SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 10
Baixar para ler offline
MINNESOTA ADOPTION
DISRUPTIONS &
DISSOLUTIONS: AN
EXAMINATION OF CHILDREN
IN PRIVATE OUT-OF-HOME
PLACEMENTS
This survey is a partnership between the Center for Advanced Studies in
Child Welfare (CASCW) at the School of Social Work at the University of
Minnesota and the Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies (MCCCA). It
seeks to help us better understand the experiences of children in private
out-of-home placements in Minnesota. What is contained in this report is a
side-by-side comparison of data from all residential facilities, group homes,
and foster homes.
Comparison of
Preliminary Data by
Agency Type
1
© 2012 by the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota.
All rights reserved.
The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without
regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual
orientation.
This publication can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities.
Contact Scotty Daniels at 612-624-7242, CASCW, 205 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108.
2
In February 2012, the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) in collaboration with the
Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies conducted a study to examine adoption disruptions and
dissolutions among children in Minnesota’s private-agency out-of-home placements.
To conduct this study, the research team identified and contacted the executive director or program manager
of fifty-four state-licensed private residential treatment centers, group homes, and treatment foster home
placement agencies in Minnesota. A total of thirty-eight agencies (70%) agreed to participate in the study.
The study consisted of a closed-answer survey which was to be completed by agency case managers.
Agencies were asked to have each of their case managers complete one survey per child or youth on their
case load who was physically housed in the facility or home on February 29, 2012. Each survey consisted of
18 to 25 questions depending on responses; no identifying information about the youths was collected. Group
homes reported the most difficulty participating (52% participation) due to high caseloads and lack of staff
time, while residential treatment centers had the highest participation (80%). Private treatment foster care
providers participated at a rate of 71%. Four of the committed agencies did not follow through for a total
participation number of 34 agencies (63%). A total sample of 938 youth was obtained after the data had
been cleaned for duplications and incomplete submissions.
CASCW evaluators have completed a preliminary analysis and synthesized the data into a comprehensive
report presented in the following pages. Tables in this report are divided into five columns. The first column
contains the survey questions and potential responses. Columns two through four list results from each
placement sub-type (group homes, residential treatment facilities, and private treatment foster homes).
Finally, the last column contains the results of all 938 youth in the sample. The data in the columns simply
report numbers and basic percentages. Each section ends with a summary of the data; several sections also
include charts/graphs. All summaries and graphs take into account data from each agency sub-type and from
the total sample.
As we reviewed survey responses, it was clear that there was confusion among respondents/case managers
about how to answer questions regarding adoption and pre-adoptive placements. Because people answered
these questions in a varied manner, data could not be interpreted as it was reported. Therefore, we
conducted a follow-up survey with participating agencies to request additional clarification on approximately
20% of cases - namely those cases in which the case manager indicated that the child/youth may have
experienced either an adoption or pre-adoptive placement. Requests for clarified data were made in November
2012. An addendum to this report, inclusive of the (new) clarified data, will be released in Summer 2013.
Again, the data findings in this report represent a preliminary analysis of the data. In-depth analysis of data is
ongoing with an anticipated completed report by early to mid-2013. Questions about the study or data
contained within this report can be directed to the Principal Investigator for this study, Dr. Traci LaLiberte,
lali0017@umn.edu or 612-624-2279.
3
Minnesota Adoption Disruptions & Dissolutions
Group Homes Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
DEMOGRAPHICS N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Gender
Male 87 (68.0%) 306 (68.9%) 207 (56.5%) 600 (64.0%)
Female 41 (32.0%) 138 (31.1%) 158 (43.2%) 337 (35.9%)
Intersex 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%)
Age
0-3 Years 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 31 (8.5%) 32 (3.4%)
4-6 Years 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 28 (7.7%) 29 (3.1%)
7-9 Years 0 (0.0%) 12 (2.7%) 35 (9.6%) 47 (5.0%)
10-12 Years 6 (4.7%) 46 (10.7%) 43 (11.7%) 95 (10.1%)
13-15 Years 49 (38.3%) 184 (41.4%) 72 (19.7%) 305 (32.5%)
16-18 Years 62 (48.4%) 196 (44.1%) 121 (33.1%) 379 (40.4%)
19+ Years 11 (8.6%) 4 (0.9%) 36 (9.8%) 51 (5.4%)
Child Identifies as
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual
Yes 15 (11.7%) 43 (9.7%) 12 (3.3%) 70 (7.5%)
No 113 (88.3%) 401 (90.3%) 354 (96.7%) 686 (92.5%)
Child Identifies as Transgendered
Female to Male 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.3%)
Male to Female 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
N/A 128 (100.0%) 441 (99.3%) 366(100.0%) 935 (99.7%)
Race
White 81 (63.3%) 246 (55.4%) 139 (38.0%) 466 (49.7%)
African American/Black 13 (10.2%) 63 (14.2%) 117 (32.0%) 193 (20.6%)
Asian/Pacific Islander 2 (1.6%) 4 (0.9%) 16 (4.4%) 22 (2.3%)
Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian 12 (9.4%) 48 (10.8%) 31 (8.5%) 91 (9.7%)
Multi-Racial (including Native
American/Eskimo/Aleutian)
8 (6.3%) 26 (5.9%) 21 (5.7%) 55 (5.9%)
Multi-Racial (excluding Native
American/Eskimo/Aleutian)
8 (6.3%) 39 (8.8%) 34 (9.3%) 81 (8.6%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 5 (1.1%) 2 (0.5%) 7 (0.7%)
Other 2 (1.6%) 7 (1.6%) 1 (0.3%) 10 (1.1%)
Unable to be determined 2 (1.6%) 6 (1.4%) 5 (1.4%) 13 (1.4%)
Ethnicity
Hispanic, White 10 (7.8%) 23 (5.2%) 29 (7.9%) 62 (6.6%)
Hispanic, Non-White 4 (3.1%) 18 (4.1%) 3 (0.8%) 25 (2.7%)
Hispanic, Non-Specified 2 (1.6%) 6 (1.4%) 5 (1.4%) 13 (1.4%)
Hmong 1 (0.8%) 2 (0.5%) 5 (1.4%) 8 (0.9%)
Unknown 0 (0.0%) 28 (6.3%) 27 (7.4%) 55 (5.9%)
N/A 111 (86.7%) 366 (82.4%) 297 (81.1%) 774 (82.5%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%)
4
DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY
Overall, the sample had more males than females, with males making up 64% of the total population. This was true across all agency
types, though group homes and residential treatment facilities had slightly higher percentages (68% and 68.9%, respectively) and
foster homes had a slightly lower percentage of males (56.5%). Of all the youths, 7.5% identified as GLB, and this was also higher in
