A New Narrative for Child Welfare

February 16, 2011

Bryan Samuels, CommissionerAdministration on Children, Youth &

Families

Child Welfare Population, 1998-2009

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

25%

More children are moving out of child welfare; fewer children are being brought into the system

150,000

180,000

210,000

240,000

270,000

300,000

330,000

360,000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Entries

Exits

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

Children Adopted from Child Welfare, 1998-2009

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

55,000

60,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Nu

mb

er

of

Ch

ildre

n

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

Changes in the racial makeup of the child welfare population over time

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Black Non-Hispanic

White Non-Hispanic

Hispanic

Other

Mai

neH

awai

iO

hio

Mar

ylan

dFl

orid

aG

eorg

iaD

ist.

of C

ol.

Puer

to R

ico

Cal

ifor

nia

Min

neso

taN

ew J

erse

yN

ew Y

ork

Ver

mon

tIl

linoi

sT

enne

ssee

New

Ham

pshi

reM

isso

uri

Mas

sach

uset

tsW

isco

nsin

Penn

sylv

ania

Con

nect

icut

Vir

gini

aM

ichi

cgan

Mon

tana

Col

orad

oR

hode

Isl

and

Del

awar

eK

ansa

sN

ebra

ska

Ore

gon

Okl

ahom

aL

ouis

iana

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Ken

tuck

yN

orth

Dak

ota

Sout

h C

arol

ina

Was

hing

ton

Ala

ska

Sout

h D

akot

aN

ew M

exic

oId

aho

Ala

bam

aA

rkan

sas

Mis

siss

ippi

Tex

asIo

wa

Wyo

min

gW

est V

irgi

nia

Uta

hIn

dian

a Nev

ada

Ari

zona

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Decrease 16% to 47% Change less than 15% Increase 16% to 65%Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth,

and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

Reductions in child welfare caseloads are not evenly distributed across states

Entries into Child Welfare by Age, 1998 & 2009

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age

Nu

mb

er o

f C

hil

dre

n

2009

1998

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (1998-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2002 2009

Nu

mb

er o

f C

hild

ren

Other

Emancipation (AgingOut)

Adoption

Reunification, Livingwith Other Relatives,Guardianship

Reasons for discharge among all children exiting child welfare, 2002 & 2009

5%3%

11%

20%

66%

7%

18%

70%

Includes children transferred to another agency, children who have run away, and deaths

Includes children who exit the child welfare system to independence without a permanent connection to an adult

Includes children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and are legally adopted

Includes children who return home to their families after removal, live with relatives other than their families of origin after removal, or live with a legal guardian

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (2002-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2002 2009

Nu

mb

er o

f C

hild

ren

Other

Emancipation (Aging Out)

Adoption

Reunification, Living withother Relatives, orGuardianship

8%

14%

9%

69%

5%

23%

9%

63%

Reasons for discharge among youth over age 10 exiting child welfare, 2002 & 2009

Includes children transferred to another agency, children who have run away, and deaths

Includes children who exit the child welfare system to independence without a permanent connection to an adult

Includes children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and are legally adopted

Includes children who return home to their families after removal, live with relatives other than their families of origin after removal, or live with a legal guardian

Data Source: Adoption and Foster Care Reporting and Analysis System, Reports 10-17 (2002-2009). Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (USDHHS, ACF)

61.9%screened in(3.6 million)

23.9%substantiated

(763,000)

76.2%not

substantiated(2.9 million)

59.9%open for services

(457,000)

40.1% not open for services

(306,000)

34.8% placedout-of-home

(159,000)

65.2%in-home

(298,000)

38.1%screened out(2.4 million)

Cases of children reported to CPS

(6 million)

Source: Child Maltreatment 2009, US Department of Health and Human Services, National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, 2010

FY 2009

25.8%open for services

(741,000)

74.2% notopen for services

(2.1 million)

13.9% placedout-of-home

(103,000)

86.1%in-home

(638,000)

How can we maintain the gains that have

been made and continue to progress?

How can we target the next 25%?

Make Better Use of Data and Research

• Use data to know sub-populations and target interventions

• Draw on the best science available in selecting and implementing interventions

• Incorporate evaluation and research into service delivery

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Mental health of caregiver

Substance abuse

Rejection of parent by child

Rejection of child by parent

Verbal or physical fights

Oth harm (e.g. burns, fractures) through lack of superv.

Child 7-12 yrs old left unsupervised

Child 6 yrs old or younger left unsupervised

Other

Sexual maltreatment

Child witnessed domestic/other violence

Emotional maltreatment

Excessive discipline

Violence to child by caregiver (non-disciplinary)

Other neglect

Educational neglect or truancy

Caregiver neglected medical/health care of child

Abandonment or locking in or out

Homelessness or potential homelessness

Home unsafe or unclean

Child lacked basic needs (food, clothes, hygiene)

Experimental

Control

Physical, Sexual, or Emotional Abuse

Neglect or Abandonment

Poor or damaging adult-child relationship

Lack of Supervision or Proper Care

Other Threats

American Humane Institute of Applied Research Minnesota Consultants (2009). Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project Evaluation Final Report, Fig 11.2 (adapted).http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/protecting-children/PC-DR-Ohio-Section2-Final-Evaluation-Report.pdf

TYPES OF CHILD SAFETY PROBLEMS IN OHIO’S EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL FAMILIES BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF FIRST CONTACT WITH FAMILIES

Strategy: Differential Response

Target Social and Emotional Needs of Children

• Enhance clinical competencies of caseworkers

• Use interventions that improve social and emotional health for children in child welfare, e.g.:– Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care– Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

• Support foster parents in understanding and responding to social and emotional needs of children in their care

Permanency Innovations Initiative

ACYF Initiative to Reduce Long-Term Foster Care

• $100 Million over 5 years– $77 Million to grantees– $23 Million for TA and Evaluation

• To develop innovative intervention strategies for children staying in foster care long-term

• Targeting specific populations, focusing on permanence (exits) AND prevention (entries)

• 6 grantees

Grantees• Illinois Department of Children and Family Services

– Population: Youth 9-12 – Approach: Strengths-based, trauma-focused assessment and evidence-based intervention to expedite permanence for those

in care more than 2 years AND prevent long stays for new entries

• University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc– Population: Youth with severe emotional disorders– Approach: Evidence-based, intensive family reunification services immediately following removal from the home, and

piloting of a new tool for risk assessment

• California Department of Social Services– Population: African American and Native American Youth– Approach: Locally-relevant implementation of EBPs as part of permanency practice model, nested in model for systemic

change to achieve outcomes in permanence, well-being, and reduced disparity

• Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center– Population: LGBTQ youth– Approach: Addressing barriers to permanence and well-being for LGBTQ children and youth in or at-risk of placement in

foster care, juvenile justice involvement, or homelessness by working with youth, parents, and families

• Arizona Department of Economic Security– Population: Youth in out-of-home care for 3+ years, with a special focus on African American and Native American youth– Approach: Delivery of at least one of 3 EBPs as part of systems of care to prepare youth for permanency and recruit,

engage, and prepare prospective parents

• Washoe County Department of Social Services (Nevada)– Population: New families with in-home and out-of-home safety plans at the point of entry– Approach: Implementation of the Safety Intervention Permanency System (SIPS) using comprehensive

assessment and intervention and community-based services

Custom Report Builder allows you to find and compare State child welfare data

http://data.cwo.icfi.com/data/

New Child Welfare Data Tool