Towards Better Outcomes for Young People Leaving State Care

1. Towards Better Outcomes for Young People Leaving State Care Economic & Social Policy Research Conference: Judy Cashmore November 2005

2. 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

3. 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 health Consistent findings since Stein & Carey’s Leeds study, 1986)

4. WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDYCashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005 WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: • Interview group: n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged) • Non-interview: n = 44 (10 not discharged) • Four interviews: (1) Before discharge (2) 3 mths after (n =47) (3) 12 mths after (n =45) (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41) Funded by NSW Dept of Community Services

5. 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

6. AFTER 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

8. 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

9. 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)

10. 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

11. SENSE OF SECURITY • Was there anyone ever feel loved you? • Anyone ever feel secure with? • Feel as if listened to? • Miss out on things other kids had? • Miss out on affection? • Grow up too fast – bad thing? Coded as positive, negative, medium

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

15. Number of placements by ‘felt’ security

16. SOCIAL SUPPORT • Continuing contact with foster family • Positive relationship with at least some family members (parents, sibs, extended) • Friends to rely on • Other social network (church, community)

17. CONTACT WITH FAMILY4 - 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

18. CONTACT WITH FOSTER CARERSAFTER CARE • 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support varied • 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo • 2 in ST stable care • 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers) • 2 in ST unstable care • 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact

19. 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

20. KARINA: 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.

21. BEN: High risk throughout • Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, unemployed, no stable network • Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’ • Broke down at 12 - behaviour problems • Series of temporary respite, restoration attempts • Wardship - residential care, offending, detention • Very hurt by parents’ rejection • Very mobile, in refuges, casual employment • Relationship difficulties – no supportive network

22. ADAM: ‘Recovery’ • Ward at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges, foster grandfather • Isolated from family • Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered child • No stable network until 3rd interview • Very mobile, casual employment after W3 • Married mother of child, part of religious fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.

23. LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION • Unemployment 46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS) • Poor educational performance • Early parenting – inter-generational effects • Drug and alcohol use - “ “ • Crime? - “ “ • Loneliness/ well-being : $$$? • Forthcoming CWAV / Monash study

24. 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

25. 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

26. Policy and practice implications:REVIEWS • Case planning and review ratherthan “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??

27. 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 ?

28. Policy and practice implications: AFTER CARE • Accommodation, housing, accommodation • Continuing social support, mentoring • Their choice? • Assistance with further education

29. Policy 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

30. LEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation Evaluating leaving care schemes • Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on. • Broad (1998).Young people leaving care .. After the Children Act 1989 • Range of US and Canadian research and evaluation • eg Casey : Pecora et al (2003)

31. LEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluation Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving care • Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK) • Garnett 1992 (UK) • Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Laurence (Vic) • Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report • Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US) • Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National Alumni Study (US)