- Email: [email protected]
Permanent Placements for Young Children Placed in Foster Care: A Proposal for a Child Welfare Services Performance Standard
Pergamon
Children andYouth Servic.cs Review, Vol.19,No.8,pp.615A31,1997 Copyright@ 1997Eis.wier Scicncc M Printed inh USA.AUri@sreservcd 01$07409/97 $17.03 + .m
PII S0190-7409(97)00058-3
PermanentPlacementsfor Young Children Placed in Foster Care: A Proposal for a Child Welfare ServicesPerformanceStandard RichardP. Barth Universityof Californiaat Berkeley Performance indicators for child welfare services for young children entering foster care should be established to help agencies determine the sufficiency of their efforts to provide permanency. Child welfare services need a technically feasible, conceptually sound, and achievable performance standard. Use of a 100% permanency standard, not including long-term foster care or non-kinship guardianship, within four calendar years of placement is forwarded. Data on the permanency planning performance of a state and four counties within it are presented to sharpen the discussion.
Morethanhalf of all childrenenteringfostercare are youngerthan six at firstplacement(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden,1994).Thisproportionhasbeen relativelystable,albeitincreasingslowly,since1983.The sizeof futurefoster care caseloadsdepends,in great part, on the expeditiousresolutionof their impermanence.At leastas important,children’sdevelopmentaloutcomeswill be profoundlyshapedby the successof serviceprovidersin rehabilitatingor creatingpermanentand safe familiesfor them.If currentconditionsremain, we can expectthatmanyof thesechildrenwillremainin fosteror groupcare untilageeighteen. Childwelfareservicescan benefitfroma minimumperformancestandard to increasepermartentplacementsof youngchildrenoutsidethe childwelfare services system. The reasons for this goal are developmentaland fiscal. Developmentally,the age of a child at the time of placementis related to The author thanks Barbara Needell for her contributionsto this article. Fundingfor this researchwasprovidedby the Davidand LucillePackardFoundation,the CaliforniaDepartmentof SocialServices,andthe Children’sBureauandthe Officeof PlanningandEvaluation of A.C.F., U.S.D.H.H.S.whichestablishedthe BerkeleyChildWelfareResearchCenter. Requestsforreprintsshouldbe sentto RichardP. Barth,Schoolof SocialWelfare,Berkeley, CA94720-7400.[rbarth@uclink2 .berkeley.edu] 615
616
Barth
subsequentplacementinstability-whether the childis reunified,remainsin fostercare,or is adopted(Barth,Berry,Carson,Goodfield,& Feinberg,1986; Courtney, 1995). Child developmentexperts from a range of theoretical perspectivesagree that multiple placementsare a developmentalhazard; childrenbenefitfromconsistentand uninterruptedparentingand sufferfrom the reverse(Piirto,1994;Werner, 1985).Childrenalso gain whentheyhave a consistentdedicatedadvocatewho knowsthe child well and is zealously committedto thechild’slong-termwell-being(Bronfenbrenner,1979).Finally, children’slongtermneedsfor familysupportareconsiderableas childrenoften benefit from parental assistance with shelter, educationalexpenses, and personalsupportwellinto adulthood. Fiscally,the savingsfrom resolvingfostercare impermanencewithinthe first few years can be substantial.Foster care becomesmore expensiveas yearspass and is too often followedby additionalplacementsin groupcare (Proch& Taber,1985).As yearsin carego by,the likelihoodof reunification wanes considerably,as does the chance of achievingan adoption(DuerrBerrick,Needell,Barth,Jonson-Reid,in press).Age at placementis the most powerfulpredictorof adoptionfor childrenwho are not reunified(Barth,in press).Giventhe youngages of childrenwho do get adopted,foregoingthe chancefor adoptionuntilchildrenare considerablyolder,toooftenresignsthe stateto payingthefullcostsof careto theageof majority.This,further,leaves a high likelihoodof continuedstate supportduring adulthoodvia welfare, homelessassistance,and otherpublicservices(Cook, 1991;Piliavin,et al., 1993). Thispaper proposes that child welfare service providers adopt a pe~ormance standardthat all young chikiren+ges Oto 6-entering foster care have a permanent placement withinfour calendaryearsfiom the hy they leave home. This mayat first seemlikea stepbackwardfromcurrentchildwelfare serviceslaw whichcallsfor a permanentplan within twojudiciaZ years. Yet
considerableevidenceindicatesthat this proposal,if adopted,and its goals achievedwouldleadto a substantialincreasein permanency.The logicof this proposalmust be clear if its widespreaduse can becomea reality.At minimum, sincechildrenin kinshipcarerepresenta largeproportionof allchildren in care, the wisdom of applyingthis standard to kinship and nonkinship placementsmust be addressed.The role of guardianshipmust also be addressed-specially now that PresidentClintonhas calledfor a doublingof guardianshipsfor childrenin fostercareby 2002and sinceseveralstateshave federal waivers to develop paid kinship guardianshipprograms. Finally,
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
617
challengesto assessingthe achievementof this standardand somecautions aboutmisapplyingthis standardwill be described. WhyDo We NeedA Standard?
The federalpermanencyplanningtimeframeis 18monthsunlessreunificationis expeetedby extendingreunificationan additionalsix months.One mightexpectthat almostall impermanencefor youngchildrenis resolvedby the end of four years.This is clearlynot the case in many large states.The mediandurationof firstplacementsintofostercarefor childrenages3-5years old at the timetheyenteredcarebetween1988and 1994was at 17monthsin Califomi%48 monthsin Illinois,12 monthsin Michigan,27 monthsin New York,and 7 monthsin Texas(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden,1995).Exceptin Illinois,mediansare higherfor infantsand toddlers.In thesestates,amongall children,at fouryearsafteradmissionto care,theproportionremainingin care was 2470in California,33~oin Illinois,107oin Michigan,3090in NewYork, and 1190in Texas.ThesedatasuggestthatCaliforniais a rathermid-spectrum stateto use to test this approachas the mediandurationsof first foster care placementsfor childrenfiveandyoungerin Californiaare lowerthanthoseof Illinoisand New York and higherthan thoseof Michiganand Texas. How long should young children wait to achievepermanency? At the dawningof permanencyplanning,four yearswas not seriouslydiscussedas an acceptabletime frame for achievingpermanency.Yet, we have come to understandthat adoptionoftentakesthat long.The mediantime from foster careplacementto adoptiveplacementin Californiais slightlymorethanthirtysix months for foster children (CaliforniaDepartmentof Social Services, 1994).Additionaltime-a minimumof six months-is requiredto complete legalization.We also now know that reunification continueto occur at a substantialrate for youngchildrenin kinshipcare and nonkinshipcare after two years(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden, 1995;Needell,Webster,Barth, & Arrnijo,1996). Reunificationis also a slow process as reunification increaseby about 13%betweentwo and six yearsof care. Nonetheless,reunificationdoes not last forever,as only 1.9%of all childrenwho enteredcare in 1988or 1989 were reunifiedafter four years in care. Overall,among childrenwho enter foster care youngerthan six and are still there after two years, about ten childrenare adoptedfor everyten childrenwho are reunified.
618
Barth
The top of Table 1 showsthe proportionof youngchildrenwho entered kinshipand nonkinshipfostercare in Californiabetween1988and 1990and who had not achievedpermanentoutcomesat two, four, and six yearsafter firstplacement.Amongyoungchildrenplacedwith kin, about25% are still in caresix yearslater,for childrenplacedin nonkinshipcare,about1970.For youngchildrenin kinshipcare,the greatestincreasein permanentplacements across time is in reunification (which also include exits to relatives and relativeguardianships)whichgrewfrom43Y0at twoyearsto 56%at sixyears. For childrenin nonkinshipcare, continuedgrowth in adoptionis the most significantcontributorto permanencyfor children entering as infants or toddlersas adoptionsincreasedfrom 5% at two yearsto 22% at six years. WithinCalifornia,themis greatvariationin countypracticesregardingthe achievementof permanency.In one county,San Mateo,only 4$%0 of infants placedin fostercarewithnonkin,and 9% placedwithkin remainedin care at six years(seeTable1).SanDiegoCountywasnotfar behind.Severalof these countiesare the size of small states (e. g., Alameda,San Diego and Santa Clamhavecombinedchildpopulationsof momthan 1.5millionchildren),and it is conceivablethat even morevariationexistsbetweenstatesbecausethey do not even share the same state statutes.After subtractingout nonkinship guardianships,permanencyis achievedin fouryearsfor 89%of childrenwho enternonkinshipfostercare in San Mateo,8570in San Diego,7590in Santa Clara,and 6890in Alameda.Amongchildrenenteringkinshipcare, permanency is achievedby four yearsfor 86Y0in San Diego,85% in SantaClara, 75%in SanMateoand 61%in Alameda.Thus,somecountieshavecomparativelybetter permanencyfor childrenin kinshipcare than nonkinshipcare. Thereare alsoconsiderablydifferentpatternsof achievingpermanency,with, for example,San MateoCountyhavinga substantiallyhigherproportionof kinshipadoptionsthan San Diego(20%vs. 14%),SanDiegohavingsubstantially more reunification for children in nonkinshipcare than San Mateo (62% vs. 44%). Alameda and Santa Clara had about five times as many kinshipguardianshipsas adoptions,whereasSan Diegoand San Mateohad morekinshipguardianshipsthan adoptions.Nearlyas muchvariabilityexists for nonkinsipcare,althoughguardianshipsare ratherrare in all counties.All in all, the evidencesuggeststhat the proposedstandardis attainablevia a rangeof localstrategieseven if it is not now beingmet in the aggregate.
