1. Young People Leaving Care and After Care Judy Cashmore After Care Forum Sydney 11 June 2003

2. Outline Where have we come from? What do we know about young people leaving care? What do we know about the longer- term outcomes? Where do we go from here?

3. Where have we come from? No legislative provision for assistance after care (except discretionary training) in 1987 Act “After care as the poor cousin of service delivery – at best informal and unfunded component …” (Fredman & Green 1994) Results of continuing advocacy – ACWA Leaving Care Forum – AAYPIC now CREATE – Lessons from overseas esp UK, Canada and US – Timely independent research funded by DoCS

4. Where have we come from? Development of specialist services – $1.2 m funding announced in April 1996 – Allocated November 1996  ARC (Relationships Australia) incl abuse in care phone line  ALIVE (Centacare)  ACE (Burnside)  Murungbai ( Aboriginal state-wide) Additional funding and expansion of after care services to provide state-wide coverage

5. Where have we come from? Specific legislative provisions (ss 165-170) in Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 – Appropriate assistance based on need to age 25 years Information re resources and services Financial and other help re accommodation, setting up house, education and training, finding employment, legal advice and accessing health services – Requirement for leaving care plan in consultation with young person and family – Entitlement to personal information, documents First After Care Forum March 1998

6. LEAVING & AFTER CARE Research and evaluation 1. Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving care – Stein & Carey (1986) – Garnett (1992) – Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Laurence – Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report 2.Evaluating leaving care schemes – Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on. – Broad (1998). Young people leaving care.. After the Children Act 1989. – Barnados What works in leaving care. – US (WESTAT) and Canadian research and evaluation

7. On leaving care “Multiple jeopardies” – Experiences before coming into care – Lack of stability in care – Poor educational performance – Low school completion rates – Limited contact with family members – Lack of support through early transition to independence (Maluccio, Krieger & Pine, 1990)

8. After leaving care Increased risk of:  Homelessness and mobility  Unemployment  Poverty – financial stress  Limited social support networks  Drug and alcohol use/abuse  Early parenthood  Poor physical and mental health (UK and Australian studies since Stein & Carey, 1986)

9. AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH Cashmore & Paxman (1996) Wards Leaving Care: A longitudinal study. Sydney: DoCS. WARDS discharged over 12 month period: Interview group: n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged) Non-interview:n = 44 (10 not discharged) Four interviews: (1) Before discharge with wards(2) 3 mths after (n = 47) (3) 12 mths after (n = 45) (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41) Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report.

10. FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTCOMES, TRANSITION Positive influence – Stable positive experience in care – Mentor or advocate – Extended support – Family contact in care or re-established after care – CARING RELATIONSHIPS (Maunders, Liddell, Liddell & Green, 1999)

11. FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTCOMES, TRANSITION Negative influence – Poor preparation and planning – Unstable accommodation at discharge – Unsuitable and unstable accommodation – Lack of support – financial and emotional – Unresolved anger to family members and workers

12. STABILITY Long-term placement for > 75 % time in care → fewer schools → more years of schooling → report better school progress → get on better with peers → fewer workers → more willing to ask for financial, emotional support esp from foster carers Cashmore & Paxman, 1996 WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY

13. Long-term placement for > 75 % time in care → 82 % say needs met cf 39 % not LT → 18 % say miss out on affection cf 70 % → 24 % attempt / think re suicide cf 50 % → happier after discharge → closer to ‘at home’ comparison group Child’s perception of security /stability more important than actual stability

14. Permanency ? Stability? Security? Stability (or continuity) is means to an end  sense of security and identity – > Capacity to form relationships – > Positive outcomes and adaptive adulthood Not just continuity/stability of placement – Contact with parents and quality of contact – Siblings and extended family – School and friendships – Known and trusted workers

20. What help did you need? Good stable affordable accommodation Education / employment 1/3 young women pregnant or parents Financial support Mental health issues Contact with family Advice

21. MANAGING FINANCIALLY MANAGING FINANCIALLY 65% usually able to make ends meet But number have to: ‘Go without’ or ‘cut back’ on: – Dentist:15 4 (46%) – Clothing 615 (51%) – Telephone 316 (46%) – Food 10 (24%)

22. SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT Primary sources of help – Own family17(incl sibs, extended) – Partners 8Partner’s family 6 – Foster family 5Friends 3 Asked about: – NGOs 19DoCS 10 – DSS 13Credit card 12 – Gambling 8 No-one to ask 12 Not willing to ask 3