group homes (11.7%) and residential facilities (9.7%) and lower in foster homes (3.3%). Racially, just under half the sample was
noted as being White while 20.6% identified as African American/Black. There was more variation in these percentages throughout the
placement types. Foster homes saw less margin between these two racial groups with 38% of children identified as White and 32%
identified as Black. Both group homes and residential treatment facilities saw larger margins – 63.3% White youth versus 10.2% Black
youth in group homes and 55.4% White youth compared to 14.2% Black youth in residential treatment. Finally, across the whole
sample and within each placement type the majority of case managers noted ethnicity as being not applicable. This means that
relatively few youths were identified as Hispanic, Hmong, Somali, or another ethnic identity.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies
Race
Unable to be Determined
Other
Unknown
Multi-Racial (excluding Native Am.)
Multi-Racial (including Native Am.)
Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian
Asian/Pacific Islander
African American/Black
White
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group Homes
Residential Treatment
Foster Homes
All Agencies
Ethnicity
Hispanic, White Hispanic, Non-White Hispanic, Non-Specified Hmong Unknown N/A
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies
Age
19+ Years
16-18 Years
13-15 Years
10-12 Years
7-9 Years
4-6 Years
0-3 Years
5
Group Homes Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
DISABILITY/DIAGNOSES N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Current Disability/Diagnoses
Physical Disability 1 (0.8%) 12 (2.7%) 15 (4.1%) 28 (3.0%)
Sensory Disability 3 (2.3%) 10 (2.3%) 16 (4.4%) 29 (3.1%)
Sensory Processing Disability 1 (0.8%) 8 (1.8%) 5 (1.4%) 14 (1.5%)
Intellectual/Developmental Disability 2 (1.6%) 37 (8.3%) 41 (11.2%) 80 (8.5%)
Autism Spectrum Disability 7 (5.5%) 38 (8.6%) 31 (8.5%) 76 (8.1%)
Learning Disability 12 (9.4%) 51 (11.5%) 72 (19.7%) 135 (14.4%)
Disruptive Behavior Disorder 81 (63.3%) 283 (63.7%) 129 (35.2%) 493 (52.6%)
Mood Disorder 72 (56.3%) 259 (58.3%) 138 (37.7%) 469 (50.0%)
Anxiety Disorder 37 (28.9%) 128 (28.8%) 93 (25.4%) 258 (27.5%)
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 25 (19.5%) 116 (26.1%) 83 (22.7%) 224 (23.9%)
Psychotic Disorder 0 (0.0%) 8 (1.8%) 3 (0.8%) 11 (1.2%)
Personality Disorder 10 (7.8%) 41 (9.2%) 16 (4.4%) 67 (7.1%)
Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) 22 (17.2%) 77 (17.3%) 63 (17.2%) 162 (17.3%)
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Disorder (FASD) 9 (7.0%) 21 (4.7%) 29 (7.9%) 59 (6.3%)
Eating Disorder 2 (1.6%) 18 (4.1%) 5 (1.4%) 25 (2.7%)
Substance Abuse Disorder 25 (19.5%) 102 (23.0%) 20 (5.5%) 147 (15.7%)
LISTED UNDER “OTHER”
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD)
20 (15.6%) 71 (16.0%) 71 (19.4%) 162 (17.3%)
Prenatal Exposure (No FASD Diagnosis) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 4 (1.1%) 5 (0.5%)
Tourette’s Syndrome 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%)
Adjustment Disorder 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 21 (5.7%) 23 (2.5%)
Identity Disorder 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%)
Impulse Control Disorder 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%)
Cognitive Disorder 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%)
Sexual Disorder 5 (3.9%) 19 (4.3%) 10 (2.7%) 34 (3.6%)
Other Medical Diagnoses 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (2.7%) 10 (1.1%)
Rule Out Diagnoses 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%)
Other (Not mentioned above) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.2%) 5 (1.4%) 8 (0.9%)
Number of Diagnoses
No Diagnoses 4 (3.1%) 13 (2.9%) 58 (15.8%) 75 (8.0%)
1 Diagnosis 26 (20.3%) 56 (12.6%) 61 (16.7%) 143 (15.2%)
2 Diagnoses 34 (26.6%) 104 (23.4%) 80 (21.9%) 218 (23.2%)
3 Diagnoses 29 (22.7%) 118 (26.6%) 71 (19.4%) 218 (23.2%)
4 Diagnoses 22 (17.2%) 98 (22.1%) 49 (13.4%) 169 (18.0%)
5 Diagnoses 8 (6.3%) 39 (8.8%) 36 (9.8%) 83 (8.8%)
6 Diagnoses 5 (3.9%) 10 (2.3%) 8 (2.2%) 23 (2.5%)
7+ Diagnoses 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.4%) 3 (0.8%) 9 (0.96%)
DISABILITY/DIAGNOSES SUMMARY
Case managers could identify more than one diagnosis when appropriate. This means that percentages will not add up to 100%. The
most frequently diagnosed disorders held across all placements types. These were diagnoses of Disruptive Behavior Disorder, Mood
Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Reactive Attachment Disorder. While Disruptive Behavior Disorder and
Mood Disorder were still among the most frequent diagnoses for youths in foster care (occurring in 35.2% and 37.7% of youths,
respectively), the rates were less than those in the average sample (occurring in 52.6% and 50% of youths, respectively). It should be
noted that all those diagnoses that are under the heading “listed under ‘other’” were written in by individual case managers. Those
diagnoses occurring in more than a single youth were included here. Finally, ADHD was inadvertently left off the list of choices in the
original survey. While several case managers wrote in an ADHD diagnosis, there is likely underreporting in this category.
6
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
Disruptive
Behavior
Disorder
Mood Disorder Anxiety
Disorder
PTSD ADHD RAD
5 Most Common Diagnoses
Group Homes
Residential Treatment
Foster Homes
All Agencies Average
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group Homes
Residential Treatment
Foster Homes
All Agencies
Number of Diagnoses
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7+
7
Group Homes Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
CURRENT PLACEMENT N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Current Placement is ICWA?
Yes 5 (3.9%) 11 (2.5%) 24 (6.6%) 40 (4.3%)
No 12 (9.4%) 54 (12.2%) 28 (7.7%) 94 (10.0%)
Missing 18 (85.7%) 108 (84.4%) 370 (83.3%) 314 (85.8%)
Unsure 3 (2.3%) 9 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 12 (1.3%)
Legal Authority for Placement?
Court Order (CHIPS) 35 (27.3%) 75 (16.9%) 272 (74.3%) 382 (40.7%)
Juvenile Justice 59 (46.1%) 133 (30.0%) 24 (6.6%) 216 (23.0%)
Voluntary by County Due to Client’s
Mental Health (CMH)
27 (21.1%) 140 (31.5%) 42 (11.5%) 209 (22.3%)
Voluntary by Parent Due to CMH 5 (3.9%) 89 (20.0%) 20 (5.5%) 114 (12.2%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 4 (1.1%) 6 (0.6%)
Missing 2 (1.6%) 5 (1.1%) 4 (1.1%) 11 (1.2%)
Placing Entity?
County Agency (7-County Metro) 39 (30.5%) 88 (19.8%) 247 (67.5%) 374 (39.9%)
County Agency (Out-State) 34 (26.6%) 105 (23.6%) 85 (23.2%) 224 (23.9)
Tribal Agency 3 (2.3%) 15 (3.4%) 12 (3.3%) 30 (3.2%)
Other State Agency 48 (37.5%) 164 (36.9%) 20 (5.5%) 232 (24.7%)
Parent/Private Placement 4 (3.1%) 72 (16.2%) 1 (0.3%) 77 (8.2%)
Missing 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%)
Child’s Parent(s) Incarcerated?
Yes, one parent incarcerated 17 (13.3%) 25 (5.6%) 46 (12.6%) 88 (9.4%)
Yes, both parents incarcerated 2 (1.6%) 3 (0.7%) 4 (1.1%) 9 (1.0%)
No 87 (68.0%) 342 (77.0%) 238 (65.0%) 667 (71.1%)
Unsure 22 (17.2%) 74 (16.7%) 77 (21.0%) 173 (18.4%)