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
619
Table 1 State and County Outcomea in Kin and Non-Kin care et 2,4 end 6 Yeara After Placement by Aga at Entry (%)
GA!JQmM Outcome At 2 vear~ Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care At 4 vears Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care At 6 vear~ Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care
Oyrs 5400)’
KIN 1-2 yrs 3-5 yre Total (3746) (4278) (13426)
Oyrs 7774)
NON-KIN 1-2 yrs 3-5 yrs Total (4044) (4509) (16327)
0
1
50
4 47 47
5 43 51
8 1 38 51
2 1 55 40
1 1 58 40
5 1 47 45
7 10 47 34
4 8 54 32
3 7 57 32
5 9 52 32
26 1 41 28
10 2 60 26
6 1 63 26
17 1 52 27
11 11 50 26
6 10 57 25
4 8 61 25
7 10 56 25
34 1 42 18
15 2 81 16
9 1 65 22
22 2 53 19
1 5 38 55
1 4 44
*Numbers in parentheses= n forgroup.
Applying the Standard to Kin
In previousargumentsthe authorand colleagueshavedocumentedthe differencesbetween kin and nonkin placementsand made the case that the outcomesof theseplacementsshouldbe analyzeddifferentlybecauseof the moreambiguousmeaningof long-termfostercarefor childrenwith relatives (Barth,in press;Courtney&Needell,in press).Yetlongtermfostercareis not an appropriateoutcomefor youngchildrenregardlessof the relativestatusof the fostercare provider.Someadvantagesof avoidinglong-termfostercare are identicalfor childrenlivingwith kin and nonkin.Thesebenefitsinclude freedomto manageyourown familyaffairswithoutcourtoversight,the right to relocateyour family, and legal rights to inheritance.These can only be attainedvia adoptionor, possibly,a modifiedform of guardianship.Kinship guardianship,althoughnot as legallybeneficialfor childrenas adoption,does havethe virtuethat it maintainsa child’slegaland personalconnectionto a familywho can be availableacrossthe lifetime.
Table2 Classi&ationof Permanence Permanence
Impermanence
Reunification: Returnto Homeof Parent and No Return
Remainsin Care or Returns to Care
Exit to Relatives RelativeGuardianship Adoption
NonrelativeGuardianship
Althoughstudieson the outcomesof guardianshipare noticeablyscarce, childrenwho grow up in kinship guardianshipseem very likely to have a familysafetynet to tumblein to duringtheiryoungadultyears.Thereis good reasonto thinkthat kinshipguardianshipswouldbe at leastas stableas kinship foster care which does in fact, have far fewer placementmoves than conventionalfostercare. By the end of six yearsin kinshipfostercare, 18% of young children had been placed in four or more foster homes; among childrenin nonkinshipfostercare,thisfigurewas42%(Berrick,et al., 1997)! WhichGuardianships Count?
For childrenlivingin nonrelativefostercare,guardianshipis not a permanent placementbecause it does not provide the benefits of adoptionor a legallyrecognizedfamilyfor childrenafter age 18. Table2 classifiesliving arrangementsaccordingto these standardsof permanence.Classificationof theseoutcomesas permanentand impermanentdoesnot,of course,meanthat each of these placementswill be permanentor impermanent.The data are relativelyclearthatreunificationto the homeof the parentis a quiteunstable placementfor youngchildren--resultingin reentryintofostercareaboutonein-five times overall and a higher rate for infants who are returned home (Barth,1995).Usinga fouryearwindowfor computingpermanencyis likely to providegoodestimatesbeeausemostchildrenwho go homedo so by two yearsand, althoughthe data are less definitive,mostchildrenwho return to
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
621
care are likelyto do so withinthe first two years after goinghome (unpublished data availablefrom the author). Reunificationwith the biological family,adoption,relativeguardianship,andplacementwithrelativesuponexit fromfostercare all meetthishighertest and are includedin our permanency planningstandard.Long-termfostercareandnonrelativeguardianshiparenot permanentbecausetheydo have an unacceptablysmallchanceof providing a lifetimefamilyto a child. Thisarticlebroadensthepermanencydefinitionfor childrenin kinshipcare withoutsuggestingthat adoptionby kin is unfeasibleor undesirable.Testa (1997)has shownthatas manyas onein threekin willadoptif encouragedto do so. Californiadata indicatesthat adoptionsby kin comprise24% of all adoptions(Barth,Brooks,& Iyer, 1995)and dependin greatmeasureon the ethnicityof kin andwhethertheyarereceivingthehigherIV-Efostercarerate or the lowerIVA rate (Berrick& Needell,in press). Caucasianchildrenin kinshipcare are half as likelyas Caucasianchildrenin nonkinshipcare to be adopted.Latinochildrenin kinshipcare are one-quarteras likelyas Latino childrenin nonkinshipcareto be adopted.AfricanAmericanchildrenare only one-sixteenthas likelyas AfricanAmericanchildrenin nonkinshipcareto be adopted(Barth,Courtney,Needell,& Jonson-Reid,1994).Somehaveargued that these differencesare culturally determined (Takas, 1993; Thornton, 1991),but theyare alsofinanciallydetermined.Kinshipfosterparentsreceiving theIV-Erateare one-halfas likelyto adoptas otherkin (Bernck,et al., in press). Regardlessof the originsof thesedifferences,kinshipprovidersreceptive to adoptionarecurrentlydiscouragedby childwelfareprogramsandpractices that:(1) fail to clarifythe expectationand valueof adoption;(2) are riddled withperversefiscalincentivesnot to adopt;and (3) providefewerservicesto familiesthat adopt than to those that do not. Basically,kin have the same responsibilityand expectationto provide a permanentnon-fostercare arrangementfor childrenas non-relativefosterparents,and adoptionis stillan importantoptionfor kin.Nonetheless,for childrenlivingwithkin whocannot go home,somepermanentarrangementsmayinvolveguardianshipandexiting fostercareto a relatives’care, ratherthan adoption. Althoughchildrenin kinshipfostercare shouldhaveone of thesepermanentnonfostercare planswithinfour years,availableevidencecallsfor cautionbeforeimmediatelyimplementingthe standardthatall childrenin kinship fostercare shouldexit withinfourcalendaryears.Currentpracticeand reimbursementschemes do not sufficientlysupport many children in kinship homes. This problemhas at least two contributorsthat would need to be
622
Barth
addressedbeforewe wouldfully advocatefor equalapplicationof this standard to childrenin kinshipfostercare. First, kinshipfosterparentsare often not ableto providemorethan a minimumlevelof careto childrenbecauseof their own financialtribulationsand this circumstancewould be worsened unlesskin couldcontinueto receivethe IV-EFosterCarerateuponexitfrom foster care to guardianshipor to a closed case. Second,kinshipfoster care placementsare often hurried and do not include an adequateassessment (CaliforniaDepartmentof SocialServices,1996).Thisis significantbecause oncechildrenareplacedwithkin,changingtheirplacementtypicallyrequires a courtorderof abuseor neglect.As such,someverymarginalkinshipplacementsdo occurand requiresubstantialsurveillanceand supporton thepart of social workers.Until these fiscal and practice issues are more adequately addressed,the notionthat all childrenin kinshipcare who are not adopted wouldbe exitedfrom child welfareservicesis not plausible. Underlying Principles and Developing Practices
What mechanismsmight assist agenciesin achievingthese goals? Certainly,the first to get agreementon the standardthat no young child who enters foster care still be in care four years later. This may require a prior agreementon at leastonefundamentalprinciple:Theexpeditiousdevelopment of a safe, legally permanent relationship outside of the child welfare system is the top priority of child welfare servicesfor young children. If a youngchildcannotbe returnedhomeor placedoutof fostercareto live
with a relative,thereis no substantialenoughreasonto preemptmovingthe childintoa permanentplacement.Thatis, no youngchildshouldbe relegated to a lifetimeof fostercarebecausethatchildhas developeda one,two,three, or fouryearrelationshipwith a fosterparentwho willnot adoptor otherwise committo permanency.As data on the impermanenceof long-termfoster placementsshow, these long-termfoster care placementsdo not last. The percentageof youngchildrenin long-termnonkinshipfostercare is 24% of childrenwho are in theirfirst or secondfosterplacementaftertwo years,but only 18% are there by six years (Needell,et al., 1996).A reviewerof this paperechoesthe questionsof manypractitionersupon readingthe assertion thatpermanencyshouldbe givensuch a high valuein childwelfaredecision making,asking,“Theauthordoesnot seemto takeintoaccountwhatwe know aboutpsychologicalparentingand attachmentand bonding,but seemsrather morecommittedto permanencyfor permanencysake...Why is permanency moreimportantthan the needsof children?”The answeris simplythat small
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
623
childrenwholivewithsomeonewhotheyarecloseto whentheyare small,but whohas a low likelihoodof beingtheirparentwhentheyare oldercannotbe viewed as meetingthe long-termneeds of the child. Children and parents developlong-termcommitmentsto eaehotherduringthepre-adolescentyears thathelp seethemthroughthosesometimeschallengingyearsand thatsecure their relationshipthroughyoungadulthood.A close relationshipbetweena youngchildand a fosterparentis goodfor the child,but oftendoesnot last. Thus,that temporalbenefitshouldnot be overestimatedand is no substitute for a permanent,life timefamily.Althoughsomepermanentfamiliesdo not meetthe lifetimedevelopmentaland safetyneedsof children,the converseis not alsotrue.Familiesthat are unwillingor unableto be permanentfamilies cannotmeetthe lifetimeneedsof children. Clearly,theseplacementsarenotmeetingtheneedsof children.Nor should a childbe denieda permanentplacementbecausethe childhas a good relationshipwith a biologicalparent who cannotcare for the child. Neither attachmenttheorynor any othershouldbe used to preempta safe, legallypermanentplacementfor a young child. Nor should children remain without permanencybecausesiblingscannotalsoexitfostercare.Openadoptionsand maintainingfosterparent,sibling,and child contactcan be accomplishedto maintainsiblingconnections.Thesecan offerpositivebenefitsto formerfoster children,but theydo not offer sufficientpromiseof lifetimelegalpermanent family.Emancipatingfromfostercarewithyoursiblingis betterthanemancipatingalone,yet it doesnot rivalthe supportof a lifetimefamily. Mechanismsfor Achieving Timely Permanence
