IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i11p1405-d119340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Placement Stability, Cumulative Time in Care, and Permanency: Using Administrative Data from CPS to Track Placement Trajectories

Author

Listed:
  • Sonia Hélie

    (Research Institute for Youth in Difficulty, University Health and Social Services Center-South Central Montreal, 1001, boulevard de Maisonneuve Est, Montreal, QC H2L 4R5, Canada)

  • Marie-Andrée Poirier

    (School of Social Work, University of Montreal, 3150, Jean-Brillant, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada)

  • Tonino Esposito

    (Canada Research Chair in Social Services for Vulnerable Children, School of Social Work, University of Montreal, 3150, Jean-Brillant, Montreal, QC H3C 3J7, Canada)

  • Daniel Turcotte

    (School of Social Work, Laval University, 1030, avenue des Sciences Humaines, Quebec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada)

Abstract

Objectives : The Quebec Youth Protection Act was amended in 2007. The main goal of this reform was to improve placement stability for children who are removed from their home for their protection. Among several legal provisions introduced was the establishment of maximum age-specific durations of out-of-home care, after which a plan must be established to provide stability for children placed in substitute care by finding permanent homes for them. The purpose of this study is (1) to examine trends in placement use and placement stability since the reform and (2) to document the current frequency of each type of placement setting, the cumulative time in care before the exit to permanency, and the sustainability of the permanency outcome. Methods: The study relies on 3 entry cohorts of all children investigated who received protection measures in the province of Quebec during 3 specific time frames before and after the reform ( n = 9620, 8676, 8425). Cohorts were observed for a period varying from 3 to 4 years. Administrative data from all 16 child protection agencies were used to track placement trajectory indicators and to compare cohorts. Results : There has been a decrease in the proportion of children receiving protection measures who were placed in care since the reform, and placement in kinship care has become more frequent among children placed. Placement stability improved slightly after the reform. Overall, for infants, the most frequent type of permanency attained is adoption, while reunification is the option most often indicated for older children. Some children are at a greater risk of experiencing unstable placement trajectories: young children have a high rate of reunification breakdown, some wait a long time to be adopted, and adolescents are frequently removed from the substitute care setting where they were supposed to stay until the age of 18. Conclusions : The results suggest interesting avenues for policy makers and service providers to improve the stability of placement trajectories. Advantages and disadvantages of administrative data are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Sonia Hélie & Marie-Andrée Poirier & Tonino Esposito & Daniel Turcotte, 2017. "Placement Stability, Cumulative Time in Care, and Permanency: Using Administrative Data from CPS to Track Placement Trajectories," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1405-:d:119340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1405/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/11/1405/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cuddeback, Gary S., 2004. "Kinship family foster care: a methodological and substantive synthesis of research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(7), pages 623-639, July.
    2. Akin, Becci A., 2011. "Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 999-1011, June.
    3. Koh, Eun, 2010. "Permanency outcomes of children in kinship and non-kinship foster care: Testing the external validity of kinship effects," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 389-398, March.
    4. Ward, Harriet, 2009. "Patterns of instability: Moves within the care system, their reasons, contexts and consequences," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(10), pages 1113-1118, October.
    5. James, Sigrid & Landsverk, John & Slymen, Donald J., 2004. "Placement movement in out-of-home care: patterns and predictors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 185-206, February.
    6. Jones, Loring, 1998. "The social and family correlates of successful reunification of children in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 305-323, May.
    7. Wulczyn, Fred & Chen, Lijun & Courtney, Mark, 2011. "Family reunification in a social structural context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 424-430, March.
    8. Yampolskaya, Svetlana & Armstrong, Mary I. & Vargo, Amy C., 2007. "Factors associated with exiting and reentry into out-of-home care under Community-Based Care in Florida," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1352-1367, October.
    9. Courtney, Mark E. & Needell, Barbara & Wulczyn, Fred, 2004. "Unintended consequences of the push for accountability: the case of national child welfare performance standards," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 1141-1154, December.
    10. Courtney, Mark E. & Hook, Jennifer L., 2012. "Evaluation of the impact of enhanced parental legal representation on the timing of permanency outcomes for children in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1337-1343.
