140 likes | 247 Views
Paternity Establishment Among Children reported to Child protective Services. January 13, 2012 Society for Social Work Research Washington, DC. Joseph Magruder, PhD Emily Putnam-Hornstein, PhD Wendy Wiegmann , MSW Barbara Needell, PhD. Acknowledgements.
E N D
Paternity Establishment Among Children reported to Child protective Services January 13, 2012 Society for Social Work Research Washington, DC Joseph Magruder, PhD Emily Putnam-Hornstein, PhD Wendy Wiegmann, MSW Barbara Needell, PhD
Acknowledgements • Thank you to our colleagues at the Center for Social Services Research and the California Department of Social Services • Funding for this and other research arising from the California Performance Indicators Project generously provided by the California Department of Social Services, the Stuart Foundation, & Casey Family Programs
Indicators of paternal involvement Possible automated case management system indicators of paternal involvement: • Paternal identity • Contacts • Known address • Case plan participation
Data SOURCES • Vital Statistics: • Birth Records for 4,317,321 children born in California between 1999 and 2006 • Child Welfare Services Case Management System: • Child Welfare Services records for 237,211 California infants born between 1999 and 2006 and referred to child welfare as infants • Child Welfare Services records for 126,981 children born between 2007 and 2010 and referred to child welfare as infants (364,192 Child Welfare referrals in all) • Match • Birth certificate match for 211,665 (89%) of the 237,211 Child Welfare Services children born between 1999 and 2006
Data SOURCES • The Child Welfare Data for this presentation are based on extracts from California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) • Extracts are configured into a longitudinal database as part of a collaboration between the California Department of Social Services and the Center for Social Services Research (CSSR) at UC Berkeley
Indicator: Known Address • Reported knowledge of parental addresses was constant for the 1999 to 2010 cohorts. • As the child moves into the system, the proportion of children whose parents’ addresses are known increases as does the ratio of known fathers’ addresses to known mothers’ addresses. • The exception is adoption.
Indicator: Case Plan participation • The involvement of the father in the case planning process is a potential indicator, but case plan functionality is a recent addition to CWS/CMS. • For cohorts between 2005 and 2010 for children with an open case: • 33% of mothers had some reported case plan involvement • 19% of fathers had some reported case plan involvement • Ratio of paternal to maternal involvement was .58, with no trend over time • The low rates even for mothers suggest that the system’s case planning functionality is not yet being fully utilized.
conclusions • Paternal identity: Caseworkers, and mothers, are identifying fathers, especially when stakes are high – especially when compared with birth records • Contacts: Increased success contacting fathers and/or in documenting those contacts • Known address: Locating fathers continues to be elusive • Case plan participation: Engaging fathers continues to be difficult
Questions?joemagruder@berkeley.eduehornste@usc.edubneedell@berkeley.eduQuestions?joemagruder@berkeley.eduehornste@usc.edubneedell@berkeley.edu