ACWA 2012 Conference Sydney 20 th – 22 nd August 2012

1. ACWA 2012 Conference Sydney 20th – 22nd August 2012 Inter-jurisdictional similarities and variations in the nature and predictors of reunification in Australian out-of-home-care E. Fernandez, School of Social Sciences University of New South Wales P.H. Delfabbro, L. Kettler, J. McCormick, School of Psychology, University of Adelaide

2. Overview of Presentation • Importance of reunification in out-of-home care • Definitions • Gaps in knowledge in Australia • Purpose of current project • Methodological design of study • Principal findings • Conclusions

3. Importance of reunification • Reunification is a primary goal of foster care systems, the most common permanency planning decision • Fewer programs aim at reunifying families than programs aimed at preserving intact families • AIHW (2011) indicates that the population of children in care is increasing, e.g., it was 37, 648 in 2011 as compared with 23, 695 in 2005. • Entry rates have not increased, but children appear to be staying in care a longer time. • Explanations: more difficult families of origin; greater use of kinship care; age profile of children entering care (a lot of infants)

4. Family reunification – Introduction Reunification is defined as: • The return of children in foster care placements to the home of their birth family • A process aimed at helping children in out of home care attain the optimum level of reconnection with their birth family. This optimal level of reconnection may fall somewhere on a continuum from physical return through to lesser forms of contact or visitation (Maluccio et al., 1996)

5. Reunification: Definitions • Reunification / restoration does not have a single definition • Physical return home vs. cessation of department involvement? • Reunification type: family of origin vs. biological parents (not necessarily original if parents live apart) vs. relative/ kinship • Duration: Does any return home constitute a reunification?

6. Reunification Previous Research • Two main kinds of studies • Studies that primarily outline timing and patterns of reunification and measure predictors • Studies that primarily outline timing and patterns of reentry to out of home care following reunification, and measure predictors of reentry • Few studies feature more extensive outcome measures other than basic reunification or re-entry patterns. (Bullock et al., 1998; Cordero, 2004; 1995; Wulczyn, 2004; Fernandez, 2012) • Reunification decision-making and the process of reintegrating children into birth families after care remain under-researched • Few controlled studies: available evidence is mixed and based largely on non-experimental designs or non-equivalent comparison groups • Limited Australian studies of family reunification

7. Timing of Reunification • Evidence suggests that most children placed in out of home care eventually return to their families (Ainsworth, 2001; Tausig et al., 2001; Maluccio et al., 2000) Reunification is: • More likely to take place earlier in a placement • The first year a child is in foster care the probability of reunification is 28%. This probability drops to 16% over the following year (Wulczyn 2004) • Probability of reunification decreases the longer the spell in care (Fanshel & Shinn, 1978 Goerge,1990; Guo and Wells, 1999; Fernandez, 1999, 2011, 2012; Delfabbro et al., 2003; McSherry et al., 2010; Wade et al., 2011)

8. Child Characteristics Children’s age at admission • Very young children were seen to be the least likely to return home and adolescents more likely to experience rapid return • Children in middle childhood (5-12 years) were also more likely to return than under 5 year olds (Courtney & Wong, 1996; Fraser et al, 1996; Fanshel & Shinn, 1978; Kortenkamp et al, 2004, Fernandez & Lee, 2011) Explanations for the effect of age on delayed reunification: • Perception of risk is greater for younger children • For very young children who enter care due to a substance abusing parent reunification may be delayed • Younger children are more adoptable

9. Parent Characteristics • Parental profiles associated with reduced probability of reunion include mental illness, emotional problems and substance abuse (Jones, 1998; Choi & Ryan, 2007; Shaw, 2010) • Completion of a drug rehabilitation program is associated with reunification. Caseworkers, and judges respond to program completion as a salient indicator of parental commitment and intent (Smith, 2003)

10. Family Characteristics • Family disadvantage (Financial, housing problems, single parenthood) was found to be a robust predictor of delayed reunification(Courtney 1995; Frame et al. 2000; Jones 1998) • Number and severity of caregiver problems at reunification (e.g.. substance use, non compliance with service plans (Festinger, 1996); parenting capabilities, family interactions and family safety (Fernandez & Lee, 2011) • Low rating of caregiver parenting skills by social workers and low levels of formal and informal family support are associated with reduced probability of reunification (Festinger, 1996) and isolation of caregivers (Terling, 1999)

11. Previous research - Australia • Mostly cross-sectional (e.g., AIHW data) • Some longitudinal work (e.g., Fernandez, 1999, Delfabbro et al., 2000;, Fernandez & Lee, 2011), but based on single jurisdictions, small to modest sample sizes and with selective samples (not generalisable to all children in care); data in these studies are now 10-20 years old. • No cross-jurisdictional comparisons

12. Previous research - Australia • What do we know? • Reunification usually occurs quickly (usually within the first 4-6 months of a child entering care) • Reunification tends to be slower for Aboriginal children, those who have been neglected, or subject to physical abuse • Reunification post 12 months of entry into care is hard to predict

13. Aims of our study • AIM 1: To conduct a nationally representative/ multi-jurisdictional analysis of reunification rates, patterns and predictors using a common sampling frame and consistent methodology

14. Aims of our study • AIM 2: To conduct longitudinal analysis of reunification patterns in relation to a wide range of family risk factors and differentiated by key demographic categories (e.g., Aboriginal vs. Non-aboriginal) and by principal care types (kinship vs. non-kinship)