    11. Shaw, Terry V., 2006. "Reentry into the foster care system after reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1375-1390, November.
    12. Ferguson, H. Bruce & Wolkow, Katherine, 2012. "Educating children and youth in care: A review of barriers to school progress and strategies for change," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1143-1149.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brown, Delphine, 2023. "Childhood experiences, growing up “in care,” and trust: A quantitative analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Lecompte, Vanessa & Pascuzzo, Katherine & Hélie, Sonia, 2023. "A look inside family reunification for children with attachment difficulties: An exploratory study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ubbesen, Mads Bonde & Petersen, Liselotte & Mortensen, Preben Bo & Kristensen, Ole Steen, 2012. "Out of care and into care again: A Danish register‐based study of children placed in out-of‐home care before their third birthday," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2147-2155.
    2. Yampolskaya, Svetlana & Callejas, Linda M., 2020. "The effect of child mental health service use on child safety and permanency in substance misusing families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    3. Foster, E. Michael & Hillemeier, Marianne M. & Bai, Yu, 2011. "Explaining the disparity in placement instability among African-American and white children in child welfare: A Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 118-125, January.
    4. Semanchin Jones, Annette & Kim, JaeRan & Hill, Katharine & Diebold, Josal, 2018. "Voluntary placements in child welfare: A comparative analysis of state statutes," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 387-394.
    5. Waid, Jeffrey & Kothari, Brianne H. & Bank, Lew & McBeath, Bowen, 2016. "Foster care placement change: The role of family dynamics and household composition," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 44-50.
    6. Goemans, Anouk & Vanderfaeillie, Johan & Damen, Harm & Pijnenburg, Huub & Van Holen, Frank, 2016. "Reunification of foster children: Factors associated with reunification outcomes in Flanders and the Netherlands," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 284-292.
    7. Davidson, Ryan D. & Tomlinson, Claire S. & Beck, Connie J. & Bowen, Anne M., 2019. "The revolving door of families in the child welfare system: Risk and protective factors associated with families returning," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 468-479.
    8. Shipe, Stacey L. & Shaw, Terry V. & Betsinger, Sara & Farrell, Jill L., 2017. "Expanding the conceptualization of re-entry: The inter-play between child welfare and juvenile services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 256-262.
    9. Longhofer, Jeffrey & Floersch, Jerry & Okpych, Nate, 2011. "Foster youth and psychotropic treatment: Where next?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 395-404, February.
    10. Fernandez, Elizabeth & Delfabbro, Paul & Ramia, Ioana & Kovacs, Szilvia, 2019. "Children returning from care: The challenging circumstances of parents in poverty," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 100-111.
    11. Kang, Hyunah & Chung, Ick-Joong & Chun, JongSerl & Nho, Choong Rai & Woo, Seokjin, 2014. "The outcomes of foster care in South Korea ten years after its foundation: A comparison with institutional care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 135-143.
    12. van Santen, Eric, 2010. "Predictors of exit type and length of stay in non-kinship family foster care -- The German experience," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1211-1222, October.
    13. Hébert, Sophie T. & Esposito, Tonino & Hélie, Sonia, 2018. "How short-term placements affect placement trajectories: A propensity-weighted analysis of re-entry into care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 117-124.
    14. Elizabeth Fernandez, 2014. "Child Protection and Vulnerable Families: Trends and Issues in the Australian Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, October.
    15. Koh, Eun & Testa, Mark F., 2011. "Children discharged from kin and non-kin foster homes: Do the risks of foster care re-entry differ?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1497-1505, September.
    16. Lin, Ching-Hsuan, 2014. "Evaluating Services for Kinship Care Families: A Systematic Review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 32-41.
    17. Olsen, Rikke Fuglsang & de Montgomery, Christopher J., 2018. "Revisiting out-of-home placed children's poor educational outcomes—Is school change part of the explanation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 103-113.
    18. Lovett, Nicholas & Xue, Yuhan, 2020. "Family first or the kindness of strangers? Foster care placements and adult outcomes," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    19. Day, Angelique & Willis, Tamarie & Vanderwill, Lori & Resko, Stella & Patterson, Debra & Henneman, Kris & Cohick, Sue, 2018. "Key factors and characteristics of successful resource parents who care for older youth: A systematic review of research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 152-158.
    20. Font, Sarah A. & Sattler, Kierra M.P. & Gershoff, Elizabeth T., 2018. "Measurement and correlates of foster care placement moves," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 248-258.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:11:p:1405-:d:119340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.