Children's Bureau Website - Montana - Assisted Guardianship

Montana

Demonstration Type:	Assisted Guardianship¹
Approved:	September 29, 1998
Implemented:	June 21, 2001
Expected Completion Date:	Short-term extension through May 1, 2007²
Interim Evaluation Report Date:	October 1, 2001 October 1, 2002 February 6, 2004 February 17, 2005³
Final Evaluation Report Date:	November 13, 2006

Target Population

Montana’s Assisted Guardianship/Kinship Permanence demonstration targets title IV-E eligible children in State or Tribal custody in out-of-home placement with a prospective guardian for at least six months. In addition, a child must be designated as a “child with special needs” to be eligible to participate in the demonstration. Initially, the Assisted Guardianship demonstration was restricted to children ages 12 or older. In September 2002, the State’s Terms and Conditions were amended to allow siblings of any age to participate in the demonstration, and during the third year of the project age requirements were eliminated completely.

Jurisdiction

Montana has implemented its demonstration statewide and with seven Tribes.

Intervention

Montana’s assisted guardianship demonstration allows foster caregivers to assume legal custody of a child while retaining the child’s title IV-E eligibility. In Montana, either the State or a Tribal court can approve guardianships. The guardianship subsidy paid to a foster caregiver may not exceed the foster care payment in effect for the child at the time that guardianship is awarded. Additional social, financial, and medical services and supports are available to participating families that parallel those services and supports available to adoptive families.

Evaluation Design

The evaluation consisted of process and outcome components, as well as a cost analysis. Using an experimental research design with random assignment, the State planned to assign children in either State or Tribal custody to the experimental or control groups at a ratio of 3:1, respectively. To the extent possible, siblings groups were kept together during the random assignment process.

Montana expected a total sample size of 240 children, with 180 children in the experimental group and 60 children in the control group. At the end of the original five-year demonstration in March 2006, a total of 226 children were enrolled in the demonstration, with 189 children in the experimental group and 37 children in the control group. Thus, the evaluation’s final random assignment ratio was closer to 5:1 rather than 3:1 as originally intended.

Montana’s evaluation tracked several dimensions of child well-being, including family stability, academic performance and attendance, safety and risk behaviors, access to services and supports, satisfaction with services and supports, and overall quality of life. Beginning in September 2002, Montana collected well-being data from child welfare workers using a survey instrument called the Youth Status Report (YSR). Separate surveys were utilized to collect data from caregivers and from children aged 12 and older. The State administered these surveys to workers, youth, and caregivers on an annual basis. The response rates ranged from 30 percent for the youth and caregiver surveys to 40 percent for the worker-completed YSR.

In addition, Montana’s evaluation was originally designed to track several permanency and safety-related outcome measures, including: number of children that exit out-of-home placement to guardianship, reunification, or adoption; number of disrupted guardianship placements; and rate of subsequent reports of abuse and/or neglect. However, information was not reported on these variables in the final evaluation report.

Evaluation Findings

Process Findings

At the end of the five-year demonstration period in March 2006, a total number of 226 children were enrolled in the demonstration, of which 123 were American Indian children. Of these, approximately two-thirds (n=80) were children who lived on reservations.

As part of the process evaluation, the State’s evaluators conducted annual interviews with caregivers and youth regarding their impressions of, and experiences with, the Montana subsidized guardianship demonstration. Major findings from these interviews are summarized below.

Advantages of Guardianship

The advantages of assisted guardianship over long- term foster care most often mentioned by interviewees included the following:

The guardian’s enhanced ability to make decisions regarding the child’s education, welfare, and health care

Greater permanence and stability for youth

Enhanced well-being for youth. Youth reported less stress due to fewer changes in placement settings. In addition, both youth and child welfare workers noted the psychological benefits of independence from the child welfare system and freedom from the stigma of being a “foster kid.”

