Placement
Stability Information Packet |
National Resource
Center for Permanency and Family Connections
A Service of Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS
Summary
For children in foster care, the number of
placements, or places where they live, can impact daily
functioning and adjustment as well as the child welfare
agency’s ability to move the child to permanent placement
in a timely manner. Because of the seriousness of long term
consequences for children, placement
stability within 12 months of entry into foster care was
one of the three outcome measures established as the national
standard of Permanency Outcome 1 for the first round of
the Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). As one aspect
of the CFSR, State performance was assessed in relation
to the outcome measure definition, “of all children who
have been in foster care for less than 12 months from the
time of the latest removal from the home, 86.7% or more
have had no more than 2 placement settings” (Children’s
Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004). Only 14 States met the national
standard for placement stability during the first round
of CFSRs from 2001 to2004.
Legislation for the past three decades has
focused on effective permanency planning, increased placement
stability and timely decision-making in child welfare. In
response to this emphasis, the Children’s Bureau reports
to congress on child welfare performance measures.
State performance
in 2005 on measures pertaining to Outcome
6: Increase placement stability indicated that “in most
states, majority of children in foster care for less than
12 months in 2005 experienced no more than two placement
settings” but that the longer children and youth stay in
care the more placement disruptions they tend to experience
(Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004; 2005). Since placement
stability is critical to children’s well-being, “there is
reason for concern when any child has three or more placement
settings while in foster care.”
The results from the analysis of cases reviewed
during the first round of CFSRs identified factors which
can positively impact placement stability as well as factors
which can contribute to increasing the number of placements
(Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004). This information, along
with other research, can point the way to better practice
for child welfare agencies.
Facts & Statistics
Although moving children and youth from a
placement to another is at times appropriate when the move
supports achievement of case plan goals, generally foster
care moves seem to do them more harm than good. Caused by
an array of systemic and child/foster family factors, placement
disruptions can contribute to behavioral and attachment
problems, as well as other challenges for children , such
as mental health issues, educational under-achievement,
and unemployment and poverty in adulthood.
Data analysis and research document a number
of findings related to placement stability:
Ø
AFCARS data for FY
2008 showed that 58% of youth exiting foster care have spent
one year or more in care (Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2009).
Ø
Placement stability
declines substantially the longer a child is in foster care
(Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2005).
Ø
Placement stability
may enhance the probability of children’s educational, physical,
and mental health needs assessed and addressed appropriately
(Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004).
Ø
According to one
study, about 70% of placement changes were made to implement
procedural, policy, and system mandates, e.g., moves to
place a child with relatives or a sibling; almost 20% were
linked to children’s behavior problems; and the remaining
10% to both foster and biological family related issues
(James, 2004).
Ø
Based on research
evidence, kinship or relative placements result in fewer
moves, and can have 70% lower rate of disruption (Northern
California Training
Academy,
2008).
Ø
Entering enter foster
care because of emotional abuse increases the risk of behaviorally
related placement changes by 48% (James, 2004).
Legislation &
Policies
Fostering Connections
to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (PL 110-351) was designed
to connect and support relative caregivers, improve outcomes
for children in foster care, provide for tribal foster care
and adoption access, and improve incentives for adoption.
Amending parts B and E of Title IV of the Social Security
Act, it provides new federal funding to states for subsidized
guardianship payments for relatives, incentives for adoption,
adoption assistance, kinship navigator programs, new family
connection grants, and federal support for youth to age
21. Putting focus on kinship and relative caregivers, the
new law has the potential to increase placement stability
while children and youth are in the care of states, tribes
and localities.
The changes to the Social Security Act from the Public Law 110-351 can
be viewed at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/safe2008draft.htm
Earlier Federal Legislations that Impacted
Placement Stability
Ø
Permanency planning
became part of legislation when the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL 96-272) was passed,
specifying timeframes for child welfare case planning and
case plan reviews for the first time.
Ø
Over a decade later,
the Family Preservation
and Family Support Services Program of 1993 (PL 103-66)
and its amendment in 1997 put focus on family service and
preventive services for children, youth and families at
risk. Making prevention a national priority, it provided
opportunities for states, tribes and localities to engage
in child welfare reform.
Ø
Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (PL 103-382)
of 1994 and its amendment, Inter-Ethnic
Placement Act of 1996, prohibited the consideration
of race in placement decisions and mandated that an increased
effort be made to find and recruit potential foster families
of color. It also required more timely
placement of children into foster and adoptive homes.
