Economic & Social Policy Research Economic & Social Policy Research Conference:Conference:

Judy CashmoreJudy CashmoreNovember 2005November 2005

Towards Better Outcomes for Young People

Leaving State Care

Towards Better Outcomes for Young People

Leaving State Care

KEY QUESTIONS KEY QUESTIONS

• What are the longer-term outcomes?

• What predicts better outcomes and not-so-good 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

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 healthConsistent findings since Stein & Carey’s Leeds study, 1986)

WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005

WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005

WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: • Interview group: Interview group: n = 47/ 45 n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged)(4 not discharged)

• Non-interview:Non-interview: n = 44 n = 44 (10 not discharged)(10 not discharged)

• Four interviews: Four interviews: (1) Before discharge(1) Before discharge (2) 3 mths after(2) 3 mths after (n =(n = 47)47)

(3) 12 mths after(3) 12 mths after (n =(n = 45)45)

(4) 4 - 5 years (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41)(n = 41)

Funded by NSW Dept of Community ServicesFunded by NSW Dept of Community Services

WHAT OUTCOMES?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 OUTCOMESAFTER 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

AFTER CARE OUTCOMES 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 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

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 SECURITYSENSE OF SECURITY

• Was there anyone ever feel loved you?Was there anyone ever feel loved you?• Anyone ever feel secure with?Anyone ever feel secure with?• Feel as if listened to?Feel as if listened to?• Miss out on things other kids had?Miss out on things other kids had?• Miss out on affection?Miss out on affection?• Grow up too fast – bad thing?Grow up too fast – bad thing?

Coded as positive, negative, mediumCoded as positive, negative, medium

Long-term Short-term

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Stable Unstable

F (3, 37) = 6.1, p = .002

Resilience scores by stability

Insecure Moderate Secure

0

1

2

3

4

5

6F (2,37) - 18.9, p< .001

Mean resilience score by perceived security

Family and carer Carer Worker Family No-one

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 7.3 Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security

Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security

Not secure Moderate Secure

0

2

4

6

8

10F (2,41) = 10.5 p < .001

Mean no of places by perceived security

Number of placements by ‘felt’ security

SOCIAL SUPPORTSOCIAL SUPPORT

• Continuing contact with foster familyContinuing contact with foster family• Positive relationship with at least some Positive relationship with at least some

family members family members (parents, sibs, extended)(parents, sibs, extended)

• Friends to rely onFriends to rely on• Other social networkOther social network (church, community) (church, community)

CONTACT WITH FAMILY 4 - 5 years after care

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 CARERSAFTER CARE

CONTACT WITH FOSTER CARERSAFTER CARE

• 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support variedsupport varied• 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo• 2 in ST stable care2 in ST stable care• 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)• 2 in ST unstable care2 in ST unstable care

• 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact

PREDICTING ‘RESILIENCE’ /POSITIVE OUTCOMES *

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 wellKARINA: 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 throughoutBEN: High risk throughout

• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, unemployed, no stable networkunemployed, no stable network

• Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’• Broke down at 12 - behaviour problemsBroke down at 12 - behaviour problems• Series of temporary respite, restoration attemptsSeries of temporary respite, restoration attempts• Wardship - residential care, offending, detentionWardship - residential care, offending, detention• Very hurt by parents’ Very hurt by parents’ rejectionrejection• Very mobile, in refuges, casual employmentVery mobile, in refuges, casual employment• Relationship difficulties – no supportive networkRelationship difficulties – no supportive network

ADAM: ‘Recovery’ADAM: ‘Recovery’

• Ward at 9: Ward at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges, In foster care, group homes, refuges, foster grandfatherfoster grandfather

• Isolated from familyIsolated from family• Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only

completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered childcompleted Year 9, unemployed, fathered child• No stable network No stable network until 3rd interview• Very mobile, casual employment Very mobile, casual employment after W3• Married mother of child, part of religious Married mother of child, part of religious

fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.

LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION

LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION

• UnemploymentUnemployment

46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)• Poor educational performancePoor educational performance• Early parenting – Early parenting – inter-generational effects• Drug and alcohol use - “ “Drug and alcohol use - “ “• Crime? - “ “Crime? - “ “• Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?

• Forthcoming CWAV / Monash studyForthcoming CWAV / Monash study

Policy and practice implications: RELATIONSHIPS 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

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: REVIEWSPolicy 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

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

Policy and practice implications: AFTER CARE

• Accommodation, housing, accommodation• Continuing social support, mentoring

• Their choice?

• Assistance with further education

Policy and practice implications: RESEARCHPolicy 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 CAREResearch and evaluationLEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation

Evaluating leaving care schemesEvaluating leaving care schemes

• Biehal, Clayden, Stein & WadeBiehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). (1995). Moving onMoving on..

• Broad (1998).Broad (1998). Young people leaving care .. After the Young people leaving care .. After the Children Act 1989Children Act 1989

• Range of US and Canadian research and Range of US and Canadian research and evaluationevaluation

• egeg Casey : Casey : Pecora et al (2003)Pecora et al (2003)

LEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluationLEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation

Describing circumstances and establishing Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving careneeds of young people leaving care

• Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)• Garnett 1992 (UK)Garnett 1992 (UK)• Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St

Laurence (Vic)Laurence (Vic)• MMaunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). aunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young Young

People Leaving Care and ProtectionPeople Leaving Care and Protection. . NYARS ReportNYARS Report

• Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)• Pecora et al.(2003) Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National Early results from the Casey National

Alumni Study Alumni Study (US)(US)