|
|---|
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | ||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
This section of the report presents key findings from the analyses of information pertaining to the specific cases reviewed during the onsite CFSR. Some of the analyses include cases reviewed during the FY 2001 CFSR. However, as noted previously, because of changes made in the case review instrument after the FY 2001 reviews, many of the analyses exclude cases reviewed during the FY 2001 CFSR. The inclusion or exclusion of FY 2001 cases is noted for each analysis.
The case-level data analyses examined the following questions:
What are the key characteristics of the CFSR cases?
The tables in this section provide information regarding the characteristics of the CFSR cases. The following case characteristics are presented for all 52 "States" (this includes the 50 States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia):
Type of case
CFSR cases included 1,477 cases in which children were in foster care at some time during the CFSR period under review. There also were 1,092 "in-home" cases. These are cases that were open child welfare cases at some time during the CFSR period under review, the child remained in the home, and no children in the family were in foster care during the period under review.
Reason for case opening
For each case, reviewers were asked to note all problems relevant to the family’s involvement with the child welfare agency and to identify the one problem that was the primary reason for opening a child welfare case. The primary reasons why a child welfare agency case was opened are presented in table II-1. As shown in the table, the most frequently cited primary reasons for case opening were neglect, physical abuse, and substance abuse by parents. These three reasons accounted for 60 percent of all cases.
| Primary Reason | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Neglect (not including Medical Neglect) | 851 | 33.1 |
| Physical Abuse | 402 | 15.6 |
| Substance Abuse by the Parent(s) | 303 | 11.8 |
| Sexual Abuse | 211 | 8.2 |
| Child’s Behavior | 159 | 6.2 |
| Abandonment | 95 | 3.7 |
| Child in Juvenile Justice System | 89 | 3.5 |
| Domestic Violence in the Child’s Home | 74 | 2.8 |
| Medical Neglect | 74 | 2.8 |
| Mental/Physical Health of Parent | 73 | 2.8 |
| Mental/Physical Health of the Child | 40 | 1.6 |
| Emotional Maltreatment | 35 | 1.4 |
| Substance Abuse by Child | 10 | .4 |
| Other | 153 | 6.0 |
| Total | 2569 | 100 |
A factor analysis of reasons for case opening resulted in the identification of four factors that accounted for almost all reasons. These four factors comprise the following "reason categories":
Table II-2 presents the number and percent of cases included in each of these reason categories.
| Reason for Case Opening Category | Number of Cases | Percent of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Child’s behavior | 258 | 10.7 |
| Physical Abuse | 1323 | 54.8 |
| Substance Abuse by the Parent(s) | 187 | 7.7 |
| Sexual Abuse | 648 | 26.8 |
| Total (excluding "other") | 2416 | 100 |
As shown in table II-2, parent’s behavior (other than physical, emotional, or sexual abuse) as a reason for case opening accounted for over one-half of all cases. Child abuse as a reason for case opening accounted for slightly more than one-fourth of all cases. However, in 11 percent of all cases, the primary reason for opening a child welfare case was the child’s behavior.
Race/ethnicity of children
Information pertaining to the race/ethnicity of children included in the sample is provided in table II-3. As shown in the table, most of the children in the CFSR sample were White (non-Hispanic) or Black (non-Hispanic). As noted in section I, however, the percentage of children in the case sample who were white (non Hispanic) and non-white varied considerably across States.
| Race/Ethnicity | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| White (non Hispanic) | 1121 | 43.6 |
| Black (non Hispanic) | 729 | 28.4 |
| Hispanic | 219 | 8.5 |
| Two or more races | 217 | 8.4 |
| Alaska Native/American Indian | 118 | 4.6 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 44 | 1.7 |
| Missing information | 121 | 4.7 |
| Total | 2569 | 100 |
Age of children
Information pertaining to the ages of children was available for foster care cases only. There was no specified target child for the in-home services cases because they were rated on the basis of all children in the family. Age of child was examined with respect to age at entry into foster care and age at the start of the CFSR period under review.
Table II-4 provides the number and percent of children in five age groupings at entry into foster care and at the start of the CFSR period under review. As shown in the table, slightly over 70 percent of the children in the sample entered foster care when they were younger than age 13, while the remainder entered as adolescents. At the start of the period under review, more than one-third of the children in the sample were adolescents (i.e. age 13 and older).
| Age Grouping | Number (%) at Entry into Foster Care* |
Number (%) at Start of the PUR |
|---|---|---|
| Younger than 6 years | 546 (37.0) | 437 (29.6) |
| 6 years but not yet 10 years | 304 (20.6) | 286 (19.4) |
| 10 years but not yet 13 years | 206 (13.9) | 8.5 |
| 13 years but not yet 16 years | 249 (16.9) | 8.4 |
| 16 years and older | 83 (5.6) | 4.6 |
| Information missing | 89 (6.0)* | 1.7 |
| Total | 1477 | 1477 |
*Many cases from reviews conducted in FY 2001 were recorded as having missing information for this variable back
Gender of children
Information on gender was available only for foster care cases because in-home cases frequently involved more than one child. For the 1,477 foster care cases (FY 2001-2004 CFSR States), 698 were identified as male (47.3%) and 598 were identified as female (40.5%). For 12.3 percent of the foster care cases (n=181), the gender of the child was not identified in the case review instrument and could not be ascertained by the child’s name.