15. Methodology • System and case-file data extraction for all children who entered care for the 1st time between Jan 1st 2006 and December 31st 2007 • Placement trajectories tracked until common censoring point (Dec 31st 2009). • Inclusion criteria: first non-respite placement 7+ days duration within sampling frame • Remand/ correctional cases excluded • All ages and types of care included

16. Methodology • All cases selected in smaller jurisdictions (SA, TAS) and random sampling used in larger states (NSW, QLD and VIC) • Data obtained from detailed reading of computerised case-file information and/or physical case files and/or interviews with case-workers • Detailed date-to-date analysis of placement movements (type, duration, location and exit points) • Information recorded into common template

17. Variables recorded • Demographics (age, gender, Aboriginal status, family structure) • Family risk factors (all types of abuse, socio-economic factors): over 20 variables • Complexity of child’s needs across multiple developmental domains • All placement types, durations, changes and entry and exit points

18. Analysing reunification • Several variables were captured and modelled • Any return to biological parents • Any return to kin/ relatives • Reunifications that were ‘ongoing’ or still in place at the end of 2009 • Where relevant, we have the capacity to differentiate between physical returns home vs. termination of formal Departmental involvement via orders

19. Sample • Completed for SA, TAS and VIC and in progress for NSW and QLD • Total sample so far is 1500 (final is likely to be 3,000) • State-specific results are sensitive / confidential until final reports are released by respective Departments • Anonymised State results presented today

20. Summary of Key Findings

21. Placement Trajectories • The placement status of children has been determined very precisely for +3 months, + 6 months, + 12 months and + 2 years in care • The reports provide break-downs of what proportion of the sample is home and in various forms of care at each of these points • The following charts summarise the general patterns

22. State 1

23. State 2

24. State 3

25. Table extract (State 1:1st 3 lines)

26. Case complexity • Detailed profiles of the range of background risk factors affecting families • Cluster analysed to identify statistically meaningful groupings • Reunification patterns were analysed by these clusters • The results confirmed previous research: a high proportion of families are affected by multiple risk factors

27. Illustrative example (State 1)

28. Prevalence of multiple risk factors (State 1)

29. Statistical Modelling • We used Kaplan-Meier Survival Analyses and Cox Proportional Hazard Models to deal with the presence of censored data and to capture the temporal nature of reunification patterns • Univariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with reunification (any or by the end of 2009) and then significant factors were included in the multivariate analyses • Analyses were undertaken for different groups (some examples provided)

30. Age of entry into care (significant in 2 of 3 States)

31. Age of Entry (State 1)

32. Age of Entry (State 2)

33. Aboriginal / Indigenous Status (significant in 2 out of 3 States)

34. Aboriginal Status (State 1)

35. ATAS status (State 3)

36. Having kinship placements (significant in all 3 States)

37. Kinship placements (State 1)

38. Kinship placements (State 2)

39. Kinship placements (State 3)

40. Reunification: predictors • State 1: Reunification less likely if: • Not considered safe at home; • Child rejection; • Financial, mental health and substance abuse problems (parents). • Parents had previously been in care or had problems with housing.

41. Reunification: predictors • State 2: Reunification less likely if: • Abuse type other than emotional abuse; • Parental mental health problems; • Parent who had been imprisoned; • Parent with an intellectual disability

42. Reunification: predictors • State 3: Reunification less likely if: • Children who had been rejected or abandoned; • Abuse type other than emotional abuse

43. Conclusions and Observations • Findings generally consistent with other studies: reunification generally occurs in first year • Neglect and abuse type, ATAS status, age of entry most reliable predictors • Kinship care very influential (overlooked in previous studies). Slows reunification rates

44. Conclusions and Observations • Kinship care is increasingly used now vs. late 1990s • Benefits: placement instability was very low in these samples vs. studies 10 years ago • Potential problems: Do children remain in this (often paid) form of care a lot longer? • Have problems in foster care provision been solved by a return to the ‘traditional’ way of placing children in care (i.e., with extended families)?

45. Implications for Policy, Practice and Future Research • Findings illuminate a pattern which suggests majority of children who reunify do so in the early months after entry. This has implications for administrators and practitioners in terms of ensuring resources and caseloads are prioritised to maximize the potential for early reunification and support for children and families. More active social work practice and intensive supportive services are needed to effect reunification once children have been in care for some time. • Families’ unable to address deficits in the environmental domain (housing, finances, and nutrition) experienced delayed return. Responding to the structural dimensions of neglectful parenting and addressing the wider context of welfare arrangements of income support, housing, child care and health care are crucial to reducing the structural risk factors impacting on families and children.

46. Implications for Policy, Practice and Future Research • The vulnerability of younger children to entering care and remaining in care for extended periods has implications for preventive services for parents with infants and young children for systematic care planning. • There is a need to model reunification outcomes by stratifying samples into different age groups to better understand factors related to reunification based on age. • The quantitative analysis is to be complemented by more in-depth qualitative analysis of the histories and experience of children and families. • Reunification can trigger challenges and stresses for families when children reintegrate. Little is known about post reunification outcomes and this is a fertile area for future research.

47. Implications for Practice/Research • Careful assessment prior to reunification to ensure children are not returned to unsafe or unsupported environments. • Adequate support to parents and children after return. • Broader conceptualization of reunification to allow for range of options • Increased research on reunification outcomes: Children’s Perceptions Parents perceptions Optimal circumstances for reunification

48. Acknowledgments (financial and in-kind support) • ARC • Victorian Department of Human Services • S.A. Department for Families and Communities • Department for Community Services (NSW) • Department for Health and Human Services (TAS) • FAHCSIA • Department for Child Safety (QLD) • Department of Disability and Housing Service (ACT)