Demographics of Foster Care:Comparative Perspectives and Implications

Fred Wulczyn, Ph.D

Chapin Hall Center for Children

University of Chicago

International Society for Child IndicatorsChicago, Illinois

June 26-28, 2007

Purpose

Use age as a proxy for developmental issues to approximate how child development influences entry and exit patterns

Examine age patterns from a cross-national perspective

Frame the discussion of child well-being within this context

Theory

The likelihood there will be a mismatch between the needs of a child and the ability of a parent to meet those needs is, on average, a function of a given child’s developmental stage. The same is true of intervention design.

The mismatch is aggravated by certain circumstances: human capital, social capital. For example, maltreatment and placement rates on average will be higher in poor counties.

However, if developmental issues are at play then holding context constant, distinct patterns should emerge.

Implications

All strategies of intervention, regardless of the target group or the desired outcomes, can be derived from the normative theories of child development . . . the general principles of development apply to all children independent of their biological variability or the range of environments in which they live. (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000)

In the case of child welfare, then, strategies of intervention in relation to well-being have to be directed at the developmental trajectories of children.

Age as a Risk Factor

Relative Risk of Maltreatment

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Pattern I Pattern II Pattern III Pattern IV Pattern V

Rate per 1,000 children

InfancyEarly childhoodMiddle childhoodAdolescence

Maltreatment Rates

Type of Maltreatment

Maltreatment Victims Per 1,000 Children by Age and Type of Maltreatment, 1999

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

<1 year 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 yearsChild's Age

Mal

trea

men

t Vic

tims

Per

1,

000

Chi

ldre

n

Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse

Type of Maltreatment

Maltreatment Victims Per 1,000 Population by Age and Selected Types of Maltreatment, 1999

0123456789

10

<6 years 6-11 years 12-17 years All Ages

Child's Age

Mal

trea

tmen

t Vic

tims

Per

1,0

00 C

hild

ren

Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse

Age and Maltreatment:Census tracts

Age at Report for Initial Substantiated Reports by Age: 2000

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at Report

Percent of Reports

Age and Maltreatment Type:Census Tracts

Percent of Substantitated Initial Reports by Age andType of Allegation: 2000

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age

Percent of Substantiated Allegations

Abuse only or Abuse andNeglectNegelct only or Neglectand some other allegation

Placement in Foster Care

Changing the context leaves the age patterns unchanged. Time controls for period effects (policy changes, social

and economic changes) Place controls for social capital

Age and Placement

Age at First Admission by Year

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Percent of First Admissions

1990-1993

1994-19971998-2001

Age at Placement by Race

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age of Child (in Years)

Percent of

First Entries

African American Hispanic White

Age at Placement by Urbanicity

First Entries 1998 - 2001

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age of Child in Years

Percent of First Entries

Non-Urban

Secondary Urban

Primary Urban

Age at Placement by Poverty Level

Non-Primary Urban Counties by Poverty Level

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

First QuintileFifth QuintileAll Non-Primary Urban

Age at Placement by Poverty Level:Census Tracts

Percent of First Admissions by Age and Poverty

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

First Quintile

Fifth Quintile

All Census tracts

Age at Placement

Counties with Higher Placement Rates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

19902000

Age at PlacementImproving Placement Rates

Counties with Lower Placement Rates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

19902000

Age in Relation to Outcomes

Age is a correlate of how a child will leave the system.

Again, the patterns emerge in ways that are largely independent of context: time and place.

Leaving Placement

Family exits, which include reunification, guardianship, and exits to relatives(other than adoption) are most common among older children

However, among adolescents children who leave for other reasons (AWOL, aging out) account for many exits.

Basic patterns do not differ by race/ethnicity but the levels do.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at First Admission

Likelihoodof Exit

Adopted

Family Exits

All Other Exits

Still in Care

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Age at First Admission

Likelihood of Exit

Adopted

Family Exits

All Other Exits

Still in Care

Likelihood of Exit by Age at Admission: African Americans

Likelihood Exit by Age at Admission: Whites

Leaving Foster Care

Exit rates are tied closely to age

Adolescents move quickly to reunification relative to younger children

Adolescents move more slowly to adoption

Rate of Exit to Adoption by Age

Rate of Exit to Reunification by Age

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90

Time Since Entry (in months)

Likelihoodof Exit

Infants1 to 56 to 1213 to 17

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 60 66 72 78 84 90

Time Since Entry (in months)

Likelihoodof Exit

Infants1 to 56 to 1213 to 17

Summary

1. Stable patterns in the age structure of the population suggest that even through historical periods (e.g., policy changes and socio-economic changes), age remains a durable determinant of risk. Similarly, age-differentiated patterns that persevere across geographic boundaries suggest that even variation in local “ecologies” is not enough to trump the importance of age as a defining determinant of maltreatment and the process of care.

2. “ . . . the general principles of development apply to all children independent of . . . the range of environments in which they live.” (Shonkoff and Phillips 2000, pg. 341)

3. Issues of development already permeate child welfare, yet policy and practice to a very large extent ignore these underlying realities.

4. The desire to introduce well-being into the outcome mix, however, puts developmental issues squarely in the middle of the debate.