Ø
Amending titles IV-B and IV-E, Adoption and Safe Families Act
of 1997
(P.L.
105-89) was designed to shorten the length
of time children and youth spend in foster care and speed
up the process of terminating parental rights and freeing
children for adoption.
Best Practices and Model Programs
Child welfare legislation for the three past
decades has reinforced the need for children and youth to
be in stable and appropriate foster care placements in order
to achieve better outcomes in terms of safety, permanency
and well-being. Child welfare agencies can begin by focusing
on factors that have been found by CFSR case level analysis
to positively affect placement stability, such as: kinship
placements, adequate services to families and caseworker
contacts with parents (Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004).
The Program Improvement Plans that the states
submitted as part of the first round of CFSR indicated strategies
that they have used to address placement stability (Children’s
Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004). Some of the strategies included:
Ø
Build on promising
practice from more successful counties
Ø
Use of foster parent
teams or support groups
Ø
Training on partnerships
with foster parents, birth parents, agency staff, service
providers
Ø
Expanded and targeted
Foster Family recruitment
Ø
Data reports on stability
distributed to county level
The results from the analysis of cases reviewed
during the first round of CFSRs identified some factors
that can positively affect placement stability, including:
placement with relatives, adequate services to children,
parents, and foster parents, involvement of children and
parents in case planning, and caseworker contacts with parents.
A child’s age seems to be another factor: most stable are
ages 0-6 and 16-18, least stable 13-15. Significant associations
were found between placement stability and meeting educational,
physical health, and mental health needs (Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS,
2004).
Factors that negatively impact placement
stability were also identified, such as: frequent use of
shelters for initial placements and disruptions, few placement
settings available for children with disabilities or behavior
problems, inconsistent support services to foster parents,
and mismatching placements to children’s needs (Children’s
Bureau/ACF/DHHS, 2004).
Results-Oriented Management in Child Welfare at the University
of Kansas School of Social Welfare provides a framework
for exploring factors that contribute to the placement stability
of children and youth in care, including child/family, service,
organizational and community factors. The frame work also
discusses the research evidence for each factor as well
as the steps that an agency can take in addressing the issue.
Formatted in a user friendly matrix the website is easily
navigated to obtain concise information on research which
provides the suggestions for addressing the multiple factors
which impact placement stability. To learn more about this
resource see: Results-Oriented Management in Child Welfare
http://www.rom.ku.edu/ebp_stab.asp
Northern California Training
Academy (2008) suggested
some effective ways to decrease placement disruptions in
a recent literacy review Placement
Stability in Child Welfare Services (2008):
Ø
Support and training
for foster parents
Ø
Concurrent planning
(alternative permanency plan)
Ø
Placement-specific
services (e.g., transportation, respite care, foster-family
counseling)
Ø
Child-specific services
(e.g., mental health services, after-school programs)
Ø
Increase caseworker
retention through additional support (e.g., flexible working
conditions, professional development opportunities)
A multiyear Study
of Placement Stability in Illinois (2004) examining
the placement instability in foster care combined administrative
data analyses of the placement histories of over 200,000
children in care with findings from a web-based survey of
nearly 2,000 caseworkers. The findings of this comprehensive
effort to examine placement instability suggested that the
average number of placements children experience while in
care could be effectively reduced by placing them with kinship
and relative caregivers at entry to care. This would allow
children to stay at relative homes without having to endure
a subsequent placement change.
Online Resources
National Resource Center for
Permanency and Family Connections (NRCPFC) is a training, technical assistance,
and information services organization dedicated to strengthening
the capacity of State, local and Tribal child welfare agencies.
NRCPFC offers resources on placement stability, including
a one day curriculum developed in response to the clear
indication that the caseworker visits to children in foster
care are positively correlated to outcomes for children
and families. http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/placement-stability.html
Child Welfare Information Gateway, also a Service
of the Children’s Bureau (ACF/DHHS), provides resources
and information on placement stability, and efforts to minimize
the number of placements for children in out-of-home care.