There are effectivemechanismsto accomplishtimelypermanentplacementsincludingconcurrent planning for reunificationand adoptionso that arrangementsfor alternativepermanencywillbe in placeshouldreunification efforts fail. Concurrentplanning,mediationof parentalright terminations, diligent implementationof the MultiethnicPlacementAct, intensive and enduringfamilyreunificationservicesmayalsoleadto expeditioustransitions to adoption.Each of thesemechanismsis discussedbriefly. Concw-rentplanning. Planning for permanencein four yearsmustbegin earlyandis not goingto be an achievablegoalif nothinghas beendoneat the outsetof thecaseto developcontingencyplansfor reunificationand adoption for someyoungchildren.Sincemorethan one third of infantsin nonkinship fostercarewillhaveadoptionas theirpermanentplacement,eachoneof them shouldhavea concurrentplan of adoptionand reunification.Olderchildren
624
Barth
can also benefitfrom concurrentplanning(Katz, 1990).The adoptionplan shouldnot in any way preemptthe reunificationplan, but nor shoulddevelopmentof the adoptionplan waituntilthe reunificationplanhas failed.There are many concurrentplanningactivities(e.g. gettingcompleteinformation aboutthe fatherand relativesand identifyingpotentialadoptiveparents)that shouldoccurbeforeseriousreunificationeffortsend p~sumablyat the eighteen monthjudicialreview(Katz,Spoonemoore,& Robinson,1994). Amongthe countiesdescribedin this paper,San Mateohas the oldestand most establishedconcurrentplanningprocess in California--havingbegun whenSanMateocountywastryingoutideasthatwerelaterdevelopedintothe AdoptionAssistanceand Child Welfare Act (Ten Broeck & Barth, 1986). Concurrentplanningdoes not necessarilyresultin higheradoptionrates,but it doesseemto contributeto higherpermanencyrates.San DiegoCountyhad no concurrentplanningprogramat the time,yethad an adoptionratefor nonkinshipplacementsthat was nearlyidenticalto that of San Mateoby the end of fourand six years.Morewidespreaduse of concurrentplanningmighthelp reducethe 24~oof childrenremainingin care,althoughit seemsthatit is not indispensableto such an achievement. Adoption mediation. Adoptionmediationcan also facilitatepermanency and shouldbe tried by agenciesseekingto increasetheirrates of timelypermanency (Roberts & Gallagher, 1994). As demonstratedin Oregon, the CooperativeAdoptionMediationProject(CAMP)gainedthe cooperationof 31 out of 36 biologicalparentsand, in all 31 cases,avoidedcontestedterminationtrials.The averagetime from beginningmediationto being freed for adoptionwasjust 3.7 months,withthecostof mediationonly$3500whichis onesevenththecostof a contestedtrial.Althoughhardcomparisonfiguresare notavailablefor an equivalentset of familieswhodid nothavemediation,the figuresare promising. MultiethnicPlacement Act. Anotherarea of practicethat maymakea differencein achievingpermanencyfor youngchildreninvolvesimplementing the MultiethnicPlacementAct (MEPA).Of the childrennot in kinshipcare and not in a permanentplacementat four years,48Y0are AfricanAmerican. Givenotherresearchindicatingthe far lowerlikelihoodof adoptionfor African Americanchildren(Barth,in press;Mont, 1993;Kossoudj,in press)and the slowerpace of adoptionproceedings(Barth,Courtney,& Berry, 1994), thesechildrencouldbenefitfrom the greaterexpectationsand opportunities thatMEPAwillbringby outlawingthedelayanddenialof placementson the basisof race. Yet, the law is writtenwith enoughambiguitythat it could be implementedin a waythat fails to substantiallyfacilitatethe achievementof
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
625
permanentplacements.Meeting the proposed four-year standard without takingfull advantageof the interestof all familieswillingto adoptavailable fosterchildrenseemshighlyunlikelyin, at least,California. This is not meantto suggestthat childrenwho are in kinshipfoster care (whatevertheir race) shouldbe movedinto adoptivehomes(whatevertheir racial composition)rather than being raised in a more permanentform of kinshipguardianshipor permanence.When safe and developmentallysatisfactorykinshiphomesare availablefor youngchildren,theseshouldbecome permanent.The child welfare system cannot manage new burdens from movingchildrenin long-termkinshiphomeinto otheradoptivehomes.Nor wouldthismovementbe likelyto servethebest lifetimeinterestsof children. Intensiveand lasting reunificationservices. Intensivefamilyreunification serviceshaveshowninconsistentimpactso far on the reductionof placement staysor reentry,but this promisingarea seems in need of additionalwork (Rzepnicki,Schuerrnan,& Johnson,in press;Fraser,Walton,Lewis,Pecora, & Walton,1996).With the reentryrate exceedingone-in-fourreunification (Wulczyn,1991;Courtney,1995),the opportunityto achievemorereunification thatare lastingis unequivocallypresent.Regardlessof the availabilityof intensivefamilyreunificationservices,localor federalIV-Efundingcouldbe used for elongatedpost-reunificationservicesand might also significantly reducereentries. TechnicalIssues
Monitoringof this standardis technicallyfeasible,if imperfect.Agencies, advocates,and courtscan reviewall their youngchild cases to be sure they closewithinfour years. States shouldsoonbe able to use SACWIS-funded datasystemsthatcan answerbasicquestionsaboutthe proportionof children whoachievepermanencyat eachyearlymilestone.However,severalproblems stillremain.Nearly25%of childrenwholeavefostercareto reunificationwill returnto fostercare--mostof themwithinthefirsttwoyearsafterreunification (Wulczyn,1991;Courtney,1995).Datamustbe codedso thatthe reunificationratesareoffsetby reentryratesandthosereentriesarenottreatedlikenew entrancesinto care. Ideally,this couldbe donefor adoption,as well by subtracting out the children who experiencedisruptionsor dissolutionsand reentercare. Thispossibilityis diminishedby the fact thatchildrenwill oftenhavedifferentnamesand identifiersfollowingadoption.It requiresthe abilityto link the foster care and adoptionrecordsdespitethe great likelihoodof a name
626
Barth
changeuponadoption.Thereare varioustechnicalsolutionsto this problem (includinga masterindex of namesand identifiers),but unlessresolved,the permanencyestimatesusing the four-yearstandardwill be higher than the actuallevelof permanencyachieved. Conclusions The purposeof thispaperis to gainagreementto usingour proposedperformancestandardacrosschild welfareagencies.There are methodological strengthsand weaknessesto usinga lengthof timeto determinethe achievementof permanence,but on balance,use of this time standardwouldbe far betterthanwhatwe havenow.The weaknessesneedacknowledgment and are at leasttwo.First,somechildrenare not adoptedor reunified,but are in longterrnstableplacementsthat will ultimatelyresultin adoptionand are experiencingthesenseof permanencythatgoeswiththat.If theadoptionsaremerely held up in court and will eventuallybe legalized,then there would be an underestimateof permanencyby using a four year end date, rather than an indicatorof case statussuchas pre-adoptiveplacement.Second,the fouryear end dateis not sensitiveto theexpeditiousplacementof childrenintopermanenthomes.A countyor statethatreunifiesmanychildrenwithinthefirsttwo yearsbuthas an especiallydifficulttimegettingadoptionscompletedbecause of judicialissuesor high appealrates by localdefenseattorneysin a timely waywillnot appearto be veryefficientunderthis system. The advantageof a simplestandardusinga four yearend date is that the fieldhas littlegoodinformationon caseplans,andmanyagenciesdo nothave capacityto conductor interpretsophisticatedstatisticalanalyses.Caseplans arenotoriouslyinaccuratebecausetheyaregenerallynotlinkedto anyspecific changein paymentor placement--events thattriggeraccuraterecordings.Also, there are reasons not to indicatecase status. Foster care workers in some countiesthatdo not haveconcurrentplanninghaveindicatedthatthey avoid all signs of pre-adoptivestatus so that defenseattorneysand judges do not accusethemof providinglessthancompletereunificationservices.Codinga childas in a ‘pre-adoptivehome’couldundersomestatelawsthat needto be changed,be takenas evidencethat a childwillnot be reunified,eventhough reunificationeffortshavenot ot%ciallyended.Further,codinga child’scase plan goal as adoptionmay only mean that the agencydoes not allow very youngchildrento havecaseplan goalsof long-termfostercareor emancipation.Childrenmayroutinelygetan adoptiongoaleventhoughthereis no great
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
627
