Paternity Establishment Among Children reported to Child protective Services

1. 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

2. 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

3. Indicators of paternal involvement Possible automated case management system indicators of paternal involvement: • Paternal identity • Contacts • Known address • Case plan participation

4. 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

5. 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

6. Indicator: Paternal Identity– Birth Certificate

7. Indicator: paternal identity - CWS Record

8. Indicator: parental contacts

9. Indicator: Paternal vs. maternal contacts

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. Indicator: Father Known - CWS Record

14. Questions?joemagruder@berkeley.eduehornste@usc.edubneedell@berkeley.eduQuestions?joemagruder@berkeley.eduehornste@usc.edubneedell@berkeley.edu