1. Economic & Social Policy Research Conference: Judy Cashmore November 2005 Towards Better Outcomes for Young People Leaving State Care

2. KEY QUESTIONS What are the longer-term outcomes? What predicts better outcomes and not-so- good outcomes? What are the costs and benefits of meeting the needs of young people leaving care? Implications for policy and practice

3. Consistent Picture of Vulnerability  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 Consistent findings since Stein & Carey’s Leeds study, 1986)

4. WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY Cashmore & Paxman, 1996, 2005 WARDS discharged over 12 mth period: Interview group: n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged)Interview group: n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged) Non-interview:n = 44 (10 not discharged)Non-interview:n = 44 (10 not discharged) Four interviews: (1) Before discharge Four interviews: (1) Before discharge (2) 3 mths after (n = 47) (2) 3 mths after (n = 47) (3) 12 mths after (n = 45) (3) 12 mths after (n = 45) (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41) (4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41) Funded by NSW Dept of Community Services

5. WHAT OUTCOMES? Education  Employment Adequate income and capacity to manage financially Physical and psychological health & well-being Positive relationships (Capacity for trust, reciprocity) – with peers, partners, and as parents - perceived security and life satisfaction, meaning

6. AFTER CARE OUTCOMES 50% mostly work/study in 4-5 years after care Av no of moves after care: 8.5 (range 0 – 20+) 39% spent some time living with family member 50% in transitional /temporary housing eg caravan, garage, refuges cf 0.6% age-mates 42% completed Yr 12 4 young people at university, 16 some TAFE study

8. AFTER CARE OUTCOMES 1 in 4 reported mental health diagnosis, serious drug problem >1 in 3 reported self-harm / suicide attempt * 1 in 3 said no-one they can call on for support 57% young women had children cf 6% gen pop > 40% married, engaged, or de facto relationships Violence: 5 / 28 young women had needed AVOs

9. PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES Employment* (ever employed?) * Living arrangements Mobility Never homeless after leaving care* Education (completed high school?)* further education No problems with drugs / alcohol * Mental health – suicidality / depression * No criminal behaviour – self-reported* Relationships Contact, unresolved family issues Partner, domestic violence * (Domains of Resilience McGloin & Spatz Widom, 2001)

10. PREDICTING POSITIVE OUTCOMES: PREDICTORS IN CARE FACTORS Stability – No of placements, % time in care in one placement ‘Felt’ security Delay in entering ward-ship Experience of being ‘rejected’ No of problems in care LEAVING CARE Education (completed high school?)* further education Continuing support AFTER CARE Social support Stable accommodation

11. SENSE OF SECURITY Was there anyone ever feel loved you?Was there anyone ever feel loved you? Anyone ever feel secure with?Anyone ever feel secure with? Feel as if listened to?Feel as if listened to? Miss out on things other kids had?Miss out on things other kids had? Miss out on affection?Miss out on affection? Grow up too fast – bad thing?Grow up too fast – bad thing? Coded as positive, negative, medium

14. Figure 7.3 Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security Mean 'resilience' scores by source of 'felt' security

16. Number of placements by ‘felt’ security

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

18. CONTACT WITH FAMILY 4 - 5 years after 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

19. CONTACT WITH FOSTER CARERS AFTER CARE 60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support varied60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support varied 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo 2 in ST stable care 2 in ST stable care 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers) 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers) 2 in ST unstable care 2 in ST unstable care 9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact

20. PREDICTING ‘RESILIENCE’ / POSITIVE OUTCOMES * Perceived emotional security in care Completing high school before leaving care Social support after care Positive family contact and/or Positive foster family support Church, community affiliation Total number of moves after leaving care Stability in care: Not add to model ‘after’ security Model accounts for 70%+ of variance ** Cashmore & Paxman 2005

21. KARINA: Doing well Foster family for 16 years - her ‘real family’. Changed schools and living arrangements for Year 12 Support from woman lived with in Year 12 and church community to raise the deposit for her uni fees. At W3, very happy - enrolled full-time study living on campus, working part-time in college café At W4, moved to Sydney, happy in relationship, study renting with another student supported by church community, studying youth work.