likelihoodthatan adoptionwillfollow.The achievementof permanenceis the best indicatorthatpermanencyplanningoccurred. This is not an argumentfor using this standardas a way to punish or rewardprogramsthatmostcloselyapproach100percentpermanency.Performanceindicatorscan distortserviceprovisionif agenciesfocuson meetingthe indicatorsrather than the needs of children. Like all other standards,the proposedstandardmightalsorewardchildwelfareagenciesfor practicesthat are not ideal-for example,whenthereis no emphasison earlyresolutionof impermanenceand when reunification, adoptions,and exitsto relativesare treatedthe samewhethertheyoccurjust priorto thefourthmonthor the fourth year. Certainlythisperformanceindicatorwouldbe improvedby alsoknowing the medianlength of stay of childrenwho enter foster care, along with the lengthof timeit takesfor 25% of childrento leavecare. These are numbers whichcan be readilycalculatedusingeventhistoryanalysis,but thosecalculationsrequiresomewhatmoredata management. Althoughinformationon length of stay in foster care is helpful, medians do not directlyaddressthe issue of impermanence.In California,the median durationof first placementspellsis about18months-well withinthe permanencyplanningtimeframes.Mediandurationis, of course,heavilyinfluenced by the manychildren(nearlyone fifth) who leavecare beforethreemonths. Mediansand quartilesare usefulfor analysisof the needfor timelyreunification. The standardproposedhere giveslittleor no creditfor earlyreunification and focusesmuchmoreon reducinglastingimpermanence.Certainly,a markedreductionin lastingimpermanencewillinfluencemedians,buta focus on reducingmedian stays will not necessarilyhave the reverseeffect. The processof creatingperformanceindicatorsrequiresa first step.This seemsto be the best one. Ultimately,a full palette of indicatorswill be needed to adequatelycapturethe child welfarescene. The lackof timepressurebuiltintotheproposedindicatoravoidsotherpitfalls, however, especiallygiven the research that consistentlyshows that shorter lengths of stay are associatedwith higher reentry into foster care (Courtney,1995;Wulczyn,1991).Childrenwho are remainingin fostercare for, on average,at leastsix monthsare less likelyto returnto care withinthe nexttwenty-fourmonths. Thisperformanceindicatoris alsoimperfectbeeauseit is neutralaboutthe typeof permanencyachieved.Thisimportantoversightis largelycorrectedby statutory requirements and fiscal advantages encouraging reunification, adoption,and guardianship,in that order. Reunificationis the preference
628
Barth
underfederallaw,withadoptionand guardianshipvaluedin thatorder.(Federal law at this timeis silenton the issueof closingcasesby placingchildren withrelatives.)It is possiblethat adhenmceto sucha standardwouldencourage child welfare agencies to emphasizeearly placementsinto adoption. Howeverthisstrategyis not essentialto achievingthe proposedperformance. The proportionof childrenadoptedvariedconsiderablyamongcountyagencies with similaroveralloutcomes.Yet, the proposedstandardcountseach outcomethe same. This performancestandardcan be achievedby a varietyof means.Pretendingthat long-termfostercare is an acceptablepermanentplan for young childrenis notoneof them.Thejuvenilecourtmustalsoagreeto thisstandard if it is to be effective.Muchof thedifferencebetweencalendurtimeand court timeis a resultof delaysthat thecourtcan influence.Continuancesrequested by thechildwelfareagencyrepresentativesand publicdefendersarea routine causeof multi-monthlydelays.Further,somejudgesconsistentlyallowfamiliesan extrasix monthsto continuereunificationeffortseven thoughthereis littleevidencethat they have achievedsubstantialparts of case plan goals. This maybe, in somecases,becausethey do not believethat any permanent placementexceptreunificationis the least bit likely.Under the current arrangement,thisis nottrue,but it is certainlynot a SUBthingthatchildrenwho do not go home will experiencepermanentplacements.Agreementto this standardby thejuvenilecourtshouldhelp to breakthis cycleof delays. Finally,it is worthreiteratingthat this is not a proposalthat currentlegal timeframesbe lengthenedor that decision making about young children’s futuresbe postponeduntil they have been in care for four years. Scholars cannotyetcalculatethe effectson childrenof not havinga singledependable relationshipuntil they are age four, but they cannotbe salutary.This article doesnot arguethatthis is a desirabletimeframe.Indeed,thereis goodreason to shortenthe legaltimeframesfor youngchildren(Berrick,et al., in press), in part to makethis goalmoreachievable.Thisperformancestandardcan be usedto comparetheperformanceof a municipalityto itspriorperformanceby determiningwhetheror not a lowerpercentageof childrenremainedin impermanentsettingsat each new four-yearanniversarydate.The standardcan alsobe used to triggersystemreviewof everycasethatexceedsfour yearsto betterunderstandwhat went wrong and the need for relatedtraining,procedure, and policyadaptations.If it were clear that childrenin one region or childrenplacedwith one serviceproviderwere remainingpast four yearsat exceptionalrates, then this reviewcould focuson the uniquecharacteristics of that entityratherthan the overallagencyprocess.Perhapschildrenfrom a
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
629
particularagegroupor ethnicityare leastlikelyto haveachievedpermanency by fouryears-which couldalsoencourageprevisionproblemsolvingefforts. The advantageof such a standardis that it wouldallowagenciesto develop reasonablyfocused strategiesfor young childrenwhose issues and options maybe far differentthan they are for olderchildren. Hopefully,effectivetraining,concurrentplanning,and mediationwould encouragea highpercentageof casesto achievepermanenceby the originally intendedtwo years.Good caseworkpracticecouldhelp to achievethis goal withintwo placementsin thosetwo years,but that is a storyfor anotherday andaboutanotherstandard.Thisproposalis onlymeantto suggestthat,given all that occurs, a child welfare system’sperformanceshould, for the time being,be assessedby the percentageof youngchildrenwho remainin foster carefor four years.After we developa commitmentto achieving100Yopermanencyforyoungchildrenin fostercareby fouryearswe willbe encouraged to findnewwaysto achieveit. We can,eventually,setthe standardhigherand judgethesystem’sperforrnatwat threeyears.At leastin Califomi~a standard of 100%permanencyby two years(only44Y0haveachievedpermanenceby then)or even threeyearsis currentlyout of reach.This appearsequallytrue in other states. Governmentsare endeavoringto provide more fiscal and programmaticflexibility.If that flexibilityleads to more timely and truly permanentexitsfromfostercare we willhaveimportantevidencethat this is the rightpolicypath. Reference Barth, R. P. (in press). Effects of race and age on the oddsof adoptionvs.re-
mainingin long-termfostercare.ChildWelfare. Barth, R. P. (1995). The reunification of very young children from foster care. The
Source,5(l), 1,2, 15, 16. Barth, R. P., Berry, M., Carson, M. L., Goodfield, R., & Feinberg, B. (1986). Contributors to disruption and dissolution of older child adoptions. ChifdWeljare,65,
359-371. Barth, R. P., Brooks, D., & Iyer, S. (1995). Adoption demographics in California. Berkeley, CA: School of Social Welfare, Child Welfare Research Center. Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Berrick, J. D., & Albert, V. (1994). Fromchildabuse topermanentplanning: Childweljareservices,pathwaysandplucements.New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Social Barth, R. P., Courtney,M., & Berry,M. (1994).Timingis everything.
WorkResearchandAbstracts,18, 139-148.
630
Barth
Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Needell, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1994). Perjormunce indicatorsfor child welfare services in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Family Welfare Research Group. Berrick, J. D. & Needell, B. (in press). Recent trends in kinship care: Public policy, payments, and outcomes for children. In P. Curtis & D. Grady (E&.), Thefoster carecrisis:Translatingresearchintopracticeandpolicy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America and University of Nebraska Press. Berrick, J. D., Needell, B., Barth, R. P., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1997). The tender years: Child welfare services to young children. New York: Oxford University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. California Department of Social Services. (1994). Characteristics of agency adoptions in California (July 1992-June 1993). Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Social Services. (1996). Cal~ornia policy summit on kinship care: Summary report. Sacramento, CA: Author. Cook, R. (1991). A national evaluation of Title IV-E foster care independent living programs for youth. Rockville, MD: WESTAT. Courtney, M. (1995). Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families. Social Service Review, 69,226-241. Courtney, M. & Needell, B. (in press). Outcomes of kinship care: Lessons from California. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review. (Vol. 11). New York: Columbia University Press. Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1996). An experiment in family reunification-Correlates of outcomes of one-year followup. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 335-361. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F. H., & Harden, A. W. (1994). A reportfrom the mzdtistate data archive: Foster care dynamics 1983-1992. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Goerge, R. M., Wulczyn, F. H., & Harden, A. W. (1995). Foster care dynamics (1983-1993): An upabte from the multistate foster care &ta archive. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Katz, L. (1990). Effective permanency planning for children in foster care. Social Work, 35(3), 220-226. Katz, L., Spoonemore, N., & Robinson, C. (1994). Concurrent planning: From permanency planning to permanency action. Mountlake Terrace, WA: Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho. Kossoudji, S. (in press). Race and adoption in Michigan. In D. Mont & R.Avery (Eds.j, Public agency adoption policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Mont, D. (April, 1993). Race and gender differences in the adoption of special needs children. Unpublished manuscript available from the author, Department of Consumer Economics and Housing. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 14853.