Children’s permanency goals
Information on permanency goals was available only for foster care cases reviewed in FY 2002 through FY 2004 because the information was not recorded on a routine basis in the FY 2001 case review instruments. Table II-5 provides the number and percent of children with various permanency goals at the time of the onsite review.
| Permanency Goal | Number | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Adoption | 316 | 32.7 |
| Reunification | 336 | 34.8 |
| Guardianship/Permanent Placement with Relative | 94 | 9.8 |
| Emancipation | 75 | 7.8 |
| Long-Term Foster Care | 113 | 11.7 |
| Concurrent plan | 25 | 2.6 |
| No specified permanency goal | 5 | .5 |
| Total | 964 | 100 |
As shown in the table, most children had permanency goals of adoption and reunification. However, almost one-fifth of the children had "permanency goals" of emancipation or long-term foster care.
What are the relationships among case characteristics?
Analyses were conducted to examine potential relationships among case characteristics. The following relationships were examined:
Reason for case opening by type of case
Table II-6 presents the data pertaining to type of case and the reason for case opening. This analysis includes cases reviewed from FY 2001 through FY 2004. Reason for case opening was found to vary significantly as a function of type of case (Chi Square = 29.96; p < .0001). Child abuse as a reason for case opening occurred more frequently in the in-home case sample (32.2%) than it did in the foster care case sample (22.9%). In contrast, parent’s behavior (excluding child abuse but including neglect) as a reason for case opening occurred more frequently in the foster care case sample (57.9%) than it did in the in-home case sample (50.4%).
| Factor (Reason for Case Opening) | Number (%) of In-Home Cases |
Number (%) of Foster Care Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Child’s behavior | 93 (9.1) | 165 (11.9) |
| Parent’s behavior (excluding child abuse but including neglect) | 517 (50.4) | 806 (57.9) |
| Family’s mental and physical well-being (including medical neglect) | 85 (8.3) | 102 (7.3) |
| Child abuse | 330 (32.2) | 318 (22.9) |
| Total | 1025 | 1391 |
Race/ethnicity of children by type of case
Table II-7 presents the race/ethnicity of children by type of case. This analysis includes all cases reviewed from FY 2001 through FY 2004 for which race/ethnicity information was provided in the case review instrument. As shown in the table, race/ethnicity of child was found to vary significantly as a function of type of case (Chi Square = 34.02; p < .0001). Specifically, Black children and Alaska Native/American Indian children were more likely to be in the foster care case sample than in the in-home case sample.
| Race/Ethnicity | Number (%) of In-Home Cases |
Number (%) of Foster Care Cases |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| White (non Hispanic) | 494 (47.9) | 627 (44.3) | 1121 |
| Black (non Hispanic) | 275 (26.6) | 454 (32.1) | 729 |
| Hispanic | 106 (10.3) | 113 (8.0) | 219 |
| Two or more races | 97 (9.4) | 120 (8.5) | 217 |
| Alaska Native/American Indian | 31 (3.0) | 87 (6.1) | 118 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 29 (2.8) | 15 (1.1) | 44 |
| Total | 1032 (100) | 1416 (100) | 2448 |
Age at entry into foster care and reason for case opening.
Table II-8 presents information pertaining to the age of the child at the time of entry into foster care and the reason for case opening. The analyses include data from States participating in a CFSR from FY 2002 through FY 2004. Cases reviewed during the FY 2001 CFSR do not have comparable information on a consistent basis. As shown in the table, the primary reason for case opening varies significantly as a function of the child’s age at the time of entry into foster care (Chi Square (9) = 230.33; p < .0001). In general, the percentage of cases opened as a result of parents’ behaviors tends to decrease with increasing age, while the percentage of cases opened as a result of the child’s behavior increases with increasing age. The percentage of cases opened because of the mental/physical health of the family did not differ as a function of age. The percentage of cases opened because of child abuse increased from the younger than 6 to the 6 to 9 year older age group and then declined with increasing age. The most significant decline occurred from the 10-12 year old age group to the adolescent age group.