Missing 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%)
CURRENT PLACEMENT SUMMARY
An important point to consider in the ‘Placement’ data is that a large percentage of case managers did not answer the questions
concerning ICWA placement. These answers were counted as Missing but it may suggest that case managers do not know what
constitutes an ICWA placement. In the overall sample, the largest percentages of children were placed by a court order. This was
higher in treatment foster homes (74.3% of youths) and lower in residential treatment (16.9%) and group homes (27.3%). Juvenile
Justice held the authority for placing 23% of youths overall, though this was lower in foster homes (6.6%) and higher in residential
treatment (30%) and group homes (46.1%). The 7-County Metro counties placed youths primarily into foster care while an “Other
State Agency” placed the highest percentage of youths in both residential treatment and group homes. Finally, 10.4% of all children
had at least one parent currently incarcerated. There is a higher rate of children with incarcerated parents in both foster homes
(13.7%) and group homes (14.9%) and a lower rate in residential treatment facilities (6.3%).
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Authority for Placement
Other/Missing
Parent/Guardian
(Due to Client Mental
Health)
County (Due to Client
Mental Health)
Juvenile Justice
Court Order (CHIPS)
0% 50% 100%
Group Homes
Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes
All Agencies
Placing Entity
County (7 Cnty.
Metro)
County
(Outstate)
Tribe
State Agency
Parent/Private
Plcmnt.
8
Group
Homes
Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
PERMANENCY N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Identified Permanency Plan?
Reunification 69 (53.9%) 289 (65.1%) 125 (34.2%) 483 (51.5%)
Adoption 4 (3.1%) 9 (2.0%) 74 (20.2%) 87 (9.3%)
Transfer of Permanent Legal and
Physical Custody
4 (3.1%) 15 (3.4%) 21 (5.7%) 40 (4.3%)
Independent Living/Emancipation 31 (24.2%) 55 (12.4%) 80 (21.9%) 166 (17.7%)
Long Term Foster Care -Court Order 20 (15.6%) 74 (16.7%) 65 (17.8%) 159 (17.0%)
Missing 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%)
Expected Permanency Plan?
Remain in Current Placement 4 (3.1%) 18 (4.1%) 72 (19.7%) 94 (10.0%)
Return to Parent/Guardian 50 (39.1%) 158 (35.6%) 61 (16.7%) 269 (28.7%)
Transfer to Relative Foster Home 5 (3.9%) 6 (1.4%) 21 (5.7%) 32 (3.4%)
Transfer to Non-Rel. Foster Home 23 (18.0%) 50 (11.3%) 5 (1.4%) 78 (8.3%)
Transfer to Pre-Adoptive Placement 1 (0.8%) 5 (1.1%) 20 (5.5%) 26 (2.8%)
Independent Living/Emancipation 28 (21.9%) 47 (10.6%) 57 (15.6%) 132 (14.1%)
Adult Foster Care 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 2 (0.5%) 4 (0.4%)
Juvenile Detention 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%)
Homelessness 2 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%)
Other 0 (0.0%) 13 (2.9%) 3 (0.8%) 16 (1.7%)
Missing 13 (10.2%) 145 (32.7%) 125 (34.2%) 283 (30.2%)
PERMANENCY SUMMARY
Once again, it should be noted that many workers skipped the question regarding expected permanency plan. Despite training on how
to complete each question in the survey, it is unclear if individuals left this blank because they were unsure what the permanency plan
would be, believed the identified plan would occur, or did not understand the question. Notable in these results are the much lower
percentage of foster youth with reunification as either their identified (34.2%) or expected (16.7%) permanency plan when compared
to the average rates for all children (51.5% and 28.7%, respectively). Overall, there is a sizeable discrepancy between reunification
being the identified permanency plan and the expected permanency plan. This is consistent over all three placement types indicating
most placements have a significantly lower number of children expected to reunify though the case plan would identify reunification as
the goal.
Group
Homes
Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
PREVIOUS
PLACEMENT(S)
N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Child Experienced At Least 1
Placement in the Following:
Public/Tribal Relative Foster Home 13 (10.2%) 40 (9.0%) 56 (15.3%) 109 (11.6%)
Public/Tribal Non-Relative Foster Home 25 (19.5%) 65 (14.6%) 140 (38.3%) 230 (24.5%)
Private Relative Foster Home 10 (7.8%) 14 (3.2%) 14 (3.8%) 38 (4.1%)
Private Non-Relative Foster Home 18 (14.1%) 71 (16.0%) 150 (41.0%) 239 (25.5%)
Group Home 34 (26.6%) 69 (15.5%) 32 (8.7%) 135 (14.4%)
Residential Treatment Facility 82 (64.1%) 232 (52.3%) 104 (28.4%) 418 (44.6%)
Shelter 28 (21.9%) 103 (23.2%) 152 (41.5%) 283 (30.2%)
Juvenile Detention 62 (48.4%) 141 (31.8%) 49 (13.4%) 252 (26.9%)
# of Total Previous Placements**
None 12 (9.4%) 79 (17.8%) 46 (12.6%) 137 (14.6%)
1-2 Placements 45 (35.2%) 174 (39.2%) 134 (36.6%) 353 (37.6%)
3-4 Placements 31 (24.2%) 77 (17.3%) 85 (23.2%) 193 (20.6%)
5-7 Placements 21 (16.4%) 42 (9.5%) 43 (11.7%) 106 (11.3%)
8-10 Placements 3 (2.3%) 20 (4.5%) 10 (2.7%) 33 (3.5%)
11+ Placements 9 (7.0%) 15 (3.4%) 17 (4.6%) 41 (4.4%)
Unsure 6 (4.7%) 34 (7.7%) 29 (7.9%) 69 (7.4%)
Missing 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.7%) 2 (0.5%) 6 (0.6%)
**Total number of placements reflects only non-permanent placements and does not reflect pre-adoptive or adoptive placements.
9
Group
Homes
Residential
Treatment
Foster Homes All Agencies
PREVIOUS
PLACEMENT(S) (cont.)
N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938
Child Previously Adopted or in Pre-
Adoptive Placement?
No 99 (77.3%) 364 (82.0%) 265 (72.4%) 728 (77.6%)
Yes, Finalized Adoption 21 (16.4%) 66 (14.9%) 35 (9.6%) 122 (13.0%)
Yes, Pre-Adoptive Home (w/APA) 1 (0.8%) 4 (0.9%) 35 (9.6%) 40 (4.3%)
Yes, Pre-Adoptive Home (No APA) 3 (2.3%) 4 (0.9%) 15 (4.1%) 22 (2.3%)
Unsure 3 (2.3%) 3 (0.7%) 11 (3.0%) 17 (1.8%)
Missing 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.7%) 5 (1.4%) 9 (1.0%)
Child Adopted from Another
Country (International Adoption)
Yes 5 (3.9%) 6 (1.4%) 7 (1.9%) 18 (1.9%)
No 23 (18.0%) 70 (15.8%) 93 (25.4%) 186 (19.8%)
N/A or Missing 100 (78.1%) 368 (82.9%) 266 (72.7%) 734 (78.3%)
PREVIOUS PLACEMENT SUMMARY
Overall, the greatest percentage of youths (44.6%) had experienced a previous placement in residential treatment facilities while only
4.1% had experienced a placement in a private foster home with a relative. However, there was variability within each agency type
with respect to identified previous placements. The average youth from within this study experienced 1-2 previous placements. This
held true across all three agency types. The majority of youths (77.6%) had never experienced a finalized adoption or pre-adoptive
placement, which was also consistent over the three agency types.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies
% of Children Having Been in the Following Placements
Juvenile Det.
Shelter
Res. Treatment
Group Home
Private FH (Non-Relative)
Private FH (Relative)
Public FH (Non-Relative)
Public FH (Relative)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Group Homes
Residential Treatment
Foster Homes
All Agencies
Number of Previous Placements
No Previous
1-2
3-4
5-7
8-10
11+
Unknown