Disadvantages of Guardianship

Interviewees described several disadvantages of participation in the assisted guardianship program:

The loss of the subsidy when a youth turns 18, even if he or she has not finished high school. Other financial disincentives include a loss of funding for postsecondary education programs, independent living services, respite care, transportation, clothing and school allowances, and extra supports for children with special needs.

Several child welfare workers expressed concerns about guardianship being a less stable permanency option than adoption. Some cited the possibility of a biological parent attempting to regain legal custody of her child if parental rights have not been terminated, thereby increasing risk of disruption to the child’s guardianship arrangement.

Barriers to the Establishment of Guardianship

Child welfare staff and supervisors noted the following barriers to the successful establishment of guardianships:

On occasion, the initial placement with the caregiver disrupted after the child’s assignment to the experimental group.

Internal bureaucratic problems within the child welfare and judicial systems sometimes caused delays in completing paperwork or resulted in court hearing postponements.

Caregivers sometimes declined the guardianship offer due to concerns about assuming legal liability for children placed with them.

During staff shortages, the child welfare system typically places more emphasis on families in crisis situations. When this occurred, children awaiting guardianship were no longer a priority for child welfare workers because these children tended to be in stable placement settings.

Many caseworkers did not receive adequate training and education regarding the guardianship demonstration. It was noted that many caseworkers did not understand one or more of the basic components of the demonstration, such as the demonstration’s eligibility requirements, the title IV-E eligibility process, the assisted guardianship subsidy rate, and the evaluation’s random assignment process.

Some families reported that the foster care arrangement was more attractive to them because it provided greater access to expensive services, supports, and financial subsidies.

The needs of children with behavioral issues or special needs could sometimes be addressed more easily if they remained in foster care.

Some children aged out of foster care before guardianship could be established.

Ongoing concerns about random assignment led some workers to “opt out” of the evaluation by not submitting the names of otherwise eligible children for assignment to the experimental or control groups. Opposition to random assignment arose, in part, because some workers misunderstood the evaluation design.

Outcome Findings

Of the total 189 children assigned to the experimental group, guardianships were established for 104 children (55 percent), including 48 guardianships for Native American children and 56 guardianships for non-Native children. During the course of the evaluation, the guardianships of six children from three homes were dissolved.

The analysis of data from surveys administered to youth, caregivers, and child welfare workers revealed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups in perceptions of stability and well-being, school performance, safety, engagement in risky behaviors, access to and satisfaction with services and supports, and overall quality of life. In addition, no statistically significant differences appear across these domains when survey scores are compared longitudinally over the first, second, and third years of the demonstration. Although the survey data revealed few significant findings, caregivers and youth noted many positive outcomes from assisted guardianship during interviews with evaluation staff:

Permanency: Both caregivers and youth reported that they felt more attached and better assured of the stability of the placement as soon as guardianship was established.

Child Well-Being: Many youth reported enhanced well-being due to a greater sense of autonomy, permanence, and stability.

Family Contact: Most caregivers expressed willingness to support the child’s desires to maintain contact with their parents. Almost universally and regardless of the type of placement (guardianship or foster care), youth expressed a desire for more contact with their birth families.

Community Involvement: Caregivers described their efforts to involve youth in social events in the community. Participation varied by location and the availability of activities, but youth in guardianship were generally more involved in community activities because of caregivers’ enhanced authority to make decisions regarding the child’s participation in recreational activities, sports, and religious or cultural events.

School Performance: In most interviews, caregivers reported that youth had maintained school performance or had shown improvement during the past one or two years. Caregivers who reported the most academic improvement tended to be those who had assumed guardianship of children in their care.

¹Based on information submitted by the State in its October 2006 Final Evaluation Report. Back

²Montana’s original five-year waiver was scheduled to end on March 31, 2006. The State’s demonstration is currently operating under a short-term extension pending approval of its request for a long-term waiver extension. Back

³Montana has submitted annual evaluation reports in lieu of an interim evaluation report. Back

Back to Table of Contents