| blank cell | Age at Entry into Foster Care | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Reason for Case Opening | Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13 and older | Total |
| Child’s behavior | 3 (1%) | 10 (5%) | 14 (11%) | 89 (41%) | 116 |
| Parent’s behavior (includes neglect but not child abuse) | 262 (68%) | 117 (58%) | 69 (54%) | 75 (34%) | 523 |
| Mental/physical health of family | 33 (9%) | 12 (6%) | 10 (8%) | 12 (5%) | 67 |
| Child abuse | 85 (22%) | 63 (31%) | 34 (27%) | 42 (19%) | 224 |
| Total | 383 | 202 | 127 | 218 | 930 |
Age at start of the CFSR period under review and the child’s permanency goal
Table II-9 presents children’s permanency goals at the time of the onsite review as a function of the child’s age at the start of the period under review. As shown in the table, permanency goals varied significantly as a function of the child’s age at the start of the period under review (Chi Square = 335.63; p < .0001). In general, the percentage of cases with a permanency goal of adoption decreased with increasing age, while the percentage of cases with permanency goals of emancipation/long-term foster care increased with increasing age. There was no substantial difference among age groups with regard to the percentage of children with a permanency goal of reunification. In addition, although very few children under the age of 6 had a permanency goal of guardianship/permanent placement with relatives, the percentage of cases with this goal increased considerably for the 6 through 9 year old children.
| Permanency Goal | Age at Start of Period Under Review | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| blank cell | Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13 and older | Total |
| Adoption | 151 (54%) | 81 (49%) | 46 (33%) | 25 (7%) | 303 |
| Reunification | 109 (39%) | 51 (31%) | 52 (38%) | 121(36%) | 333 |
| Guardianship/Permanent placement with relative | 14 (5%) | 27 (16%) | 16 (12%) | 36 (11%) | 93 |
| Emancipation | 0 | 1 (1%) | 0 | 74 (22%) | 75 |
| Long-term foster care | 4 (1%) | 5 (3%) | 23 (17%) | 81 (24%) | 113 |
| Total | 383 | 165 | 137 | 337 | 917 |
What are the case ratings for the CFSR outcomes and indicators?
Ratings for outcomes and indicators are provided for the 35 States participating in a CFSR from FY 2002 to FY 2004. Case ratings for outcomes were examined with respect to whether the outcome was determined to be "substantially achieved" or "not substantially achieved." The category of "not substantially achieved" includes ratings of "partially achieved" and "not achieved." Ratings for indicators (items) are either a "Strength" or an "Area Needing Improvement."
Table II-10 provides information pertaining to ratings for the CFSR outcomes. As shown in the table, more than one-half of the cases reviewed in FY 2002 through FY 2004 were determined to have "Not Substantially Achieved" Permanency Outcome 1 and Well-Being Outcome 1. However, over three-fourths of the cases reviewed were determined to have "Substantially Achieved" Safety Outcomes 1 and 2 and Well-Being Outcome 2.
| Outcomes | Number (%) of Cases Rated as Substantially Achieved and Not Substantially Achieved* | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantially Achieved |
Not Substantially Achieved |
||
| Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect | 1304 (83.6) | 255 (16.3) | 1559 |
| Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate | 1231 (76.5) | 378 (23.5) | 1609 |
| Permanency Outcome 1 : Children have permanency and stability in their living situations | 429 (44.5) | 536 (55.5) | 965 |
| Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children | 688 (71.6) | 273 (28.4) | 961 |
| Well-Being Outcome 1 : Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs | 837 (48.2) | 898 (51.8) | 1735 |
| Well-Being Outcome 2 : Children receive services to meet their educational needs | 1102 (84.2) | 207 (15.8) | 1309 |
| Well-Being Outcome 3 : Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs | 1123 (68.8) | 509 (31.2) | 1632 |
* Not substantially achieved includes ratings of "partially achieved" and "not achieved."back
Table II-11 presents the ratings for the indicators (items) for each outcome. As shown in the table, more than three-fourths of the cases were rated as a Strength for the items relevant to Safety Outcomes 1 and 2. Similarly, the majority of cases were rated as a Strength for the indicators relevant to Permanency Outcome 2, Well-Being Outcome 2, and Well-Being Outcome 3. However, less than 70 percent of cases were rated as a Strength for four of the six indicators pertaining to Permanency Outcome 1, and only 36.4 percent of cases were rated as a Strength for the indicator pertaining to adoption (item 9). In addition, less than 60 percent of the cases were rated as a Strength for three of the four indicators pertaining to Well-Being Outcome 1.