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013
Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013
Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013Karen O'Neal
 
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpg
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpgData presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpg
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpgAISHA232980
 
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disability
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disabilityEarly 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disability
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disabilityΔρ. Γιώργος K. Κασάπης
 
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015Irma Kirtadze M.D.
 
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substance
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substanceKnowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substance
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substanceEmmyKoech
 
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the US
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the USSexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the US
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the USYTH
 
Mass Health Insurance Survey
Mass Health Insurance SurveyMass Health Insurance Survey
Mass Health Insurance SurveyDocJess
 
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...iosrphr_editor
 
HIV & Education in Young South African Women
HIV & Education in Young South African WomenHIV & Education in Young South African Women
HIV & Education in Young South African WomenRENEWAL-IFPRI
 
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physics
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physicsAPS 2020 Challenges for women in physics
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physicsAnne Marie Porter
 
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...HopkinsCFAR
 
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...Georgia State School of Public Health
 

Mais procurados (20)

Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013
Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013
Drug Abuse in Juveniles-2013
 
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpg
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpgData presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpg
Data presetimagefill3 27.jpgdatapresetimagefill2-26.jpg
 
Girl trouble in cyberspace
Girl trouble in cyberspaceGirl trouble in cyberspace
Girl trouble in cyberspace
 
Final Report
Final ReportFinal Report
Final Report
 
Providing inclusive care for LGBTQ patients at SBHCs
Providing inclusive care for LGBTQ patients at SBHCsProviding inclusive care for LGBTQ patients at SBHCs
Providing inclusive care for LGBTQ patients at SBHCs
 
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disability
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disabilityEarly 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disability
Early 1 in 5 children in rural areas in U.S.have a developmental disability
 
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015
NATIONAL SURVEY ON SUBSTANCE USE IN THE GENERAL POPULATION IN GEORGIA 2015
 
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substance
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substanceKnowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substance
Knowledge on use_and_effects_of_drug_and_substance
 
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the US
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the USSexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the US
Sexting and well being among Young Gay Men and MSM in the US
 
The relationship between mental health indicators and adjudication rates amon...
The relationship between mental health indicators and adjudication rates amon...The relationship between mental health indicators and adjudication rates amon...
The relationship between mental health indicators and adjudication rates amon...
 
Mass Health Insurance Survey
Mass Health Insurance SurveyMass Health Insurance Survey
Mass Health Insurance Survey
 
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...
Who are the Smokers and what Factors Influence Smoking among Amassoma Communi...
 
HIV & Education in Young South African Women
HIV & Education in Young South African WomenHIV & Education in Young South African Women
HIV & Education in Young South African Women
 
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physics
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physicsAPS 2020 Challenges for women in physics
APS 2020 Challenges for women in physics
 
We Can Do More
We Can Do MoreWe Can Do More
We Can Do More
 
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...
Getting to scale: How we can achieve the reach required of prevention service...
 
Hiv in ukraine
Hiv  in ukraine Hiv  in ukraine
Hiv in ukraine
 
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...
Associated Risk Factors of Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) and HIV Co-...
 
Why Do Young, Black Men Use Condoms?
Why Do Young, Black Men Use Condoms?Why Do Young, Black Men Use Condoms?
Why Do Young, Black Men Use Condoms?
 
Substance Abuse, Sexual Behaviors, HIV/STD/HIV
Substance Abuse, Sexual Behaviors, HIV/STD/HIVSubstance Abuse, Sexual Behaviors, HIV/STD/HIV
Substance Abuse, Sexual Behaviors, HIV/STD/HIV
 

Destaque

Resme Capt. Gary Kassbaum 2014
Resme Capt. Gary  Kassbaum 2014Resme Capt. Gary  Kassbaum 2014
Resme Capt. Gary Kassbaum 2014Gary Kassbaum
 
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...Maridalia Cruz de la cruz
 
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar Fatima0497
 
Sydney F C
Sydney  F CSydney  F C
Sydney F Cblokemen
 
Gsuss Jorden Method
Gsuss Jorden MethodGsuss Jorden Method
Gsuss Jorden MethodAbi Malik
 
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...Mitch Dowell
 
Ensayo Delitos Informaticos
Ensayo Delitos InformaticosEnsayo Delitos Informaticos
Ensayo Delitos Informaticosenlacesred
 
Bo pdf
Bo pdfBo pdf
Bo pdfNere98
 
Presentacion ie
Presentacion iePresentacion ie
Presentacion ieyessenua
 

Destaque (17)

Byron Thompson Resume
Byron Thompson ResumeByron Thompson Resume
Byron Thompson Resume
 
Redes sociales
Redes socialesRedes sociales
Redes sociales
 
Resme Capt. Gary Kassbaum 2014
Resme Capt. Gary  Kassbaum 2014Resme Capt. Gary  Kassbaum 2014
Resme Capt. Gary Kassbaum 2014
 
4 texto
4 texto4 texto
4 texto
 
Alex Curtis CV 2016
Alex Curtis CV 2016Alex Curtis CV 2016
Alex Curtis CV 2016
 
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...
Proyecto de optimización del uso de las tics en el centro educativo alicia ba...
 