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
631
Needell, B. N., Webster, D., Barth, R. P., & Armijo, M. (19!26).Pe&ormance indicators for child we~are services in California: 1995. Berkeley, CA: School of Social Welfare, Center for Social Services Research, Child Welfare Research Center. Piliavin, I., Sosin, M., Westerfelt, A. H., & Matsueda, R. L. (1993). The duration of homeless careers: An exploratory study. Social Services Review, 12, 5576-598. Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. New York: Macmillan. Proch, K. & Tabor, M. A. (1985). Placement disruption: A review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 309-320. Roberts, D. & Gallagher C. (1994). Cooperative adoption medication project.’ Final report. Salem, OR: Department of Human Resources, Children’s Services Division. Rzepnicki, T. L., Schuerman, J. R., & Johnson, P. R. (1997). Facing uncertainty: Preventing high risk families. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Chifd welfare research review (Vol. 2) (pp. 229-25 1). New York: Columbia University Press. Takas, M. (1993), Kinship care and family preservation: A guide for states in legal and policy development. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. Ten Broeck, E., & Barth, R. P. (1986). Learning the hard way: A pilot permanency planning project. Child Welfare, 65, 281-294. Testa, M. (1997). Kinship foster care in Illinois. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child weljare research review (Vol. 2) (pp. 101-130). New York: Columbia University Press. Thornton, J. L. (1991). Permanency planning for children in kinship foster homes. Child Weljare, 70,583-601. Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and protective factors in children’s life. In A. R. Nicol (Ed.), Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry (pp, 335-355). New York: Wiley. Wulczyn, F. H. (1991). Caseload dynamics and foster care reentry. Social Service Review, 65, 133-156.
Children andYouth Servic.cs Review, Vol.19,No.8,pp.615A31,1997 Copyright@ 1997Eis.wier Scicncc M Printed inh USA.AUri@sreservcd 01$07409/97 $17.03 + .m
PII S0190-7409(97)00058-3
PermanentPlacementsfor Young Children Placed in Foster Care: A Proposal for a Child Welfare ServicesPerformanceStandard RichardP. Barth Universityof Californiaat Berkeley Performance indicators for child welfare services for young children entering foster care should be established to help agencies determine the sufficiency of their efforts to provide permanency. Child welfare services need a technically feasible, conceptually sound, and achievable performance standard. Use of a 100% permanency standard, not including long-term foster care or non-kinship guardianship, within four calendar years of placement is forwarded. Data on the permanency planning performance of a state and four counties within it are presented to sharpen the discussion.
Morethanhalf of all childrenenteringfostercare are youngerthan six at firstplacement(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden,1994).Thisproportionhasbeen relativelystable,albeitincreasingslowly,since1983.The sizeof futurefoster care caseloadsdepends,in great part, on the expeditiousresolutionof their impermanence.At leastas important,children’sdevelopmentaloutcomeswill be profoundlyshapedby the successof serviceprovidersin rehabilitatingor creatingpermanentand safe familiesfor them.If currentconditionsremain, we can expectthatmanyof thesechildrenwillremainin fosteror groupcare untilageeighteen. Childwelfareservicescan benefitfroma minimumperformancestandard to increasepermartentplacementsof youngchildrenoutsidethe childwelfare services system. The reasons for this goal are developmentaland fiscal. Developmentally,the age of a child at the time of placementis related to The author thanks Barbara Needell for her contributionsto this article. Fundingfor this researchwasprovidedby the Davidand LucillePackardFoundation,the CaliforniaDepartmentof SocialServices,andthe Children’sBureauandthe Officeof PlanningandEvaluation of A.C.F., U.S.D.H.H.S.whichestablishedthe BerkeleyChildWelfareResearchCenter. Requestsforreprintsshouldbe sentto RichardP. Barth,Schoolof SocialWelfare,Berkeley, CA94720-7400.[rbarth@uclink2 .berkeley.edu] 615
616
Barth
subsequentplacementinstability-whether the childis reunified,remainsin fostercare,or is adopted(Barth,Berry,Carson,Goodfield,& Feinberg,1986; Courtney, 1995). Child developmentexperts from a range of theoretical perspectivesagree that multiple placementsare a developmentalhazard; childrenbenefitfromconsistentand uninterruptedparentingand sufferfrom the reverse(Piirto,1994;Werner, 1985).Childrenalso gain whentheyhave a consistentdedicatedadvocatewho knowsthe child well and is zealously committedto thechild’slong-termwell-being(Bronfenbrenner,1979).Finally, children’slongtermneedsfor familysupportareconsiderableas childrenoften benefit from parental assistance with shelter, educationalexpenses, and personalsupportwellinto adulthood. Fiscally,the savingsfrom resolvingfostercare impermanencewithinthe first few years can be substantial.Foster care becomesmore expensiveas yearspass and is too often followedby additionalplacementsin groupcare (Proch& Taber,1985).As yearsin carego by,the likelihoodof reunification wanes considerably,as does the chance of achievingan adoption(DuerrBerrick,Needell,Barth,Jonson-Reid,in press).Age at placementis the most powerfulpredictorof adoptionfor childrenwho are not reunified(Barth,in press).Giventhe youngages of childrenwho do get adopted,foregoingthe chancefor adoptionuntilchildrenare considerablyolder,toooftenresignsthe stateto payingthefullcostsof careto theageof majority.This,further,leaves a high likelihoodof continuedstate supportduring adulthoodvia welfare, homelessassistance,and otherpublicservices(Cook, 1991;Piliavin,et al., 1993). Thispaper proposes that child welfare service providers adopt a pe~ormance standardthat all young chikiren+ges Oto 6-entering foster care have a permanent placement withinfour calendaryearsfiom the hy they leave home. This mayat first seemlikea stepbackwardfromcurrentchildwelfare serviceslaw whichcallsfor a permanentplan within twojudiciaZ years. Yet
considerableevidenceindicatesthat this proposal,if adopted,and its goals achievedwouldleadto a substantialincreasein permanency.The logicof this proposalmust be clear if its widespreaduse can becomea reality.At minimum, sincechildrenin kinshipcarerepresenta largeproportionof allchildren in care, the wisdom of applyingthis standard to kinship and nonkinship placementsmust be addressed.The role of guardianshipmust also be addressed-specially now that PresidentClintonhas calledfor a doublingof guardianshipsfor childrenin fostercareby 2002and sinceseveralstateshave federal waivers to develop paid kinship guardianshipprograms. Finally,
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
617
challengesto assessingthe achievementof this standardand somecautions aboutmisapplyingthis standardwill be described. WhyDo We NeedA Standard?
The federalpermanencyplanningtimeframeis 18monthsunlessreunificationis expeetedby extendingreunificationan additionalsix months.One mightexpectthat almostall impermanencefor youngchildrenis resolvedby the end of four years.This is clearlynot the case in many large states.The mediandurationof firstplacementsintofostercarefor childrenages3-5years old at the timetheyenteredcarebetween1988and 1994was at 17monthsin Califomi%48 monthsin Illinois,12 monthsin Michigan,27 monthsin New York,and 7 monthsin Texas(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden,1995).Exceptin Illinois,mediansare higherfor infantsand toddlers.In thesestates,amongall children,at fouryearsafteradmissionto care,theproportionremainingin care was 2470in California,33~oin Illinois,107oin Michigan,3090in NewYork, and 1190in Texas.ThesedatasuggestthatCaliforniais a rathermid-spectrum stateto use to test this approachas the mediandurationsof first foster care placementsfor childrenfiveandyoungerin Californiaare lowerthanthoseof Illinoisand New York and higherthan thoseof Michiganand Texas. How long should young children wait to achievepermanency? At the dawningof permanencyplanning,four yearswas not seriouslydiscussedas an acceptabletime frame for achievingpermanency.Yet, we have come to understandthat adoptionoftentakesthat long.The mediantime from foster careplacementto adoptiveplacementin Californiais slightlymorethanthirtysix months for foster children (CaliforniaDepartmentof Social Services, 1994).Additionaltime-a minimumof six months-is requiredto complete legalization.We also now know that reunification continueto occur at a substantialrate for youngchildrenin kinshipcare and nonkinshipcare after two years(Goerge,Wulczyn,& Harden, 1995;Needell,Webster,Barth, & Arrnijo,1996). Reunificationis also a slow process as reunification increaseby about 13%betweentwo and six yearsof care. Nonetheless,reunificationdoes not last forever,as only 1.9%of all childrenwho enteredcare in 1988or 1989 were reunifiedafter four years in care. Overall,among childrenwho enter foster care youngerthan six and are still there after two years, about ten childrenare adoptedfor everyten childrenwho are reunified.