| Indicators | Number (%) Rated as Strength and ANI | |
|---|---|---|
| Strength | ANI | |
| Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 1: Timeliness of investigations (N = 712) | 537 (75.4) | 175 (24.6) |
| Item 2: Repeat maltreatment (N = 1510) | 1397 (92.5) | 113 (7.5) |
| Safety Outcome 2 : Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 3: Services to prevent removal (N = 1047) | 841 (80.3) | 206 (19.7) |
| Item 4: Risk of harm (N = 1602) | 1267 (79.1) | 335 (20.9) |
| Permanency Outcome 1 : Children have permanency and stability in their living situations | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 5: Foster care re-entry (N = 311) | 265 (85.2) | 46 (14.8) |
| Item 6: Stability of foster care placements (N = 962) | 731 (76.0) | 231 (24.0) |
| Item 7: Permanency goal for child (N = 964) | 659 (68.4) | 305 (31.6) |
| Item 8: Reunification, guardianship and placement with relatives (N = 461) | 296 (64.2) | 165 (35.8) |
| Item 9: Adoption (N = 330) | 120 (36.4) | 210 (63.6) |
| Item 10: Other planned living arrangement (N = 202) | 135 (66.8) | 67 (33.2) |
| Permanency Outcome 2 : The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 11: Proximity of placement (N = 765) | 722 (94.4) | 43 (5.6) |
| Item 12: Placement with siblings (N = 595) | 510 (85.7) | 85 (14.3) |
| Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care (N = 821) | 600 (73.1) | 221 (26.9) |
| Item 14: Preserving connections (N =948) | 755 (79.6) | 193 (20.4) |
| Item 15: Relative placement (N = 891) | 664 (74.5) | 227 (25.5) |
| Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents (N = 742) | 552 (74.4) | 190 (25.6) |
| Well Being Outcome 1 : Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents (N=1735) | 1022 (58.9) | 713 (41.1) |
| Item 18: Child/family involvement in case Planning (N = 1706) | 989 (58.0) | 717 (42.0) |
| Item 19: Worker visits with child (N = 1733) | 1148 (66.2) | 585 (33.8) |
| Item 20: Worker visits with parents (N = 1572) | 882 (56.1) | 690 (43.9) |
| Well Being Outcome 2 : Children receive services to meet their educational needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 21: Educational needs of child (N = 1309) | 1104 (84.3) | 205 (15.7) |
| Well Being Outcome 3 : Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 22: Physical health of child (N = 1427) | 1190 (83.4) | 237 (16.6) |
| Item 23: Mental health of child (N = 1324) | 939 (70.9) | 385 (29.1) |
What are the relationships between case characteristics and ratings for the CFSR outcomes and indicators?
Analyses were conducted to examine potential relationships between case characteristics and ratings for the CFSR outcomes and indicators. Relationships were determined to be significant when the probability level was equal to or less than .01. The relationships examined were the following:
Outcome and indicator ratings by type of case
Table II-12 presents the percent of cases rated as substantially achieved for each of the seven outcomes for both types of cases. Chi-square tests resulted in the finding that ratings for each outcome vary significantly as a function of type of case. In-home cases were significantly less likely than foster care cases to be rated as having substantially achieved each outcome.
| Outcomes | % Cases Rated as Substantially Achieved | |
|---|---|---|
| In-Home | FC | |
| Safety Outcome 1 : Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect* | 41.8 | 58.2 |
| Safety Outcome 2 : Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate* | 40.0 | 60.0 |
| Well Being Outcome 1 : Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs* | 37.5 | 62.5 |
| Well Being Outcome 2 : Children receive services to meet their educational needs* | 31.9 | 68.1 |
| Well Being Outcome 3 : Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs* | 38.0 | 62.0 |
* Significant at p < . 0001back
Table II-13 presents the percentage of cases rated as a Strength for each of the items relevant to both in-home and foster care cases.
| Indicators | % Cases rated as Strength | |
|---|---|---|
| In-Home | Foster Care | |
| Safety Outcome 1: Children are first and foremost, protected from abuse and neglect | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 1: Timeliness of investigations (Not Significant) | 73.9 | 77.4 |
| Item 2: Repeat maltreatment (Not Significant) | 90.9 | 93.8 |
| Safety Outcome 2 : Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible and appropriate | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 3: Services to prevent removal ( Not Significant) | 81.0 | 78.9 |
| Item 4: Risk of harm (significant at p = .0001) | 70.9 | 85.7 |
| Well Being Outcome 1 : Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children's needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 17: Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents (significant at p = .0001) | 52.2 | 64.2 |
| Item 18: Child/family involvement in case Planning (significant at p = .0001) | 51.0 | 63.7 |
| Item 19: Worker visits with child (significant at p = .0001) | 59.4 | 71.7 |
| Item 20: Worker visits with parents (Not Significant) | 53.1 | 59.0 |
| Well Being Outcome 2 : Children receive services to meet their educational needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 21: Educational needs of child (significant at p = .0001) | 75.8 | 89.1 |
| Well Being Outcome 3 : Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs | blank cell | blank cell |
| Item 22: Physical health of child (significant at p = .003) | 79.1 | 85.4 |
| Item 23: Mental health of child (significant at p = .0001) | 62.0 | 76.8 |
Analyses of the relationship between ratings for indicators and type of case resulted in the following findings.