22. BEN: High risk throughout Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, unemployed, no stable networkDrugs, crime, attempted suicide, not complete Year 9, unemployed, no stable network Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’Placed with aunt at 3 – assessed as ‘difficult’ Broke down at 12 - behaviour problemsBroke down at 12 - behaviour problems Series of temporary respite, restoration attemptsSeries of temporary respite, restoration attempts Wardship - residential care, offending, detentionWardship - residential care, offending, detention Very hurt by parents’ rejectionVery hurt by parents’ rejection Very mobile, in refuges, casual employmentVery mobile, in refuges, casual employment Relationship difficulties – no supportive networkRelationship difficulties – no supportive network

23. ADAM: ‘Recovery’ Ward at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges, foster grandfatherWard at 9: In foster care, group homes, refuges, foster grandfather Isolated from familyIsolated from family Drugs, crime, attempted suicide, only completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered childDrugs, crime, attempted suicide, only completed Year 9, unemployed, fathered child No stable networkNo stable network until 3 rd interview Very mobile, casual employmentVery mobile, casual employment after W3 Married mother of child, part of religious fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.Married mother of child, part of religious fellowship at 4-5 years ex-care.

24. LT COSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISION UnemploymentUnemployment 46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS) 46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS) Poor educational performancePoor educational performance Early parenting –Early parenting – inter-generational effects Drug and alcohol use - “ “Drug and alcohol use - “ “ Crime? - “ “Crime? - “ “ Loneliness/ well-being : $$$?Loneliness/ well-being : $$$? Forthcoming CWAV / Monash studyForthcoming CWAV / Monash study

25. Policy and practice implications : RELATIONSHIPS Caring – ‘felt’ security Focus on early stages eg first/second placements Supporting family contact and stability “Family for life” where possible – financial and emotional support beyond 18 Importance of school links / continuity / Continuity with agency workers

26. Policy and practice implications : IN CARE STABILITY – minimising placement changes BUT some moves are positive Focus on early stages eg first/second placements/restoration Behaviour problems ‘Felt’ security – views of child Tricky balance between normalising life with foster family life and appropriate monitoring Supporting appropriate family contact

27. Policy and practice implications: REVIEWS Case planning and review rather than “luck of the draw” Proper file management -- summaries, organisation, transfer Educational decision making eg judges in US http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf /judicialeducationchecklist.pdfhttp://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/ppcd/pdf /judicialeducationchecklist.pdf Voice and choice – in practice, real options??

28. Policy and practice implications : LEAVING CARE Preparation and timing Relative to schooling / education and young parenting Balance between preparation and destabilisation “Family for life” where possible – financial and emotional support beyond 18 Supporting family contact Continuity with agency workers ?

29. Policy and practice implications : AFTER CARE Accommodation, housing, accommodation Continuing social support, mentoring Their choice? Assistance with further education

30. Policy and practice implications: RESEARCH Reliable data re entry into care and time in care Longitudinal vs cross-sectional Implications for load on system Cost effectiveness data? Longer-term outcomes for children and young people and families Proper evaluation of after-care services Positive feedback loops re research agenda

31. LEAVING & AFTER CARE Research and evaluation Evaluating leaving care schemes Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on.Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on. Broad (1998). Young people leaving care.. After the Children Act 1989Broad (1998). Young people leaving care.. After the Children Act 1989 Range of US and Canadian research and evaluationRange of US and Canadian research and evaluation eg Casey : Pecora et al (2003)eg Casey : Pecora et al (2003)

32. LEAVING & AFTER CARE Research and evaluation Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving care Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK)Stein & Carey, 1986 (UK) Garnett 1992 (UK)Garnett 1992 (UK) Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Laurence (Vic)Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Laurence (Vic) Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS ReportMaunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US)Courtney et al. (2003/4/5) Chapin Hall, Chicago (US) Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National Alumni Study (US)Pecora et al.(2003) Early results from the Casey National Alumni Study (US)