618
Barth
The top of Table 1 showsthe proportionof youngchildrenwho entered kinshipand nonkinshipfostercare in Californiabetween1988and 1990and who had not achievedpermanentoutcomesat two, four, and six yearsafter firstplacement.Amongyoungchildrenplacedwith kin, about25% are still in caresix yearslater,for childrenplacedin nonkinshipcare,about1970.For youngchildrenin kinshipcare,the greatestincreasein permanentplacements across time is in reunification (which also include exits to relatives and relativeguardianships)whichgrewfrom43Y0at twoyearsto 56%at sixyears. For childrenin nonkinshipcare, continuedgrowth in adoptionis the most significantcontributorto permanencyfor children entering as infants or toddlersas adoptionsincreasedfrom 5% at two yearsto 22% at six years. WithinCalifornia,themis greatvariationin countypracticesregardingthe achievementof permanency.In one county,San Mateo,only 4$%0 of infants placedin fostercarewithnonkin,and 9% placedwithkin remainedin care at six years(seeTable1).SanDiegoCountywasnotfar behind.Severalof these countiesare the size of small states (e. g., Alameda,San Diego and Santa Clamhavecombinedchildpopulationsof momthan 1.5millionchildren),and it is conceivablethat even morevariationexistsbetweenstatesbecausethey do not even share the same state statutes.After subtractingout nonkinship guardianships,permanencyis achievedin fouryearsfor 89%of childrenwho enternonkinshipfostercare in San Mateo,8570in San Diego,7590in Santa Clara,and 6890in Alameda.Amongchildrenenteringkinshipcare, permanency is achievedby four yearsfor 86Y0in San Diego,85% in SantaClara, 75%in SanMateoand 61%in Alameda.Thus,somecountieshavecomparativelybetter permanencyfor childrenin kinshipcare than nonkinshipcare. Thereare alsoconsiderablydifferentpatternsof achievingpermanency,with, for example,San MateoCountyhavinga substantiallyhigherproportionof kinshipadoptionsthan San Diego(20%vs. 14%),SanDiegohavingsubstantially more reunification for children in nonkinshipcare than San Mateo (62% vs. 44%). Alameda and Santa Clara had about five times as many kinshipguardianshipsas adoptions,whereasSan Diegoand San Mateohad morekinshipguardianshipsthan adoptions.Nearlyas muchvariabilityexists for nonkinsipcare,althoughguardianshipsare ratherrare in all counties.All in all, the evidencesuggeststhat the proposedstandardis attainablevia a rangeof localstrategieseven if it is not now beingmet in the aggregate.
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
619
Table 1 State and County Outcomea in Kin and Non-Kin care et 2,4 end 6 Yeara After Placement by Aga at Entry (%)
GA!JQmM Outcome At 2 vear~ Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care At 4 vears Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care At 6 vear~ Adopted Guardianship Reunified Stillin care
Oyrs 5400)’
KIN 1-2 yrs 3-5 yre Total (3746) (4278) (13426)
Oyrs 7774)
NON-KIN 1-2 yrs 3-5 yrs Total (4044) (4509) (16327)
0
1
50
4 47 47
5 43 51
8 1 38 51
2 1 55 40
1 1 58 40
5 1 47 45
7 10 47 34
4 8 54 32
3 7 57 32
5 9 52 32
26 1 41 28
10 2 60 26
6 1 63 26
17 1 52 27
11 11 50 26
6 10 57 25
4 8 61 25
7 10 56 25
34 1 42 18
15 2 81 16
9 1 65 22
22 2 53 19
1 5 38 55
1 4 44
*Numbers in parentheses= n forgroup.
Applying the Standard to Kin
In previousargumentsthe authorand colleagueshavedocumentedthe differencesbetween kin and nonkin placementsand made the case that the outcomesof theseplacementsshouldbe analyzeddifferentlybecauseof the moreambiguousmeaningof long-termfostercarefor childrenwith relatives (Barth,in press;Courtney&Needell,in press).Yetlongtermfostercareis not an appropriateoutcomefor youngchildrenregardlessof the relativestatusof the fostercare provider.Someadvantagesof avoidinglong-termfostercare are identicalfor childrenlivingwith kin and nonkin.Thesebenefitsinclude freedomto manageyourown familyaffairswithoutcourtoversight,the right to relocateyour family, and legal rights to inheritance.These can only be attainedvia adoptionor, possibly,a modifiedform of guardianship.Kinship guardianship,althoughnot as legallybeneficialfor childrenas adoption,does havethe virtuethat it maintainsa child’slegaland personalconnectionto a familywho can be availableacrossthe lifetime.
Table2 Classi&ationof Permanence Permanence
Impermanence
Reunification: Returnto Homeof Parent and No Return
Remainsin Care or Returns to Care
Exit to Relatives RelativeGuardianship Adoption
NonrelativeGuardianship
Althoughstudieson the outcomesof guardianshipare noticeablyscarce, childrenwho grow up in kinship guardianshipseem very likely to have a familysafetynet to tumblein to duringtheiryoungadultyears.Thereis good reasonto thinkthat kinshipguardianshipswouldbe at leastas stableas kinship foster care which does in fact, have far fewer placementmoves than conventionalfostercare. By the end of six yearsin kinshipfostercare, 18% of young children had been placed in four or more foster homes; among childrenin nonkinshipfostercare,thisfigurewas42%(Berrick,et al., 1997)! WhichGuardianships Count?
For childrenlivingin nonrelativefostercare,guardianshipis not a permanent placementbecause it does not provide the benefits of adoptionor a legallyrecognizedfamilyfor childrenafter age 18. Table2 classifiesliving arrangementsaccordingto these standardsof permanence.Classificationof theseoutcomesas permanentand impermanentdoesnot,of course,meanthat each of these placementswill be permanentor impermanent.The data are relativelyclearthatreunificationto the homeof the parentis a quiteunstable placementfor youngchildren--resultingin reentryintofostercareaboutonein-five times overall and a higher rate for infants who are returned home (Barth,1995).Usinga fouryearwindowfor computingpermanencyis likely to providegoodestimatesbeeausemostchildrenwho go homedo so by two yearsand, althoughthe data are less definitive,mostchildrenwho return to
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
621
care are likelyto do so withinthe first two years after goinghome (unpublished data availablefrom the author). Reunificationwith the biological family,adoption,relativeguardianship,andplacementwithrelativesuponexit fromfostercare all meetthishighertest and are includedin our permanency planningstandard.Long-termfostercareandnonrelativeguardianshiparenot permanentbecausetheydo have an unacceptablysmallchanceof providing a lifetimefamilyto a child. Thisarticlebroadensthepermanencydefinitionfor childrenin kinshipcare withoutsuggestingthat adoptionby kin is unfeasibleor undesirable.Testa (1997)has shownthatas manyas onein threekin willadoptif encouragedto do so. Californiadata indicatesthat adoptionsby kin comprise24% of all adoptions(Barth,Brooks,& Iyer, 1995)and dependin greatmeasureon the ethnicityof kin andwhethertheyarereceivingthehigherIV-Efostercarerate or the lowerIVA rate (Berrick& Needell,in press). Caucasianchildrenin kinshipcare are half as likelyas Caucasianchildrenin nonkinshipcare to be adopted.Latinochildrenin kinshipcare are one-quarteras likelyas Latino childrenin nonkinshipcareto be adopted.AfricanAmericanchildrenare only one-sixteenthas likelyas AfricanAmericanchildrenin nonkinshipcareto be adopted(Barth,Courtney,Needell,& Jonson-Reid,1994).Somehaveargued that these differencesare culturally determined (Takas, 1993; Thornton, 1991),but theyare alsofinanciallydetermined.Kinshipfosterparentsreceiving theIV-Erateare one-halfas likelyto adoptas otherkin (Bernck,et al., in press). Regardlessof the originsof thesedifferences,kinshipprovidersreceptive to adoptionarecurrentlydiscouragedby childwelfareprogramsandpractices that:(1) fail to clarifythe expectationand valueof adoption;(2) are riddled withperversefiscalincentivesnot to adopt;and (3) providefewerservicesto familiesthat adopt than to those that do not. Basically,kin have the same responsibilityand expectationto provide a permanentnon-fostercare arrangementfor childrenas non-relativefosterparents,and adoptionis stillan importantoptionfor kin.Nonetheless,for childrenlivingwithkin whocannot go home,somepermanentarrangementsmayinvolveguardianshipandexiting fostercareto a relatives’care, ratherthan adoption. Althoughchildrenin kinshipfostercare shouldhaveone of thesepermanentnonfostercare planswithinfour years,availableevidencecallsfor cautionbeforeimmediatelyimplementingthe standardthatall childrenin kinship fostercare shouldexit withinfourcalendaryears.Currentpracticeand reimbursementschemes do not sufficientlysupport many children in kinship homes. This problemhas at least two contributorsthat would need to be
622
Barth
addressedbeforewe wouldfully advocatefor equalapplicationof this standard to childrenin kinshipfostercare. First, kinshipfosterparentsare often not ableto providemorethan a minimumlevelof careto childrenbecauseof their own financialtribulationsand this circumstancewould be worsened unlesskin couldcontinueto receivethe IV-EFosterCarerateuponexitfrom foster care to guardianshipor to a closed case. Second,kinshipfoster care placementsare often hurried and do not include an adequateassessment (CaliforniaDepartmentof SocialServices,1996).Thisis significantbecause oncechildrenareplacedwithkin,changingtheirplacementtypicallyrequires a courtorderof abuseor neglect.As such,someverymarginalkinshipplacementsdo occurand requiresubstantialsurveillanceand supporton thepart of social workers.Until these fiscal and practice issues are more adequately addressed,the notionthat all childrenin kinshipcare who are not adopted wouldbe exitedfrom child welfareservicesis not plausible. Underlying Principles and Developing Practices
