtney’s response: We have not yet conducted analyses that would allow us to answer that question.

Mark Courtney’s response: Our reports on outcomes at age 19 and age 21 provide data on the percentage of young people working and/or in school.  For females 58.6 percent were working and/or in school at age 19 and 69.3 percent were working and/or in school at 21.  For males the percentages working and/or in school were 53.9 percent at age 19 and 59.5 percent at 21 respectively.

Full question: Are there requirements (in IL) for the 18 year old to stay in foster care until 21? What are the parameters for the 18 year olds to stay in care? (From Washington County) Can kids in out of home care who choose to leave and are not state wards come back into care if they ask?  In MN kids who leave care after 18 cannot come back in.

Mark Courtney’s response: There are no requirements in terms of mandatory employment or enrollment in school, though such developmentally-appropriate activities are certainly encouraged.  Since they are adults, the youth must want to remain in care.  However, once youth leave care after age 18 and the court closes the case they are not generally allowed to return.

Full question: Most of our placements are Corrections in number and cost.  The Courtney study didn’t seem to address the impact of corrections placements of delinquents that are paid for under the State/County human service funding streams. Is that true or were they included?

Mark Courtney’s response: Different states have different approaches to how the out-of-home care of youth who are both adjudicated delinquents and eligible for child welfare funding (i.e., Title IV-E funding) is funded and supervised.  This is certainly true for the three states in the Midwest Study, and their systems differ in significant ways from Minnesota’s.  The Midwest Study included adjudicated delinquents who had initially entered out-of-home care due to abuse, neglect or dependency, but it did not include youth who first entered care through the delinquency system.

Mark Courtney’s response: Voluntary placements were not included.  Since the study eligibility criteria required that youth had been in out-of-home care for at least one year there would have been few if any voluntary placements even if we had not chosen to explicitly exclude them.

Is there research that tells us why GED is not seen as a viable educational attainment measure?  Is there a true lack of comparative skills that GED versus Diploma students have? Is there a difference between benefits of a high school diploma versus receiving a GED for success as a young adult?

Mark Courtney’s response: Seems like this is something that you might want to do a seminar on! While I am aware of research on the employment and post-secondary education returns of GEDs vs HS diplomas, I am not an education researcher and would rather not get into answering a fairly complicated set of questions on this topic.

Mark Courtney’s response: Midwest Study reports describe the number and percentage of young people in the study enrolled in vocational school/training.

Mark Courtney’s response: Most youth in Illinois at age 17 will remain in care past their 20th birthday, so Illinois must be doing something that encourages them to stay in care.  The fact that Illinois guarantees young people room and board and assistance from responsible adults through age 21 may have something to do with why most young people there remain in care.

Full question: Considering the implication of chemical dependency as a primary factor in the parental behaviors that supported the county/state involvement to assume care of a child (entry into the foster care system) there is a supposition that these kids create a population with a higher incidence of chemical dependency as a life issue for themselves as well. The causal relationship between CD and incarceration/future poor parenting rates exist – therefore I was waiting for some commentary to reflect this issue. Obtaining interventional aid for this is not well supported in our mainstream population and certainly involves advocacy for youth where there may be a greater happenstance due to biology/expression linked to environmental stressors.

Mark Courtney’s response: Midwest Study reports include data on the number of foster youth who use drugs and alcohol and that experience substance use and abuse disorders.  The number of foster youth experiencing these disorders is troubling, especially for males.  Our ongoing analyses of adult outcomes (e.g., crime) do suggest that substance abuse is a predictor of poor outcomes during the transition to adulthood.

Mark Courtney’s response: About half of the young people in our study spent at least some time in kinship foster care.  Identifying whether placement with kin per se is associated with later outcomes is something that we are just now beginning to explore.

Mark Courtney’s response: That is a very good question, but a tough one to answer since few youth outside of Illinois received much in the way of services after age 18.  One element of remaining in care in Illinois that appears to be related to better outcomes is the availability of stable housing.

Michelle Chalmer’s response: I’d need more specifics on the situation to give a meaningful answer. This situation happens when the 18 year old (who is now an adult) has disqualifiers on his background check. There might be some wiggle room for the licensing folks at DHS to grant a variance to allow him to remain in the home (only a relatively few offenses can be granted a variance).

It might be that the foster care agency wants the parents to assure that the older kid’s bed is available for another placement- although that would be pretty harsh (and unusual, I think). Most likely, I suspect that the agency is trying to follow the law in terms of what adults are permitted to live in foster homes. Once that young man turned 18, the child welfare system views him as an adult (unless he has some grounds to request extended foster care).

This is a good example of the fact that foster care is designed to be a temporary resource. As a rule, whole families of children are not supposed to spend years in foster care. If the siblings are youth under guardianship of the commissioner of human services, adoption would help the situation.

If the siblings were adopted by their foster parents, there is a provision in licensing rules that allow for a variance for some disqualifying offenses committed by a child prior to his/her adoption.

Full question: I have worked with many schools who when I place a kid in a FC/GH who is on an IEP they will not put them in school in 1-2 days and at the time they wait up to a week or more to be placed in a school. Then if I want them in a mainstream school with an IEP they refuse and put them in a separate program. Read as: What are the circumstances that would lead to a situation in which youth may not be placed in a school within the 1-2 day time period? (For example, FC youth with an IEP)

Elizabeth Hinz’s response: Students who are homeless do have the right to enroll in school immediately, although staying/living in foster care or group homes is not included in the McKinney Vento Education definition of homelessness. Any student enrolling in a school district with an IEP has the right to immediate enrollment, but getting the student placed in an appropriate educational environment cannot necessarily happen in 1-2 days. The student could be placed in a school, but when the IEP and other records are reviewed the student may have to be moved to another setting to get the staffing, materials, and environment specified in the IEP. I suggest that you contact the Special Education Director for the school district. If all else fails, you can contact RuthEllen Luehr, Coordinator of Homeless Education, at MN Dept of Education, 651.582.8403.

Elizabeth Hinz’s response: I can only answer this question from McKinney Vento Education point of view, and that is to remind everyone that PSEO is K-12 education, and until completing or awarding a high school diploma, the student is in the K-12 system. Typically the student is 18 years old or younger, but could be 19. Students can be in the K-12 system age 21 and under.


This was a free, live teleconference sponsored by the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW), School of Social Work, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities, to your county ITV site and made possible by a Title IV-E training grant administered by the MN Department of Human Services.

This forum has been developed under the auspices of: Federal Title IV-E Funding, Minnesota Department of Human Services (Contract #439481), The Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare at the School of Social Work in the College of Education and Human Development.