7 minute read
Permanency Outcomes of Florida’s Foster Youth
from other sources (i.e., surveys, NYTD data) suggest that life skills requirements are being implemented inconsistently. Further, due to unclear policies, there is variation in how life skills development is implemented across CBC lead agencies.
The evaluation also found that day-to-day life skills development efforts are inconsistent. While caregivers are expected to take the lead in life skills development per DCF CFOP 170-17, surveys and interviews found that they receive different levels of resources, support, and training to help guide their efforts. Child welfare professional surveys found respondents had mixed confidence levels in supporting, training, and assisting caregivers with life skills responsibilities. Results of the secondary data analysis of NYTD data showed that many current foster youths have not received independent living skills assessments, nor services for life skills development. Former foster youth interviews reflect these inconsistencies, with many participants describing their experiences with life skills development in care as differing between caregivers and placements. Some said they had placements and caregivers that provided no life skills development. When they did receive life skills development, it was often only in a few areas and the quality varied. Many described how their inconsistent life skills development during care contributed to short- and long-term challenges they faced transitioning out of DCF custody and into independent living, such as accruing large amounts of debt due to limited financial and budgeting knowledge.
Advertisement
NEXT STEPS
The final report has been drafted and is under review with Institute leadership as well as expert consultants. Feedback will be incorporated to refine the comprehensive final report. We look forward to submitting this report to the Governor and the legislature by November 1, 2022.
Permanency Outcomes of Florida’s Foster Youth
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Hyunji Lee, Ph.D., MSW
Florida Institute for Child Welfare
PROJECT TEAM:
Kasey Longley, Ph.D., MS, Florida Institute for Child Welfare
Lisa Magruder, Ph.D., MSW, Florida
Institute for Child Welfare
OVERVIEW
Chapter 2021-169 Section 21(2), Laws of Florida, {SB80} mandated the Institute to analyze permanency outcomes in the state. Specifically, the legislation charged the Institute with identifying patterns in cases regarding: 1) length of time to achieve permanency; 2) types of permanency outcomes experienced by children entering foster care at different ages; and 3) how the types of permanency and the length of time to achieve permanency vary based on the status of the rights of the parents of the children. The team finalized the evaluation plan and shared it with legislative staff in November 2021. The research team worked collaboratively with representatives from the DCF to obtain and understand the data needed for analyses.
MANDATE:
Analyze permanency outcomes in the state (length of time to permanency, types of outcomes at different ages, impact of the status of the rights of the parents).
After excluding several youth with missing or otherwise problematic data, the total analytic sample included all youth who entered foster care in Florida from Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2017 through FFY 2021.
Sub-samples were created to answer the specific mandated research questions:
1. What are the frequencies of permanency outcomes? (Section 21, 2a.1)
A. Within two years of entering foster care? • Are there differences by child age at entry into foster care?
B. After two years of foster care? • Are there differences by child age at entry into foster care?
2. Among families in which parental rights were terminated … (Section 21, 2a.2-3)
A. What is the length of time between entry into foster care and termination of parental rights?
B. What are the frequencies of permanency outcomes for children? • Are there differences by child age at the time of termination of parental rights?
C. How long did it take to achieve permanency? • Are there differences by child age at the time of termination of parental rights?
KEY FINDINGS
The researchers examined permanency outcomes among the entire sample, with sub-analyses conducted for youth who achieved permanency prior to and after two years in care. Over two-thirds (67.9%) of children in the total sample (N = 52,774) achieved permanency at some point in time, primarily through reunification, followed by adoption, and finally guardianship, which is reflective of national trends.
Frequency of Permanency Outcomes Within and After Two Years
Within two years of entering care, 24,869 youth achieved permanency. Among those, the majority (61.5%) were reunified, followed by permanency to guardianship (21.5%) and to adoption (17.0%). The researchers found differences in permanency type by child age at time of entry into care. Specifically, children who were adopted were significantly younger when entering care than those who achieved permanency via reunification or guardianship. Children who achieved guardianship were significantly older at entry into foster care than reunified children.
After two years of entering care, 5,179 youth achieved permanency. Among those, the majority were adopted (68.2%), followed by reunification (18.3%) and guardianship (13.5%). The researchers found differences in permanency type by child age at time of entry into care. Again, children who were adopted were significantly younger when entering care than those who achieved permanency via reunification or guardianship. Children who achieved guardianship were significantly older at entry into foster care than reunified children.
The researchers also examined permanency outcomes specific to children whose parents’ rights were terminated (n = 13,961). Researchers conducted separate analyses for youth with both parents’ rights terminated (92.8%) and one parent with termination (7.2%).
Among youth who experienced both parents’ termination of parental rights, the mean time to TPR was approximately 15.2 months. Nearly 91 percent of youth with both parents with TPR achieved permanency through adoption followed by reunification (6.9%) and guardianship (2.2%). Regarding age at time of TPR, children who were adopted were significantly younger at time of the TPR than those who achieved permanency via reunification or guardianship. Additionally, children who achieved guardianship were significantly older at time of TPR than reunified children. The average time to permanency for youth who experience both parent TPR is nearly 22 months. Notably, time to permanency was longer for reunification, which is logical given that there would be a potentially lengthy legal process toward reinstatement of rights.8 There was no difference between time to permanency between guardianship and adoption. For both reunified and adopted children, there was a positive relationship between age and time to permanency, indicating that as age increases within those groups, so does time to permanency.
Among youth who experienced termination of rights of one parent, the mean time to TPR was approximately 12.9 months. Over two-thirds of youth achieved permanency through reunification (68.5%) followed by guardianship (18.3%) and adoption (13.2%). Regarding age at time of the TPR, children who were adopted were significantly younger at time of TPR than those who achieved permanency via reunification or guardianship. The average time to permanency for youth who experience one parent’s TPR is approximately 14.2 months. Among this group, time to permanency was significantly shorter for children who achieved reunification, compared to adoption and guardianship. Though again, there was no difference between time to permanency between guardianship and adoption. There was no significant correlation between a child’s age at TPR and time to achieve permanency.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Based on the current findings, the Institute offers the following recommendations for consideration:
1. The legislature should continue its focus on the experiences and needs of older youth in care. 2. Researchers should examine longitudinal data, when available, to assess the impact of COVID-19 more accurately on permanency outcomes. 3. The DCF should incorporate quality assurance checks of permanency-related data. 4. The DCF should consider more nuanced collection of race and ethnicity data. 5. Future research should be conducted to understand the co-occurrence of multiple forms of maltreatment.
The researchers conducted additional exploratory analyses of relationships between permanency outcomes and initial reason for removal, initial placement type, recurrence of maltreatment, and re-entry into care. Preliminary findings of these supplementary analyses were included in the final report to the legislature on October 1, 2022. Currently, the researchers are applying more sophisticated analytic techniques that can provide a more comprehensive assessment of how permanency outcomes are associated with multiple factors (e.g., age at entry, TPR, placement type, removal reasons, re-entry into care, recurrence of maltreatment). Within this work, the researchers will refine the supplementary analyses and preliminary findings included in this report. A final supplemental report will be provided to legislative staff on or before January 15, 2023.