What mechanismsmight assist agenciesin achievingthese goals? Certainly,the first to get agreementon the standardthat no young child who enters foster care still be in care four years later. This may require a prior agreementon at leastonefundamentalprinciple:Theexpeditiousdevelopment of a safe, legally permanent relationship outside of the child welfare system is the top priority of child welfare servicesfor young children. If a youngchildcannotbe returnedhomeor placedoutof fostercareto live
with a relative,thereis no substantialenoughreasonto preemptmovingthe childintoa permanentplacement.Thatis, no youngchildshouldbe relegated to a lifetimeof fostercarebecausethatchildhas developeda one,two,three, or fouryearrelationshipwith a fosterparentwho willnot adoptor otherwise committo permanency.As data on the impermanenceof long-termfoster placementsshow, these long-termfoster care placementsdo not last. The percentageof youngchildrenin long-termnonkinshipfostercare is 24% of childrenwho are in theirfirst or secondfosterplacementaftertwo years,but only 18% are there by six years (Needell,et al., 1996).A reviewerof this paperechoesthe questionsof manypractitionersupon readingthe assertion thatpermanencyshouldbe givensuch a high valuein childwelfaredecision making,asking,“Theauthordoesnot seemto takeintoaccountwhatwe know aboutpsychologicalparentingand attachmentand bonding,but seemsrather morecommittedto permanencyfor permanencysake...Why is permanency moreimportantthan the needsof children?”The answeris simplythat small
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
623
childrenwholivewithsomeonewhotheyarecloseto whentheyare small,but whohas a low likelihoodof beingtheirparentwhentheyare oldercannotbe viewed as meetingthe long-termneeds of the child. Children and parents developlong-termcommitmentsto eaehotherduringthepre-adolescentyears thathelp seethemthroughthosesometimeschallengingyearsand thatsecure their relationshipthroughyoungadulthood.A close relationshipbetweena youngchildand a fosterparentis goodfor the child,but oftendoesnot last. Thus,that temporalbenefitshouldnot be overestimatedand is no substitute for a permanent,life timefamily.Althoughsomepermanentfamiliesdo not meetthe lifetimedevelopmentaland safetyneedsof children,the converseis not alsotrue.Familiesthat are unwillingor unableto be permanentfamilies cannotmeetthe lifetimeneedsof children. Clearly,theseplacementsarenotmeetingtheneedsof children.Nor should a childbe denieda permanentplacementbecausethe childhas a good relationshipwith a biologicalparent who cannotcare for the child. Neither attachmenttheorynor any othershouldbe used to preempta safe, legallypermanentplacementfor a young child. Nor should children remain without permanencybecausesiblingscannotalsoexitfostercare.Openadoptionsand maintainingfosterparent,sibling,and child contactcan be accomplishedto maintainsiblingconnections.Thesecan offerpositivebenefitsto formerfoster children,but theydo not offer sufficientpromiseof lifetimelegalpermanent family.Emancipatingfromfostercarewithyoursiblingis betterthanemancipatingalone,yet it doesnot rivalthe supportof a lifetimefamily. Mechanismsfor Achieving Timely Permanence
There are effectivemechanismsto accomplishtimelypermanentplacementsincludingconcurrent planning for reunificationand adoptionso that arrangementsfor alternativepermanencywillbe in placeshouldreunification efforts fail. Concurrentplanning,mediationof parentalright terminations, diligent implementationof the MultiethnicPlacementAct, intensive and enduringfamilyreunificationservicesmayalsoleadto expeditioustransitions to adoption.Each of thesemechanismsis discussedbriefly. Concw-rentplanning. Planning for permanencein four yearsmustbegin earlyandis not goingto be an achievablegoalif nothinghas beendoneat the outsetof thecaseto developcontingencyplansfor reunificationand adoption for someyoungchildren.Sincemorethan one third of infantsin nonkinship fostercarewillhaveadoptionas theirpermanentplacement,eachoneof them shouldhavea concurrentplan of adoptionand reunification.Olderchildren
624
Barth
can also benefitfrom concurrentplanning(Katz, 1990).The adoptionplan shouldnot in any way preemptthe reunificationplan, but nor shoulddevelopmentof the adoptionplan waituntilthe reunificationplanhas failed.There are many concurrentplanningactivities(e.g. gettingcompleteinformation aboutthe fatherand relativesand identifyingpotentialadoptiveparents)that shouldoccurbeforeseriousreunificationeffortsend p~sumablyat the eighteen monthjudicialreview(Katz,Spoonemoore,& Robinson,1994). Amongthe countiesdescribedin this paper,San Mateohas the oldestand most establishedconcurrentplanningprocess in California--havingbegun whenSanMateocountywastryingoutideasthatwerelaterdevelopedintothe AdoptionAssistanceand Child Welfare Act (Ten Broeck & Barth, 1986). Concurrentplanningdoes not necessarilyresultin higheradoptionrates,but it doesseemto contributeto higherpermanencyrates.San DiegoCountyhad no concurrentplanningprogramat the time,yethad an adoptionratefor nonkinshipplacementsthat was nearlyidenticalto that of San Mateoby the end of fourand six years.Morewidespreaduse of concurrentplanningmighthelp reducethe 24~oof childrenremainingin care,althoughit seemsthatit is not indispensableto such an achievement. Adoption mediation. Adoptionmediationcan also facilitatepermanency and shouldbe tried by agenciesseekingto increasetheirrates of timelypermanency (Roberts & Gallagher, 1994). As demonstratedin Oregon, the CooperativeAdoptionMediationProject(CAMP)gainedthe cooperationof 31 out of 36 biologicalparentsand, in all 31 cases,avoidedcontestedterminationtrials.The averagetime from beginningmediationto being freed for adoptionwasjust 3.7 months,withthecostof mediationonly$3500whichis onesevenththecostof a contestedtrial.Althoughhardcomparisonfiguresare notavailablefor an equivalentset of familieswhodid nothavemediation,the figuresare promising. MultiethnicPlacement Act. Anotherarea of practicethat maymakea differencein achievingpermanencyfor youngchildreninvolvesimplementing the MultiethnicPlacementAct (MEPA).Of the childrennot in kinshipcare and not in a permanentplacementat four years,48Y0are AfricanAmerican. Givenotherresearchindicatingthe far lowerlikelihoodof adoptionfor African Americanchildren(Barth,in press;Mont, 1993;Kossoudj,in press)and the slowerpace of adoptionproceedings(Barth,Courtney,& Berry, 1994), thesechildrencouldbenefitfrom the greaterexpectationsand opportunities thatMEPAwillbringby outlawingthedelayanddenialof placementson the basisof race. Yet, the law is writtenwith enoughambiguitythat it could be implementedin a waythat fails to substantiallyfacilitatethe achievementof
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
625
permanentplacements.Meeting the proposed four-year standard without takingfull advantageof the interestof all familieswillingto adoptavailable fosterchildrenseemshighlyunlikelyin, at least,California. This is not meantto suggestthat childrenwho are in kinshipfoster care (whatevertheir race) shouldbe movedinto adoptivehomes(whatevertheir racial composition)rather than being raised in a more permanentform of kinshipguardianshipor permanence.When safe and developmentallysatisfactorykinshiphomesare availablefor youngchildren,theseshouldbecome permanent.The child welfare system cannot manage new burdens from movingchildrenin long-termkinshiphomeinto otheradoptivehomes.Nor wouldthismovementbe likelyto servethebest lifetimeinterestsof children. Intensiveand lasting reunificationservices. Intensivefamilyreunification serviceshaveshowninconsistentimpactso far on the reductionof placement staysor reentry,but this promisingarea seems in need of additionalwork (Rzepnicki,Schuerrnan,& Johnson,in press;Fraser,Walton,Lewis,Pecora, & Walton,1996).With the reentryrate exceedingone-in-fourreunification (Wulczyn,1991;Courtney,1995),the opportunityto achievemorereunification thatare lastingis unequivocallypresent.Regardlessof the availabilityof intensivefamilyreunificationservices,localor federalIV-Efundingcouldbe used for elongatedpost-reunificationservicesand might also significantly reducereentries. TechnicalIssues
Monitoringof this standardis technicallyfeasible,if imperfect.Agencies, advocates,and courtscan reviewall their youngchild cases to be sure they closewithinfour years. States shouldsoonbe able to use SACWIS-funded datasystemsthatcan answerbasicquestionsaboutthe proportionof children whoachievepermanencyat eachyearlymilestone.However,severalproblems stillremain.Nearly25%of childrenwholeavefostercareto reunificationwill returnto fostercare--mostof themwithinthefirsttwoyearsafterreunification (Wulczyn,1991;Courtney,1995).Datamustbe codedso thatthe reunificationratesareoffsetby reentryratesandthosereentriesarenottreatedlikenew entrancesinto care. Ideally,this couldbe donefor adoption,as well by subtracting out the children who experiencedisruptionsor dissolutionsand reentercare. Thispossibilityis diminishedby the fact thatchildrenwill oftenhavedifferentnamesand identifiersfollowingadoption.It requiresthe abilityto link the foster care and adoptionrecordsdespitethe great likelihoodof a name
626
Barth