23. Perceived SECURITY *Coded as positive, negative, medium: Was there anyone ever feel loved you? Anyone ever feel secure with? Feel as if listened to? Miss out on things other kids had? Miss out on affection? Grow up too fast – bad thing? * Based on 12 months post data

24. SOCIAL SUPPORT Continuing contact with foster family Positive relationship with at least some family members (parents, sibs, extended) Friends to rely on Other social network (church, community)

28. CONTACT WITH FAMILY 4 - 5 years out of care 93% have some contact with family – 48% in contact with parent/s at least monthly – 63% in contact with some siblings – 29% with grandparents – 24% with aunts / uncles etc 56% have unresolved issues to sort out Quality of contact and support varied

29. Contact with family (+) The other exciting thing … I have contact with my mother now...Now I see her all the time but we don’t really know each other as mother and daughter and are having to start from day one. She feels guilt and shame because she never believed me – but as I say to her, I don’t hold any bitterness because I can’t afford to.

30. Contact with family (-) I might see her (mother) five times in 3 months and then I won’t see her for 6 months. I got back in contact last year after not seeing her for about 6 years. She rang me up; she was in a refuge with no money and her boyfriend had beaten her up. I haven’t had anything to do with her for 12 years and until she grows up, I’m not prepared to.

31. Contact with foster carers after care 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support varied – 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo – 2 in ST stable care – 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers) – 2 in ST unstable care 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact

32. SENSE OF SECURITY with foster family after care SENSE OF SECURITY with foster family after care Continuing contact with foster carers Can manage contact with birth family Feel they can ask for support – Emotional and financial – See as place can call home – celebrations, use as secure base etc – Would ask for support eg pregnancy etc

33. Contact with foster carers No, I’m happy with the way things are. We just live around the corner from them and I’m treated as part of the family – birthday and Christmas presents like all the other kids and if I’m not there for something, I’m missed. We’ve always been in close contact, they are family. I’d like them to make more effort so it wasn’t up to me to initiate it all the time. I get the feeling that now that we have moved out that we’ve gone back to being foster children.

34. Better off in care? or left with your family? 12 months after discharge from wardship: 78 % better off in care but some ambivalent / wish other options or treated with more care 18 % wished left in their own homes or not sure 4 - 5 years after left care 46 % more positive – “ understand more now” 18 % more negative – “ they didn’t care” 36 % same or both +ve and -ve

35. DOMAINS OF RESILIENCE * Employment* (ever employed?) * Living arrangements – mobility, homelessness* Education (completed high school?)* Drug and alcohol (ab)use * Mental health – depression, suicide ideation * Criminal behaviour * Relationships – Contact, unresolved family issues – Partner, domestic violence – Social activity * * ( McGloin & Spatz Widom, 2001)

38. SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS Drug and alcohol (ab)use – 19.5% drugs (4 serious); 29% “drink too much” Domestic violence Turbulent relationships, few long-term Mental health – depression, suicide ideation Future planning ? Lack of supportive networks Unresolved family issues (60%)

39. CLUSTER OF DIFFICULTY n = 11 – All either unemployed or parents – Have to ‘cut back on’ or ‘go without’ number of necessities / services – Smaller subset have no savings, debts, and few, if anyone, to turn to – More likely to have been in unstable care Stable / Unstable: X 2 = 12.6, 2 df, p <.002

40. CLUSTER FARING WELL All employed or parents Usually make ends meet and doing better than others of same age Felt secure in care and more likely to have been in stable care Significant “mentor” or belong to community (eg church, armed forces) and/or ability to turn to others for help

41. AFTER LEAVING CARE Help Needed?  Finding and paying for appropriate accommodation  Establishing / setting up house  Assistance with fees and information about training and education  Finding and preparing for employment/interviews  Access to income support / financial assistance  Mentoring  Contacting family members  Access to health services– drug and alcohol, sexual and mental health  Access to records, documents

42. POLICY AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Stable and secure care – > Education and employability – > Caring relationships Case planning and review – rather than “luck of the draw” Family contact and stability “Family for life” where possible – > financial and emotional support beyond 18 Voice and choice Ongoing support through to “independence”

43. C OSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION Unemployment 46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS) Poor educational performance Early parenting – inter-generational effects Drug and alcohol use Crime? Loneliness/unhappiness /? well-being: $$$?

44. VISION FOR THE FUTURE Greater stability and security in care Every young person leaving care with plan and support Clarity re State and Commonwealth responsibility esp18 - 25 years Housing, training and establishment support Involvement of young people and choice of different forms and models of support Proper evaluation of services – Accessibility and equity – Appropriateness and effectiveness