http://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/placement/stability.cfm
Children’s Bureau provides state and national data on
adoption and foster care, child abuse and neglect, and child
welfare that can help states, tribes and localities to examine
and address the issue of placement stability. Compiled Results of the 2001-2008 Child and Family Services
Reviews are available on the Child Welfare Monitoring pages.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/index.htm
National Data Analysis System (NDAS) at CWLA and
its National Working Group to Improve Child Welfare Data
webpage includes several items related to placement stability,
including results of a survey to clarify differences among
states, common definitions, and Placement Change Definitions
Implementation Guide. http://ndas.cwla.org/research_info/nwg/
Results-Oriented
Management in Child Welfare at the University of Kansas School
of Social Welfare discusses the child/family, service,
organizational and community factors that contribute to
the achievement of placement stability, as well as the research
behind these findings. It also explores the possible steps
to take for this outcome area. http://www.rom.ku.edu/ebp_stab.asp
Bibliography
Children and Family Research
Center. (2004). Multiple Placements in Foster Care: Literature
Review of Correlates and Predictors. Retrieved
on November
15, 2009, from: http://www.cfrc.illinois.edu/LRpdfs/PlacementStability.LR.pdf
Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS. (2008).
The AFCARS Report
Preliminary FY 2006 Estimates as of January 2008. Retrieved on November 19, 2009, from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.htm
Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS. (2005).
Child welfare outcomes
2002-2005: Report to Congress. Retrieved on November
19, 2009, from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo05/chapters/chapter4.htm
Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS. (2004). Findings from the initial
Child and Family Service Reviews; 2001-2004.
Retrieved on November 30, 2009, from:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/index.htm
Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS. (2004).
52 program improvement
plans: Strategies for improving child welfare services and
outcomes. Retrieved on July 17, 2009, from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm
Children’s Bureau/ACF/DHHS. (2004).
General findings from
the federal child and family services review. Retrieved
on July 17, 2009, from: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/genfindings04/index.htm
D’Andrade, A.C. (2005). Placement stability in foster care. In G. Mallon & P. Hess
(Eds.) Child welfare
for the twenty-first century: A handbook of practices, policies
and programs, p. 608-622. New York:
Columbia University
Press.
James, S., Landsverk,
J., & Slymen, D.J. (2004). Placement
movement in out-of-home care: Patterns and predictors. In Children and Youth Services Review, 26(2),
2004.
James, S. (2004). Why do foster care
placements disrupt? An investigation of
reasons for placement change in foster care. In
The Social Service Review, December, 2004.
McMahon, J. (2005). Foster care placement
disruption in North
Carolina. In Fostering Perspectives, 10(1), 2005. Retrieved on November 15, 2009, from:
http://www.fosteringperspectives.org/fp_v10n1/disruption.htm
Northern California Training Academy. (2008). A literature review of placement stability in child welfare services: Issues,
concerns, outcomes and future directions. The
Center for Human Services at UC Davis Extension.
Retrieved on November 15, 2009, from:
http://humanservices.ucdavis.edu/Academy/pdf/FINAL2LitReviewPlacementStability.pdf
Pecora, P., Kessler, R., Downs, A.C., English, D., White, J., & Heeringa, S.
(2007). Why should
the child welfare field focus on minimizing placement change
as part of permanency planning for children? Casey
Family Programs. Retrieved on November 15, 2009, from:
http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/MinimizingPlacements.htm
Rubin, D.
M., O’Reilly, A., Luan, X., & Localio, R. (2007). The impact of placement stability
on behavioral well-being for children in foster care. In Pediatrics, p. 336-344, 119 (2), 2007.
Rubin, D.M., Alessandrini,
E.A., Feudtner, C., Mandell, D.S., Localia, A.R., &
Hadley, T. (2004).
Placement stability and mental health costs for children
in foster care. In Pediatrics, p. 1336-1341,
113(5), 2004. Retrieved on November 15, 2009, from: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/5/1336
Semanchin Jones,
A. & Wells, S.J. (2008). PATH/Wisconsin - Bremer
Project: Preventing placement disruptions in foster care.
Retrieved on November
15, 2009, from: http://www.cehd.umn.edu/SSW/cascw/attributes/PDF/publications/Path_BremerReport.pdf
Sunseri, P.A., (2005). Children
referred to residential care: Reducing multiple placements,
managing costs and improving treatment outcomes. In
Residential Treatment for Children and Youth,
22(3), 2005.
Zinn, A., DeCoursey,
J., George, R.M., & Courtney,
M.E. (2006). A study of placement stability in Illinois. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Retrieved on November 15, 2009, from:
http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/study-placement-stability-illinois