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar
Ptpp5 Maltrato Familiar
 
Marketing - Driving Traffic to Your Site
Marketing - Driving Traffic to Your SiteMarketing - Driving Traffic to Your Site
Marketing - Driving Traffic to Your Site
 
Sydney F C
Sydney  F CSydney  F C
Sydney F C
 
Gsuss Jorden Method
Gsuss Jorden MethodGsuss Jorden Method
Gsuss Jorden Method
 
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...
Why You Really Bought That: How Brands Make Emotional Connections With Us Thr...
 
Willian carrascal
Willian carrascal Willian carrascal
Willian carrascal
 
Ensayo Delitos Informaticos
Ensayo Delitos InformaticosEnsayo Delitos Informaticos
Ensayo Delitos Informaticos
 
Ing. industrial
Ing. industrialIng. industrial
Ing. industrial
 
Bautismo
BautismoBautismo
Bautismo
 
Bo pdf
Bo pdfBo pdf
Bo pdf
 
Presentacion ie
Presentacion iePresentacion ie
Presentacion ie
 

Semelhante a MinnesotaAdoptionDisruptionsReport

109232867 academic-study-template
109232867 academic-study-template109232867 academic-study-template
109232867 academic-study-templatehomeworkping7
 
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...Christine Wekerle
 
final published online 5-20-15
final published online 5-20-15final published online 5-20-15
final published online 5-20-15Yvette Janvier
 
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...Christine Wekerle
 
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care Keynote
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care KeynoteShannon Robshaw - Systems of Care Keynote
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care KeynoteJennifer Amdur Spitz
 
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of CareJennifer Amdur Spitz
 
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health Outcomes
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health OutcomesChildhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health Outcomes
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health OutcomesChristine Wekerle
 
Prep rationale and_cost_benefit
Prep rationale and_cost_benefitPrep rationale and_cost_benefit
Prep rationale and_cost_benefitDervilla McCann
 
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to Gender
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to GenderPerspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to Gender
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to GenderVinit Warthe
 
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists av
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists avChild Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists av
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists avJinElias52
 
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatment
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatmentARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatment
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatmentkwatkins13
 
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...Christine Wekerle
 

Semelhante a MinnesotaAdoptionDisruptionsReport (20)

109232867 academic-study-template
109232867 academic-study-template109232867 academic-study-template
109232867 academic-study-template
 
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...
Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adole...
 
Contextual factors that impact the risk of harms associated with teen sexting...
Contextual factors that impact the risk of harms associated with teen sexting...Contextual factors that impact the risk of harms associated with teen sexting...
Contextual factors that impact the risk of harms associated with teen sexting...
 
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization By A Population-based Cohort...
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization  By A Population-based Cohort...Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization  By A Population-based Cohort...
Characterizing Emergency Department Utilization By A Population-based Cohort...
 
final published online 5-20-15
final published online 5-20-15final published online 5-20-15
final published online 5-20-15
 
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...
Wekerle-Ron Joyce Centre Grand Rounds-Boy's and men's health: Child sexual ab...
 
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care Keynote
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care KeynoteShannon Robshaw - Systems of Care Keynote
Shannon Robshaw - Systems of Care Keynote
 
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care
2. Shannon Robshaw, Outcomes of Systems of Care
 
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health Outcomes
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health OutcomesChildhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health Outcomes
Childhood maltreatment, PTSD, Attachment Study and Health Outcomes
 
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run findings on programming with very young adol...
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run findings on programming with very young adol...Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run findings on programming with very young adol...
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run findings on programming with very young adol...
 
Growing up with Media pilot study: Examining exposures to violence
Growing up with Media pilot study: Examining exposures to violenceGrowing up with Media pilot study: Examining exposures to violence
Growing up with Media pilot study: Examining exposures to violence
 
Prep rationale and_cost_benefit
Prep rationale and_cost_benefitPrep rationale and_cost_benefit
Prep rationale and_cost_benefit
 
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to Gender
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to GenderPerspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to Gender
Perspective of New Born abandonment inrelatioship to Gender
 
Viewing hate web sites and serious violent behavior: Who’s doing it?
Viewing hate web sites and serious violent behavior: Who’s doing it?Viewing hate web sites and serious violent behavior: Who’s doing it?
Viewing hate web sites and serious violent behavior: Who’s doing it?
 
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists av
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists avChild Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists av
Child Abuse & Neglect 32 (2008) 1095–1108Contents lists av
 
Dotun
DotunDotun
Dotun
 
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatment
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatmentARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatment
ARGEC: Elder abuse and maltreatment
 
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run regional findings on programming with Very ...
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run  regional findings on programming with Very ...Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run  regional findings on programming with Very ...
Act With Her Ethiopia: Short-run regional findings on programming with Very ...
 
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...
Substance use within a child welfare-involved sample: The Maltreatment and Ad...
 
Fostering and adoption in Montenegro
Fostering and adoption in MontenegroFostering and adoption in Montenegro
Fostering and adoption in Montenegro
 