Outcome and indicator ratings by age of child
Analyses were conducted to examine potential relationships between age of the child at the start of the period under review and case ratings for the CFSR outcomes and indicators.
Table II-14 presents the number and percent of cases rated as having "substantially achieved" or "not substantially achieved" Permanency Outcome 1 across five age groups. Ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 varied significantly as a function of the child’s age at the start of the period under review (Chi Square (4) = 33.33, p < .0001). Cases involving children who were younger than age 6 at the start of the period under review were more likely to be rated as having substantially achieved Permanency Outcome 1 than cases involving children in any of the other age groups. Cases involving children age 6-9 and age 10-12 were less likely than cases involving adolescents to be rated as having substantially achieved this outcome.
| Ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 |
Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13– 15 years | 16– 18 years | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Substantially achieved | 164 (55%) | 69 (39%) | 38 (27%) | 106 (46%) | 47 (45%) | 424 |
| Not substantially achieved | 134 (45%) | 108 (61%) | 103 (73%) | 125 (54%) | 58 (55%) | 528 |
| Total | 298 | 177 | 141 | 231 | 105 | 952 |
Because anecdotal information obtained during many of the CFSRs suggested that placement stability is more difficult to achieve for adolescents than it is for younger children, a separate analysis was conducted on the relationship between the child’s age at the start of the CFSR period under review and ratings for the indicator of placement stability (item 6). These data are presented in table II-15.
| blank cell | Age at Start of Period Under Review | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratings for Stability of Foster Care Placements |
Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13– 15 years | 16– 18 years | Total |
| Strength | 246 (83%) | 140 (79%) | 104 (74%) | 149 (65%) | 80 (78%) | 719 |
| Area Needing Improvement | 52 (17%) | 37 (21%) | 36 (26%) | 82 (35%) | 23 (22%) | 230 |
| Total | 298 | 177 | 140 | 231 | 103 | 949 |
The analysis resulted in a finding that ratings for placement stability varied significantly as a function of the child’s age (Chi Square (4) = 24.87; p = .0001). The percentage of cases rated as a Strength for placement stability decreased with increasing age up to age 16. Cases in which children were age 16 through 18, however, were as likely to be rated as a Strength for placement stability as cases in which children were younger than age 6 or 6 to 9 years old. This may be due to the older children being placed in residential or treatment facilities for most of the period under review.
Anecdotal information from the CFSRs also suggested that establishing appropriate permanency goals for children in a timely manner is easier for younger children than it is for adolescents. Table II-16 presents the number and percent of cases rated as a Strength or Area Needing Improvement for this indicator (item 7).
| blank cell | Age at Start of Period Under Review | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratings for Permanency Goal | Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13– 15 years | 16– 18 years | Total |
| Strength | 239 (80%) | 118 (67%) | 78 (55%) | 151 (65%) | 66 (63%) | 652 |
| Area Needing Improvement | 59 (20%) | 58 (33%) | 63 (45%) | 80 (35%) | 39 (37%) | 299 |
| Total | 298 | 176 | 141 | 231 | 105 | 951 |
Ratings for item 7 were found to vary significantly by age of child at the start of the period under review (Chi Square = 33.07; p < .0001). For this item, ratings of Strength tended to decrease with increasing age up to age 13. Cases involving adolescents were as likely to be rated as a Strength for this item as cases involving 6- 9 year olds, but not as likely as cases involving children younger than age 6. The percentage of cases rated as a Strength for this indicator was lowest for the age group 10 to 12 years and highest for the age group of "younger than 6."
An examination of the relationships between children’s age at the start of the CFSR period under review and ratings on other outcomes and indicators did not result in significant findings (at the level of p equal to or less than .01). However, the association between ratings for item 20 (worker contact with parents) and age of child at the start of the period under review approached significance (Chi Square = 12.31; p = .015). These data are provided in table II-17. As shown in the table, the percentage of cases rated as a Strength for this indicator decreased continuously with increasing age.
| blank cell | Age at Start of Period Under Review | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ratings for Permanency Goal | Younger than 6 | 6 – 9 years | 10 – 12 years | 13– 15 years | 16– 18 years | Total |
| Strength | 176 (66%) | 92 (61%) | 62 (57%) | 97 (53%) | 42 (49%) | 469 |
| Area Needing Improvement | 90 (34%) | 59 (39%) | 47 (43%) | 87 (31%) | 43 (51%) | 326 |
| Total | 266 | 151 | 109 | 184 | 85 | 795 |
Outcome and indicator ratings by reason for case opening
Analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between the reason categories for case opening and ratings for the safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. No significant relationships were found between reason for case opening and case ratings for Safety Outcomes 1 and 2; Permanency Outcome 2; or Well Being Outcomes 1, 2, or 3. However, ratings of substantial achievement for Permanency Outcome 1 (Children have permanency and stability in their living situations) varied significantly as a function of reason for opening a foster care case (Chi square = 17.07; p = .001). Table II-18 presents the data for this relationship.
