1. A follow up on a cohort of maltreated children treated in the community and in out-of-home placements: Background and outcomes Edna Shimoni – Central Bureau of Statistics Rami Benbenishty – Bar Ilan University and Haruv Institute

2. Child Welfare Services The child welfare system consists of multiple types of services designed to protect children and promote their welfare There are major dimensions that distinguish between these services:  Community vs. Out-of-home  Voluntary vs. Involuntary  Welfare vs. Juvenile Delinquency  Welfare vs. Education (in Israel)

3. Community vs. Out-of-home care Community services are intended to support children and families in the community. They are intended to preserve the family, while protecting the child and promoting his/her well being. The current treatment ideology in Israel is to provide services in the community and refrain from taking children out of homes, unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the child. Out of Home Services are designed for children who need to leave their home for a short or long period, for reasons related to the child himself or his family, which endanger him, or do not allow a proper environment.

4. Welfare vs. Correction system Often juvenile delinquents are considered a separate population and not part of the child welfare system. In Israel this group is considered not only perpetrators but also victims of maltreatment. Therefore children in juvenile correctional facilities are included in this study.

5. Welfare Residential Care vs. Educational Residential Care (Youth villages) Israel has a long standing system of educational residential facilities (Youth Villages) Voluntary Most residents are from the geographical and social periphery; sometimes considered similar to the welfare population

6. Methodological Issues Research Limitations Current studies are hampered by small and biased samples. Administrative data use. Linking databases problems – no unique id number. Cannot control background variables underlying different treatments Limited to information contained in administrative data bases.

7. Study objectives To assess the cumulative probability to receive child welfare services in the community and in out-of- home placements To describe the background and risk factors of children who were treated in the community and in out-of-home placements To examine the outcomes of children in different types of placements.

8. What are not the study objectives The study does not intend and cannot assess the quality of care provided to children in different types of placement. The study does not intend and cannot compare the quality of care provided to children in different types of placement.

9. Methods The study is based on an integration of multiple administrative databases containing information on a whole cohort of children born in 1989. The databases contained information on demographic characteristics of children and their parents, educational participation and achievement, child and parent criminal involvement, abortion and teen age parenthood, income and socio economic status of residence.

10. Methods Study variables based on administrative data: Students (in primary and secondary education); Matriculations exams and standardized testing Dropped out of school Juvenile probation officers Criminal records and convictions Live births Abortions Classification of local authorities by the socio-economic level of the population School attendance officers Youth workers registry Parental income

11. Target population: cohort of children born in 1989 (19 years old in 2008) % Absolute numbersGroup 100125,982 Whole cohort 11.514,527 Study group 0.7932 Children with disabilities 9.411,882 Total out-of home placements 3.94,915 Youth villages 0.2247 Foster care 0.4558 Juvenile Delinquency 11,292 Residential care 3.84,772 Religious boarding schools ('Yeshiva's) 0.198 Other out of home 1.41,713 Community interventions 88.5111,456 Rest of the cohort

12. Study Groups by Gender GirlsBoysTotal Subgroup 45,51147,70293,213 Whole cohort 48.8%51.2%100.0% 3,1644,7587,922 Study group 39.9%60.1%100.0% 2,7074,0646,771 Total out-of home placements 40.0%60.0%100.0% 1,9482,8954,843 Youth villages 40.2%59.8%100.0% 12395218 Foster care 56.4%43.6%100.0% 167296463 Juvenile Delinquency 36.1%63.9%100.0% 4367471,183 Residential care 36.9%63.1%100.0% 4576941,151 Community interventions 39.7%60.3%100.0%

13. Marital status of parents

14. Father’s education – years of schooling

15. Parents criminal convictions, 1999-2008

16. Matriculation Exams

17. Criminal records of children

18. Births and abortions

19. There were major background differences between children in out-of-home placements and other children in the cohort. Children in Youth villages have different background and have reached better educational outcomes than children in Welfare placements. The educational outcomes of children in out-of- home placements are especially troublesome. There is a clear need to address the educational outcomes of youth in care. Conclusions and Implications

20. The outcomes for youth in juvenile delinquency placements are much worse than the rest of youth in out-of-home care. There is a clear need for re- assessment of practices in this area. Out-of-home care does not close the gap between children in welfare and the rest of their cohorts. It is therefore important to continue to address the needs of this group of maltreated children. E.g. – Services for transitioning out-of-care. Finally, this study has limitations that should be addressed in future research.

21. Thank you תודה & Shalom שלום Edna Shimoniednas@cbs.gov.il Rami Benbenishtyramibenben@gmail.com