MinnesotaAdoptionDisruptionsReport

  • 1. MINNESOTA ADOPTION DISRUPTIONS & DISSOLUTIONS: AN EXAMINATION OF CHILDREN IN PRIVATE OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENTS This survey is a partnership between the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) at the School of Social Work at the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies (MCCCA). It seeks to help us better understand the experiences of children in private out-of-home placements in Minnesota. What is contained in this report is a side-by-side comparison of data from all residential facilities, group homes, and foster homes. Comparison of Preliminary Data by Agency Type
  • 2. 1 © 2012 by the Board of Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation. This publication can be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities. Contact Scotty Daniels at 612-624-7242, CASCW, 205 Peters Hall, 1404 Gortner Avenue, Saint Paul, MN 55108.
  • 3. 2 In February 2012, the Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW) in collaboration with the Minnesota Council of Child Caring Agencies conducted a study to examine adoption disruptions and dissolutions among children in Minnesota’s private-agency out-of-home placements. To conduct this study, the research team identified and contacted the executive director or program manager of fifty-four state-licensed private residential treatment centers, group homes, and treatment foster home placement agencies in Minnesota. A total of thirty-eight agencies (70%) agreed to participate in the study. The study consisted of a closed-answer survey which was to be completed by agency case managers. Agencies were asked to have each of their case managers complete one survey per child or youth on their case load who was physically housed in the facility or home on February 29, 2012. Each survey consisted of 18 to 25 questions depending on responses; no identifying information about the youths was collected. Group homes reported the most difficulty participating (52% participation) due to high caseloads and lack of staff time, while residential treatment centers had the highest participation (80%). Private treatment foster care providers participated at a rate of 71%. Four of the committed agencies did not follow through for a total participation number of 34 agencies (63%). A total sample of 938 youth was obtained after the data had been cleaned for duplications and incomplete submissions. CASCW evaluators have completed a preliminary analysis and synthesized the data into a comprehensive report presented in the following pages. Tables in this report are divided into five columns. The first column contains the survey questions and potential responses. Columns two through four list results from each placement sub-type (group homes, residential treatment facilities, and private treatment foster homes). Finally, the last column contains the results of all 938 youth in the sample. The data in the columns simply report numbers and basic percentages. Each section ends with a summary of the data; several sections also include charts/graphs. All summaries and graphs take into account data from each agency sub-type and from the total sample. As we reviewed survey responses, it was clear that there was confusion among respondents/case managers about how to answer questions regarding adoption and pre-adoptive placements. Because people answered these questions in a varied manner, data could not be interpreted as it was reported. Therefore, we conducted a follow-up survey with participating agencies to request additional clarification on approximately 20% of cases - namely those cases in which the case manager indicated that the child/youth may have experienced either an adoption or pre-adoptive placement. Requests for clarified data were made in November 2012. An addendum to this report, inclusive of the (new) clarified data, will be released in Summer 2013. Again, the data findings in this report represent a preliminary analysis of the data. In-depth analysis of data is ongoing with an anticipated completed report by early to mid-2013. Questions about the study or data contained within this report can be directed to the Principal Investigator for this study, Dr. Traci LaLiberte, lali0017@umn.edu or 612-624-2279.
  • 4. 3 Minnesota Adoption Disruptions & Dissolutions Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies DEMOGRAPHICS N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Gender Male 87 (68.0%) 306 (68.9%) 207 (56.5%) 600 (64.0%) Female 41 (32.0%) 138 (31.1%) 158 (43.2%) 337 (35.9%) Intersex 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%) Age 0-3 Years 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 31 (8.5%) 32 (3.4%) 4-6 Years 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 28 (7.7%) 29 (3.1%) 7-9 Years 0 (0.0%) 12 (2.7%) 35 (9.6%) 47 (5.0%) 10-12 Years 6 (4.7%) 46 (10.7%) 43 (11.7%) 95 (10.1%) 13-15 Years 49 (38.3%) 184 (41.4%) 72 (19.7%) 305 (32.5%) 16-18 Years 62 (48.4%) 196 (44.1%) 121 (33.1%) 379 (40.4%) 19+ Years 11 (8.6%) 4 (0.9%) 36 (9.8%) 51 (5.4%) Child Identifies as Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Yes 15 (11.7%) 43 (9.7%) 12 (3.3%) 70 (7.5%) No 113 (88.3%) 401 (90.3%) 354 (96.7%) 686 (92.5%) Child Identifies as Transgendered Female to Male 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.7%) 0 (0.0%) 3 (0.3%) Male to Female 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) N/A 128 (100.0%) 441 (99.3%) 366(100.0%) 935 (99.7%) Race White 81 (63.3%) 246 (55.4%) 139 (38.0%) 466 (49.7%) African American/Black 13 (10.2%) 63 (14.2%) 117 (32.0%) 193 (20.6%) Asian/Pacific Islander 2 (1.6%) 4 (0.9%) 16 (4.4%) 22 (2.3%) Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian 12 (9.4%) 48 (10.8%) 31 (8.5%) 91 (9.7%) Multi-Racial (including Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian) 8 (6.3%) 26 (5.9%) 21 (5.7%) 55 (5.9%) Multi-Racial (excluding Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian) 8 (6.3%) 39 (8.8%) 34 (9.3%) 81 (8.6%) Unknown 0 (0.0%) 5 (1.1%) 2 (0.5%) 7 (0.7%) Other 2 (1.6%) 7 (1.6%) 1 (0.3%) 10 (1.1%) Unable to be determined 2 (1.6%) 6 (1.4%) 5 (1.4%) 13 (1.4%) Ethnicity Hispanic, White 10 (7.8%) 23 (5.2%) 29 (7.9%) 62 (6.6%) Hispanic, Non-White 4 (3.1%) 18 (4.1%) 3 (0.8%) 25 (2.7%) Hispanic, Non-Specified 2 (1.6%) 6 (1.4%) 5 (1.4%) 13 (1.4%) Hmong 1 (0.8%) 2 (0.5%) 5 (1.4%) 8 (0.9%) Unknown 0 (0.0%) 28 (6.3%) 27 (7.4%) 55 (5.9%) N/A 111 (86.7%) 366 (82.4%) 297 (81.1%) 774 (82.5%) Other 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%)