| Primary Reason for Case Opening | Number (%) Substantially Achieved | Number (%) Not Substantially Achieved | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child’s behavior | 71 (61.2) | 45 (38.8) | 116 |
| Parent’s behavior (includes neglect but not abuse) | 212 (40.5) | 312 (59.5) | 524 |
| Mental/physical health of family | 27 (40.3) | 40 (59.7) | 67 |
| Child abuse | 101 (45.1) | 123 (54.9) | 224 |
| Total | 411 | 520 | 931 |
As shown in the table, cases opened for reasons of child behavior were more likely to be rated as having "substantially achieved" Permanency Outcome 1 than cases opened for other reasons. In contrast, cases opened for all other reasons were more likely to be rated as "not substantially achieved" than as "substantially achieved."
Outcome and indicator ratings by child’s race/ethnicity
Analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between children’s race/ethnicity and case ratings for the CFSR outcomes and indicators. No significant association was found between a child’s race/ethnicity and ratings for Safety Outcome 1, Safety Outcome 2, Permanency Outcome 2, and Well-Being Outcome 2. However, a significant association was found between a child’s race/ethnicity and ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 (Chi Square = 17.403; p = .004). These data are presented in table II-19 and include foster care cases reviewed from FY 2001 through FY 2004 for which information on race/ethnicity was provided in the case review instrument.
| Race/Ethnicity | Number (%) rated as Substantially Achieved | Number (%) rate as not Substantially Achieved | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Native/Native American | 43 (49) | 44 (51) | 87 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 7 (47) | 8 (53) | 15 |
| Black (non-Hispanic) | 213 (47) | 241 (53) | 454 |
| Hispanic | 64 (57) | 49 (43) | 113 |
| White (non-Hispanic) | 371 (59) | 256 (41) | 627 |
| Two or more races | 62 (52) | 57 (48) | 119 |
| Total | 760 (54) | 655 (46) | 1415 |
As shown in the table, cases involving children who are White (Non Hispanic) and children who are Hispanic were more likely to be rated as having substantially achieved Permanency Outcome 1 (Children have permanency and stability in their living situations) than were cases involving children who are Alaska Native/Native American, Asian/Pacific Islander, or Black (non-Hispanic).
A significant association also was found between case ratings for Well-Being Outcome 1 (Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children’s needs) and the child’s race/ethnicity (Chi Square = 15.084, p = .01). These data are presented in table II-20 and include all cases reviewed from FY 2001 through FY 2004 for which information on race/ethnicity was provided in the case review instrument.
| Race/Ethnicity | Number (%) rated as Substantially Achieved | Number (%) rate as not Substantially Achieved | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Native/Native American | 57 (48) | 61 (52) | 118 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 14 (32) | 30 (68) | 44 |
| Black (non-Hispanic) | 399 (55) | 330 (45) | 729 |
| Hispanic | 110 (50) | 109 (50) | 219 |
| White (non-Hispanic) | 636 (57) | 485 (43) | 1121 |
| Two or more races | 122 (56) | 95 (44) | 217 |
| Total | 1338 (55) | 1110 (45) | 2448 |
As shown in the table, cases involving children who are White, Black, or of "two or more races" were significantly more likely to be rated as having substantially achieved Well-Being Outcome 1 (Families have enhanced capacity to meet children’s needs) than were cases involving children who are Alaska Native/Native American or Asian/Pacific Islander. The percentage of cases involving children who are Alaska Native/ Native American or Asian/Pacific Islander that were rated as "not substantially achieved" was greater than the percentage rated as "substantially achieved."
Finally, a significant association was found between the child’s race/ethnicity and ratings for Well-Being Outcome 3 (Children receive services to meet their physical and mental health needs) (Chi-Square = 16.11; p = .007). The data for this relationship are provided in table II-21.
| Race/Ethnicity | Number (%) rated as Substantially Achieved | Number (%) rate as not Substantially Achieved | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alaska Native/Native American | 76 (69) | 34 (31) | 110 |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 27 (63) | 16 (37) | 43 |
| Black (non-Hispanic) | 459 (66) | 234 (34) | 693 |
| Hispanic | 139 (67) | 69 (33) | 208 |
| White (non-Hispanic) | 789 (74) | 273 (26) | 1062 |
| Two or more races | 146 (69) | 64 (31) | 210 |
| Total | 1636 (70) | 690 (30) | 2326 |
As shown in the table, cases involving White children were significantly more likely to be rated as having substantially achieved Well Being Outcome 3 than were cases involving children of all other races/ethnicity.
Outcome ratings as a function of type of CFSR site
The CFSR onsite review process involved three sites in each State. One of the sites in each State was the State’s most populous city or county (largest population sites). The other sites included in the onsite review varied widely with respect to population size from very rural sites to metropolitan/suburban sites. An analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the type of CFSR site (i.e., "largest population sites" and "smaller population sites") and ratings for the CFSR outcomes. No relationship was found between type of CFSR site and ratings for Safety Outcome 1, Safety Outcome 2, Permanency Outcome 1, Permanency Outcome 2, and Well-Being Outcome 2. However, a significant association was found between type of site and performance on Well-Being Outcome 1 (t = 2.41; p = .01) and Well- Being Outcome 3 (t = 2.72, p = .008). Cases in the "smaller population sites" were significantly more likely to be rated as having achieved Well-Being Outcomes 1 and 3 than were cases in the "largest population sites." These findings suggest that although sites with smaller populations may not have as many services available for families, they may have developed strategies for maximizing the resources that are available.
What are the relationships between and among outcome and item ratings?
Correlational analyses were conducted to examine the relationships between and among outcome and item ratings with respect to the following issues:
Item and outcome ratings associated with achieving permanency in a timely manner
Analyses were conducted to examine the ratings associated with Permanency Outcome 1. Because of changes in this outcome based on lessons learned after the FY 2001 CFSR implementation, the analyses do not include FY 2001 cases. Ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 (Children have permanency and stability in their living situations) were found to be significantly associated with all of the indicators of Well-Being Outcome 1 (Families have enhanced capacity to provide for children’s needs). The general finding was that children’s permanency and stability in their living situations is associated with provision of services to children and families (item 17 – Chi Square = 39.29; p < .0001), involvement of children and parents in case planning (item 18 – Chi Square 25.31, p < .0001), frequent contact between caseworkers and children (item 19 – Chi Square = 13.44; p < .0001) and frequent contact between caseworkers and parents (Chi Square = 35.57; p < .0001).
In addition, ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 also were found to be significantly associated with ratings for item 23 (Mental health of child) (Chi Square = 7.29; p = .007). Thus, greater permanency and stability in living situations was associated with having mental health service needs assessed and addressed in an adequate manner. Ratings for Permanency Outcome 1 were not related to ratings for item 21 (Educational needs of child) or item 22 (Physical health of child).
Analyses also were conducted regarding the item and outcome ratings associated with efforts to achieve the permanency goals of reunification, guardianship, and permanent placement with relatives in a timely manner (item 8), and the permanency goal of adoption in a timely manner (item 9). Ratings of Strength for item 8 were significantly associated (at a probability level of .01 or better) with ratings of Strength for the following items:
The strongest association (based on the size of the Chi Square) was between item 8 and item 20 (Worker visits with parents). Other strong associations were between item 8 and item 13 (Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care), item 17 (Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents), item 18 (Child/family involvement in case planning), and item 6 (Placement stability). These findings suggest that achieving permanency with respect to reunification, guardianship, and/or permanent placement with relatives is most closely associated with frequent agency and child contact with parents and provision of services to meet the needs of children and parents.
In contrast to ratings for item 8, ratings for achieving adoption in a timely manner (item 9) were not significantly associated (at the probability level equal to or greater than .01) with any of the other outcome indicators except item 17 (Needs/services to child, parents, and foster parents) (Chi Square = 9.48, p = .002). When child was in an adoptive placement, ratings for this item addressed whether services were provided to adoptive parents.
In addition to these findings, ratings for Permanency Outcome 2 were found to be significantly associated with ratings for items 17 through 23, all at a level of p = .01 or better.
Item ratings associated with achieving placement stability
Although there were significant relationships between item ratings and the overall rating for Permanency Outcome 1, further analyses were conducted to identify the items associated specifically with placement stability (item 6), which is an indicator of Permanency Outcome 1. As noted previously, ratings for item 6 are significantly associated with ratings for item 8 (reunification, guardianship, and permanent placement with relatives). Ratings for item 6 also were found to be significantly associated with ratings for item 15 (Relative placement – Chi Square = 16.54; p < .0001), item 17 (Needs/services of child, parents and foster parents – Chi Square = 19.99; p < .0001), item 18 (Child/family involvement in case planning – Chi Square = 19.95; p < .0001), and item 20 (Worker visits with parents – Chi Square = 16.03; p < .0001).
In addition, significant associations were found between ratings for item 6 and ratings for items pertaining to meeting educational needs (item 21), physical health needs (item 22), and mental health needs (item 23). With regard to these findings, it may be that placement stability enhances the probability of children having their educational, physical, and mental health needs assessed and addressed as appropriate.