  • 5. 4 DEMOGRAPHIC SUMMARY Overall, the sample had more males than females, with males making up 64% of the total population. This was true across all agency types, though group homes and residential treatment facilities had slightly higher percentages (68% and 68.9%, respectively) and foster homes had a slightly lower percentage of males (56.5%). Of all the youths, 7.5% identified as GLB, and this was also higher in group homes (11.7%) and residential facilities (9.7%) and lower in foster homes (3.3%). Racially, just under half the sample was noted as being White while 20.6% identified as African American/Black. There was more variation in these percentages throughout the placement types. Foster homes saw less margin between these two racial groups with 38% of children identified as White and 32% identified as Black. Both group homes and residential treatment facilities saw larger margins – 63.3% White youth versus 10.2% Black youth in group homes and 55.4% White youth compared to 14.2% Black youth in residential treatment. Finally, across the whole sample and within each placement type the majority of case managers noted ethnicity as being not applicable. This means that relatively few youths were identified as Hispanic, Hmong, Somali, or another ethnic identity. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Race Unable to be Determined Other Unknown Multi-Racial (excluding Native Am.) Multi-Racial (including Native Am.) Native American/Eskimo/Aleutian Asian/Pacific Islander African American/Black White 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Ethnicity Hispanic, White Hispanic, Non-White Hispanic, Non-Specified Hmong Unknown N/A 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Age 19+ Years 16-18 Years 13-15 Years 10-12 Years 7-9 Years 4-6 Years 0-3 Years
  • 6. 5 Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies DISABILITY/DIAGNOSES N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Current Disability/Diagnoses Physical Disability 1 (0.8%) 12 (2.7%) 15 (4.1%) 28 (3.0%) Sensory Disability 3 (2.3%) 10 (2.3%) 16 (4.4%) 29 (3.1%) Sensory Processing Disability 1 (0.8%) 8 (1.8%) 5 (1.4%) 14 (1.5%) Intellectual/Developmental Disability 2 (1.6%) 37 (8.3%) 41 (11.2%) 80 (8.5%) Autism Spectrum Disability 7 (5.5%) 38 (8.6%) 31 (8.5%) 76 (8.1%) Learning Disability 12 (9.4%) 51 (11.5%) 72 (19.7%) 135 (14.4%) Disruptive Behavior Disorder 81 (63.3%) 283 (63.7%) 129 (35.2%) 493 (52.6%) Mood Disorder 72 (56.3%) 259 (58.3%) 138 (37.7%) 469 (50.0%) Anxiety Disorder 37 (28.9%) 128 (28.8%) 93 (25.4%) 258 (27.5%) Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 25 (19.5%) 116 (26.1%) 83 (22.7%) 224 (23.9%) Psychotic Disorder 0 (0.0%) 8 (1.8%) 3 (0.8%) 11 (1.2%) Personality Disorder 10 (7.8%) 41 (9.2%) 16 (4.4%) 67 (7.1%) Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD) 22 (17.2%) 77 (17.3%) 63 (17.2%) 162 (17.3%) Fetal Alcohol Syndrome/Disorder (FASD) 9 (7.0%) 21 (4.7%) 29 (7.9%) 59 (6.3%) Eating Disorder 2 (1.6%) 18 (4.1%) 5 (1.4%) 25 (2.7%) Substance Abuse Disorder 25 (19.5%) 102 (23.0%) 20 (5.5%) 147 (15.7%) LISTED UNDER “OTHER” Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 20 (15.6%) 71 (16.0%) 71 (19.4%) 162 (17.3%) Prenatal Exposure (No FASD Diagnosis) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 4 (1.1%) 5 (0.5%) Tourette’s Syndrome 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%) Adjustment Disorder 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 21 (5.7%) 23 (2.5%) Identity Disorder 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.1%) Impulse Control Disorder 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%) Cognitive Disorder 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%) Sexual Disorder 5 (3.9%) 19 (4.3%) 10 (2.7%) 34 (3.6%) Other Medical Diagnoses 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 10 (2.7%) 10 (1.1%) Rule Out Diagnoses 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%) Other (Not mentioned above) 2 (1.6%) 1 (0.2%) 5 (1.4%) 8 (0.9%) Number of Diagnoses No Diagnoses 4 (3.1%) 13 (2.9%) 58 (15.8%) 75 (8.0%) 1 Diagnosis 26 (20.3%) 56 (12.6%) 61 (16.7%) 143 (15.2%) 2 Diagnoses 34 (26.6%) 104 (23.4%) 80 (21.9%) 218 (23.2%) 3 Diagnoses 29 (22.7%) 118 (26.6%) 71 (19.4%) 218 (23.2%) 4 Diagnoses 22 (17.2%) 98 (22.1%) 49 (13.4%) 169 (18.0%) 5 Diagnoses 8 (6.3%) 39 (8.8%) 36 (9.8%) 83 (8.8%) 6 Diagnoses 5 (3.9%) 10 (2.3%) 8 (2.2%) 23 (2.5%) 7+ Diagnoses 0 (0.0%) 6 (1.4%) 3 (0.8%) 9 (0.96%) DISABILITY/DIAGNOSES SUMMARY Case managers could identify more than one diagnosis when appropriate. This means that percentages will not add up to 100%. The most frequently diagnosed disorders held across all placements types. These were diagnoses of Disruptive Behavior Disorder, Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Reactive Attachment Disorder. While Disruptive Behavior Disorder and Mood Disorder were still among the most frequent diagnoses for youths in foster care (occurring in 35.2% and 37.7% of youths, respectively), the rates were less than those in the average sample (occurring in 52.6% and 50% of youths, respectively). It should be noted that all those diagnoses that are under the heading “listed under ‘other’” were written in by individual case managers. Those diagnoses occurring in more than a single youth were included here. Finally, ADHD was inadvertently left off the list of choices in the original survey. While several case managers wrote in an ADHD diagnosis, there is likely underreporting in this category.
  • 7. 6 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% Disruptive Behavior Disorder Mood Disorder Anxiety Disorder PTSD ADHD RAD 5 Most Common Diagnoses Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Average 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Number of Diagnoses 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+
  • 8. 7 Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies CURRENT PLACEMENT N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Current Placement is ICWA? Yes 5 (3.9%) 11 (2.5%) 24 (6.6%) 40 (4.3%) No 12 (9.4%) 54 (12.2%) 28 (7.7%) 94 (10.0%) Missing 18 (85.7%) 108 (84.4%) 370 (83.3%) 314 (85.8%) Unsure 3 (2.3%) 9 (2.0%) 0 (0.0%) 12 (1.3%) Legal Authority for Placement? Court Order (CHIPS) 35 (27.3%) 75 (16.9%) 272 (74.3%) 382 (40.7%) Juvenile Justice 59 (46.1%) 133 (30.0%) 24 (6.6%) 216 (23.0%) Voluntary by County Due to Client’s Mental Health (CMH) 27 (21.1%) 140 (31.5%) 42 (11.5%) 209 (22.3%) Voluntary by Parent Due to CMH 5 (3.9%) 89 (20.0%) 20 (5.5%) 114 (12.2%) Other 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 4 (1.1%) 6 (0.6%) Missing 2 (1.6%) 5 (1.1%) 4 (1.1%) 11 (1.2%) Placing Entity? County Agency (7-County Metro) 39 (30.5%) 88 (19.8%) 247 (67.5%) 374 (39.9%) County Agency (Out-State) 34 (26.6%) 105 (23.6%) 85 (23.2%) 224 (23.9) Tribal Agency 3 (2.3%) 15 (3.4%) 12 (3.3%) 30 (3.2%) Other State Agency 48 (37.5%) 164 (36.9%) 20 (5.5%) 232 (24.7%) Parent/Private Placement 4 (3.1%) 72 (16.2%) 1 (0.3%) 77 (8.2%) Missing 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%) Child’s Parent(s) Incarcerated? Yes, one parent incarcerated 17 (13.3%) 25 (5.6%) 46 (12.6%) 88 (9.4%) Yes, both parents incarcerated 2 (1.6%) 3 (0.7%) 4 (1.1%) 9 (1.0%) No 87 (68.0%) 342 (77.0%) 238 (65.0%) 667 (71.1%) Unsure 22 (17.2%) 74 (16.7%) 77 (21.0%) 173 (18.4%) Missing 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%) 1 (0.1%) CURRENT PLACEMENT SUMMARY An important point to