Item ratings associated with achieving safety.
Analyses were conducted to examine possible relationships between ratings for Safety Outcome 2 (Children are safely maintained in their homes when possible) and ratings for well-being indicators and the indicators for Safety Outcome 1 (Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect). Safety Outcome 2 includes the indicators of item 3 (Services to prevent removal) and 4 (Risk of harm). The relationship between ratings for these items was highly significant (based on the size of the Chi Square) (Chi Square = 347.56, p < .0001.) Because of this similarity, comparisons were conducted for ratings on Safety Outcome 2 and ratings for all seven of the well-being outcome indicators. A rating of substantial achievement for Safety Outcome 2 requires either that both item 3 and item 4 are rated as a Strength or that one is rated as a Strength and the other is Not Applicable.
The strongest association (based on the size of the Chi-Square) was found for the relationship between ratings for Safety Outcome 2 and ratings for item 17 (Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents – Chi Square = 270.67; p < .0001). Very strong associations (based on the size of the Chi Square) also were found for the relationship between ratings for Safety Outcome 2 and ratings for item 18 (Child/family involvement in case planning – Chi Square = 131.68; p < .0001); item 19 (Worker visits with children – Chi Square = 128.04; p < .0001), and item 20 (Worker visits with parents – Chi Square = 107.78; p < .0001).
With regard to safety, a significant association also was found between item 1 (Timeliness of investigation) and items 3 (Services to prevent removal) (Chi Square = 10.34; p = .001).
Item ratings associated with caseworker visits with children and parents
Ratings for item 19 (Worker visits with children) were found to be significantly associated with ratings for many of the other items. The strongest association (based on the size of the Chi Square) was between ratings for item 19 and ratings for item 20 (Worker visits with parents - Chi Square = 555.53; p = .0001). For this association, 91 percent of the cases rated as a Strength for item 20 also were rated as a Strength for item 19. The size of this association suggests that when workers make concerted efforts to establish frequent contact with the children in their caseloads, they often make the same effort to establish frequent contact with the parents.
Very strong associations (based on the size of the Chi-Square) also were found between ratings for item 19 and ratings for item 4 (Risk of harm – Chi-Square = 135.54; p = .0001), item 17 (Needs/services of child, parents, and foster parents – Chi-Square = 215.83), and item 18 (Child/family involvement in case planning – Chi-Square=240.94). Highly significant relationships, although not as strong, also were found between ratings for item 19 and ratings for the following items.
As would be expected based on the relationship between ratings for item 19 and 20, ratings for item 20 (Worker visits with parents) were found to be significantly associated with ratings for all of the items associated with item 19. However, ratings for item 20 also were associated with ratings for item 6—Placement Stability (Chi-Square (1) = 16.03; p = .0001). As with item 19, ratings for item 20 were not associated with either adoption (item 9) or proximity of placement (item 11).
What are the findings with regard to agency efforts to work with both mothers and fathers?
An analysis was conducted to assess agency efforts to work with both fathers and mothers in the cases reviewed. Table II-22 provides the data comparing efforts to work with mothers and fathers across several variables.
| Variable for Mothers and Fathers | Number of Applicable Cases * | Percent of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Seeking relatives as potential placement resources (Chi-Square = 218.43, p = .0001) |
763 | 100 |
| Maternal relatives sought | 598 | 78 |
| Paternal relatives sought | 485 | 64 |
| Assessing needs for services (Chi-Square = 421.60, p = .0001) |
1052 | 100 |
| Mother’s needs assessed | 792 | 75 |
| Father’s needs assessed | 627 | 60 |
| Providing services to parents (Chi-Square = 384.43, p = .001) |
995 | 100 |
| Mother provided with services | 714 | 72 |
| Father provided with services | 563 | 57 |
| Involving parents in case planning (Chi-Square = 353.94, p = .0001) |
930 | 100 |
| Mother involved in case planning | 622 | 67 |
| Father involved in case planning | 462 | 50 |
| Worker contact (face-to-face) with parents (Chi-Square = 70.6, p = .001) |
941 | 100 |
| Worker contacted mother at least once a month | 524 | 56 |
| Worker contacted father at least once a month | 294 | 31 |
* The number of applicable cases refers to the cases for which both mothers and fathers were known and for which seeking relatives, assessing needs and providing services was appropriate. For example, cases in which the father was not known or cases in which contact with father or mother was not feasible or appropriate would not be included in this table.back
As shown in the table, when it was appropriate for the agency to work with both parents, they were far more likely to work with mothers than with the fathers. For each variable, a chi-square test revealed that there was a significant association between working with mothers in some way (or seeking maternal relatives) and working with fathers. Fathers were significantly more likely to be included in the process if mothers were. If mothers were not included, fathers were not likely to be included.