consider in the ‘Placement’ data is that a large percentage of case managers did not answer the questions concerning ICWA placement. These answers were counted as Missing but it may suggest that case managers do not know what constitutes an ICWA placement. In the overall sample, the largest percentages of children were placed by a court order. This was higher in treatment foster homes (74.3% of youths) and lower in residential treatment (16.9%) and group homes (27.3%). Juvenile Justice held the authority for placing 23% of youths overall, though this was lower in foster homes (6.6%) and higher in residential treatment (30%) and group homes (46.1%). The 7-County Metro counties placed youths primarily into foster care while an “Other State Agency” placed the highest percentage of youths in both residential treatment and group homes. Finally, 10.4% of all children had at least one parent currently incarcerated. There is a higher rate of children with incarcerated parents in both foster homes (13.7%) and group homes (14.9%) and a lower rate in residential treatment facilities (6.3%). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Authority for Placement Other/Missing Parent/Guardian (Due to Client Mental Health) County (Due to Client Mental Health) Juvenile Justice Court Order (CHIPS) 0% 50% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Placing Entity County (7 Cnty. Metro) County (Outstate) Tribe State Agency Parent/Private Plcmnt.
  • 9. 8 Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies PERMANENCY N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Identified Permanency Plan? Reunification 69 (53.9%) 289 (65.1%) 125 (34.2%) 483 (51.5%) Adoption 4 (3.1%) 9 (2.0%) 74 (20.2%) 87 (9.3%) Transfer of Permanent Legal and Physical Custody 4 (3.1%) 15 (3.4%) 21 (5.7%) 40 (4.3%) Independent Living/Emancipation 31 (24.2%) 55 (12.4%) 80 (21.9%) 166 (17.7%) Long Term Foster Care -Court Order 20 (15.6%) 74 (16.7%) 65 (17.8%) 159 (17.0%) Missing 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.5%) 1 (0.3%) 3 (0.3%) Expected Permanency Plan? Remain in Current Placement 4 (3.1%) 18 (4.1%) 72 (19.7%) 94 (10.0%) Return to Parent/Guardian 50 (39.1%) 158 (35.6%) 61 (16.7%) 269 (28.7%) Transfer to Relative Foster Home 5 (3.9%) 6 (1.4%) 21 (5.7%) 32 (3.4%) Transfer to Non-Rel. Foster Home 23 (18.0%) 50 (11.3%) 5 (1.4%) 78 (8.3%) Transfer to Pre-Adoptive Placement 1 (0.8%) 5 (1.1%) 20 (5.5%) 26 (2.8%) Independent Living/Emancipation 28 (21.9%) 47 (10.6%) 57 (15.6%) 132 (14.1%) Adult Foster Care 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 2 (0.5%) 4 (0.4%) Juvenile Detention 1 (0.8%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%) Homelessness 2 (1.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (0.2%) Other 0 (0.0%) 13 (2.9%) 3 (0.8%) 16 (1.7%) Missing 13 (10.2%) 145 (32.7%) 125 (34.2%) 283 (30.2%) PERMANENCY SUMMARY Once again, it should be noted that many workers skipped the question regarding expected permanency plan. Despite training on how to complete each question in the survey, it is unclear if individuals left this blank because they were unsure what the permanency plan would be, believed the identified plan would occur, or did not understand the question. Notable in these results are the much lower percentage of foster youth with reunification as either their identified (34.2%) or expected (16.7%) permanency plan when compared to the average rates for all children (51.5% and 28.7%, respectively). Overall, there is a sizeable discrepancy between reunification being the identified permanency plan and the expected permanency plan. This is consistent over all three placement types indicating most placements have a significantly lower number of children expected to reunify though the case plan would identify reunification as the goal. Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies PREVIOUS PLACEMENT(S) N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Child Experienced At Least 1 Placement in the Following: Public/Tribal Relative Foster Home 13 (10.2%) 40 (9.0%) 56 (15.3%) 109 (11.6%) Public/Tribal Non-Relative Foster Home 25 (19.5%) 65 (14.6%) 140 (38.3%) 230 (24.5%) Private Relative Foster Home 10 (7.8%) 14 (3.2%) 14 (3.8%) 38 (4.1%) Private Non-Relative Foster Home 18 (14.1%) 71 (16.0%) 150 (41.0%) 239 (25.5%) Group Home 34 (26.6%) 69 (15.5%) 32 (8.7%) 135 (14.4%) Residential Treatment Facility 82 (64.1%) 232 (52.3%) 104 (28.4%) 418 (44.6%) Shelter 28 (21.9%) 103 (23.2%) 152 (41.5%) 283 (30.2%) Juvenile Detention 62 (48.4%) 141 (31.8%) 49 (13.4%) 252 (26.9%) # of Total Previous Placements** None 12 (9.4%) 79 (17.8%) 46 (12.6%) 137 (14.6%) 1-2 Placements 45 (35.2%) 174 (39.2%) 134 (36.6%) 353 (37.6%) 3-4 Placements 31 (24.2%) 77 (17.3%) 85 (23.2%) 193 (20.6%) 5-7 Placements 21 (16.4%) 42 (9.5%) 43 (11.7%) 106 (11.3%) 8-10 Placements 3 (2.3%) 20 (4.5%) 10 (2.7%) 33 (3.5%) 11+ Placements 9 (7.0%) 15 (3.4%) 17 (4.6%) 41 (4.4%) Unsure 6 (4.7%) 34 (7.7%) 29 (7.9%) 69 (7.4%) Missing 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.7%) 2 (0.5%) 6 (0.6%) **Total number of placements reflects only non-permanent placements and does not reflect pre-adoptive or adoptive placements.
  • 10. 9 Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies PREVIOUS PLACEMENT(S) (cont.) N=128 N=444 N=366 N=938 Child Previously Adopted or in Pre- Adoptive Placement? No 99 (77.3%) 364 (82.0%) 265 (72.4%) 728 (77.6%) Yes, Finalized Adoption 21 (16.4%) 66 (14.9%) 35 (9.6%) 122 (13.0%) Yes, Pre-Adoptive Home (w/APA) 1 (0.8%) 4 (0.9%) 35 (9.6%) 40 (4.3%) Yes, Pre-Adoptive Home (No APA) 3 (2.3%) 4 (0.9%) 15 (4.1%) 22 (2.3%) Unsure 3 (2.3%) 3 (0.7%) 11 (3.0%) 17 (1.8%) Missing 1 (0.8%) 3 (0.7%) 5 (1.4%) 9 (1.0%) Child Adopted from Another Country (International Adoption) Yes 5 (3.9%) 6 (1.4%) 7 (1.9%) 18 (1.9%) No 23 (18.0%) 70 (15.8%) 93 (25.4%) 186 (19.8%) N/A or Missing 100 (78.1%) 368 (82.9%) 266 (72.7%) 734 (78.3%) PREVIOUS PLACEMENT SUMMARY Overall, the greatest percentage of youths (44.6%) had experienced a previous placement in residential treatment facilities while only 4.1% had experienced a placement in a private foster home with a relative. However, there was variability within each agency type with respect to identified previous placements. The average youth from within this study experienced 1-2 previous placements. This held true across all three agency types. The majority of youths (77.6%) had never experienced a finalized adoption or pre-adoptive placement, which was also consistent over the three agency types. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies % of Children Having Been in the Following Placements Juvenile Det. Shelter Res. Treatment Group Home Private FH (Non-Relative) Private FH (Relative) Public FH (Non-Relative) Public FH (Relative) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Group Homes Residential Treatment Foster Homes All Agencies Number of Previous Placements No Previous 1-2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11+ Unknown