changeuponadoption.Thereare varioustechnicalsolutionsto this problem (includinga masterindex of namesand identifiers),but unlessresolved,the permanencyestimatesusing the four-yearstandardwill be higher than the actuallevelof permanencyachieved. Conclusions The purposeof thispaperis to gainagreementto usingour proposedperformancestandardacrosschild welfareagencies.There are methodological strengthsand weaknessesto usinga lengthof timeto determinethe achievementof permanence,but on balance,use of this time standardwouldbe far betterthanwhatwe havenow.The weaknessesneedacknowledgment and are at leasttwo.First,somechildrenare not adoptedor reunified,but are in longterrnstableplacementsthat will ultimatelyresultin adoptionand are experiencingthesenseof permanencythatgoeswiththat.If theadoptionsaremerely held up in court and will eventuallybe legalized,then there would be an underestimateof permanencyby using a four year end date, rather than an indicatorof case statussuchas pre-adoptiveplacement.Second,the fouryear end dateis not sensitiveto theexpeditiousplacementof childrenintopermanenthomes.A countyor statethatreunifiesmanychildrenwithinthefirsttwo yearsbuthas an especiallydifficulttimegettingadoptionscompletedbecause of judicialissuesor high appealrates by localdefenseattorneysin a timely waywillnot appearto be veryefficientunderthis system. The advantageof a simplestandardusinga four yearend date is that the fieldhas littlegoodinformationon caseplans,andmanyagenciesdo nothave capacityto conductor interpretsophisticatedstatisticalanalyses.Caseplans arenotoriouslyinaccuratebecausetheyaregenerallynotlinkedto anyspecific changein paymentor placement--events thattriggeraccuraterecordings.Also, there are reasons not to indicatecase status. Foster care workers in some countiesthatdo not haveconcurrentplanninghaveindicatedthatthey avoid all signs of pre-adoptivestatus so that defenseattorneysand judges do not accusethemof providinglessthancompletereunificationservices.Codinga childas in a ‘pre-adoptivehome’couldundersomestatelawsthat needto be changed,be takenas evidencethat a childwillnot be reunified,eventhough reunificationeffortshavenot ot%ciallyended.Further,codinga child’scase plan goal as adoptionmay only mean that the agencydoes not allow very youngchildrento havecaseplan goalsof long-termfostercareor emancipation.Childrenmayroutinelygetan adoptiongoaleventhoughthereis no great
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
627
likelihoodthatan adoptionwillfollow.The achievementof permanenceis the best indicatorthatpermanencyplanningoccurred. This is not an argumentfor using this standardas a way to punish or rewardprogramsthatmostcloselyapproach100percentpermanency.Performanceindicatorscan distortserviceprovisionif agenciesfocuson meetingthe indicatorsrather than the needs of children. Like all other standards,the proposedstandardmightalsorewardchildwelfareagenciesfor practicesthat are not ideal-for example,whenthereis no emphasison earlyresolutionof impermanenceand when reunification, adoptions,and exitsto relativesare treatedthe samewhethertheyoccurjust priorto thefourthmonthor the fourth year. Certainlythisperformanceindicatorwouldbe improvedby alsoknowing the medianlength of stay of childrenwho enter foster care, along with the lengthof timeit takesfor 25% of childrento leavecare. These are numbers whichcan be readilycalculatedusingeventhistoryanalysis,but thosecalculationsrequiresomewhatmoredata management. Althoughinformationon length of stay in foster care is helpful, medians do not directlyaddressthe issue of impermanence.In California,the median durationof first placementspellsis about18months-well withinthe permanencyplanningtimeframes.Mediandurationis, of course,heavilyinfluenced by the manychildren(nearlyone fifth) who leavecare beforethreemonths. Mediansand quartilesare usefulfor analysisof the needfor timelyreunification. The standardproposedhere giveslittleor no creditfor earlyreunification and focusesmuchmoreon reducinglastingimpermanence.Certainly,a markedreductionin lastingimpermanencewillinfluencemedians,buta focus on reducingmedian stays will not necessarilyhave the reverseeffect. The processof creatingperformanceindicatorsrequiresa first step.This seemsto be the best one. Ultimately,a full palette of indicatorswill be needed to adequatelycapturethe child welfarescene. The lackof timepressurebuiltintotheproposedindicatoravoidsotherpitfalls, however, especiallygiven the research that consistentlyshows that shorter lengths of stay are associatedwith higher reentry into foster care (Courtney,1995;Wulczyn,1991).Childrenwho are remainingin fostercare for, on average,at leastsix monthsare less likelyto returnto care withinthe nexttwenty-fourmonths. Thisperformanceindicatoris alsoimperfectbeeauseit is neutralaboutthe typeof permanencyachieved.Thisimportantoversightis largelycorrectedby statutory requirements and fiscal advantages encouraging reunification, adoption,and guardianship,in that order. Reunificationis the preference
628
Barth
underfederallaw,withadoptionand guardianshipvaluedin thatorder.(Federal law at this timeis silenton the issueof closingcasesby placingchildren withrelatives.)It is possiblethat adhenmceto sucha standardwouldencourage child welfare agencies to emphasizeearly placementsinto adoption. Howeverthisstrategyis not essentialto achievingthe proposedperformance. The proportionof childrenadoptedvariedconsiderablyamongcountyagencies with similaroveralloutcomes.Yet, the proposedstandardcountseach outcomethe same. This performancestandardcan be achievedby a varietyof means.Pretendingthat long-termfostercare is an acceptablepermanentplan for young childrenis notoneof them.Thejuvenilecourtmustalsoagreeto thisstandard if it is to be effective.Muchof thedifferencebetweencalendurtimeand court timeis a resultof delaysthat thecourtcan influence.Continuancesrequested by thechildwelfareagencyrepresentativesand publicdefendersarea routine causeof multi-monthlydelays.Further,somejudgesconsistentlyallowfamiliesan extrasix monthsto continuereunificationeffortseven thoughthereis littleevidencethat they have achievedsubstantialparts of case plan goals. This maybe, in somecases,becausethey do not believethat any permanent placementexceptreunificationis the least bit likely.Under the current arrangement,thisis nottrue,but it is certainlynot a SUBthingthatchildrenwho do not go home will experiencepermanentplacements.Agreementto this standardby thejuvenilecourtshouldhelp to breakthis cycleof delays. Finally,it is worthreiteratingthat this is not a proposalthat currentlegal timeframesbe lengthenedor that decision making about young children’s futuresbe postponeduntil they have been in care for four years. Scholars cannotyetcalculatethe effectson childrenof not havinga singledependable relationshipuntil they are age four, but they cannotbe salutary.This article doesnot arguethatthis is a desirabletimeframe.Indeed,thereis goodreason to shortenthe legaltimeframesfor youngchildren(Berrick,et al., in press), in part to makethis goalmoreachievable.Thisperformancestandardcan be usedto comparetheperformanceof a municipalityto itspriorperformanceby determiningwhetheror not a lowerpercentageof childrenremainedin impermanentsettingsat each new four-yearanniversarydate.The standardcan alsobe used to triggersystemreviewof everycasethatexceedsfour yearsto betterunderstandwhat went wrong and the need for relatedtraining,procedure, and policyadaptations.If it were clear that childrenin one region or childrenplacedwith one serviceproviderwere remainingpast four yearsat exceptionalrates, then this reviewcould focuson the uniquecharacteristics of that entityratherthan the overallagencyprocess.Perhapschildrenfrom a
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
629
particularagegroupor ethnicityare leastlikelyto haveachievedpermanency by fouryears-which couldalsoencourageprevisionproblemsolvingefforts. The advantageof such a standardis that it wouldallowagenciesto develop reasonablyfocused strategiesfor young childrenwhose issues and options maybe far differentthan they are for olderchildren. Hopefully,effectivetraining,concurrentplanning,and mediationwould encouragea highpercentageof casesto achievepermanenceby the originally intendedtwo years.Good caseworkpracticecouldhelp to achievethis goal withintwo placementsin thosetwo years,but that is a storyfor anotherday andaboutanotherstandard.Thisproposalis onlymeantto suggestthat,given all that occurs, a child welfare system’sperformanceshould, for the time being,be assessedby the percentageof youngchildrenwho remainin foster carefor four years.After we developa commitmentto achieving100Yopermanencyforyoungchildrenin fostercareby fouryearswe willbe encouraged to findnewwaysto achieveit. We can,eventually,setthe standardhigherand judgethesystem’sperforrnatwat threeyears.At leastin Califomi~a standard of 100%permanencyby two years(only44Y0haveachievedpermanenceby then)or even threeyearsis currentlyout of reach.This appearsequallytrue in other states. Governmentsare endeavoringto provide more fiscal and programmaticflexibility.If that flexibilityleads to more timely and truly permanentexitsfromfostercare we willhaveimportantevidencethat this is the rightpolicypath. Reference Barth, R. P. (in press). Effects of race and age on the oddsof adoptionvs.re-
mainingin long-termfostercare.ChildWelfare. Barth, R. P. (1995). The reunification of very young children from foster care. The
Source,5(l), 1,2, 15, 16. Barth, R. P., Berry, M., Carson, M. L., Goodfield, R., & Feinberg, B. (1986). Contributors to disruption and dissolution of older child adoptions. ChifdWeljare,65,
359-371. Barth, R. P., Brooks, D., & Iyer, S. (1995). Adoption demographics in California. Berkeley, CA: School of Social Welfare, Child Welfare Research Center. Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Berrick, J. D., & Albert, V. (1994). Fromchildabuse topermanentplanning: Childweljareservices,pathwaysandplucements.New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Social Barth, R. P., Courtney,M., & Berry,M. (1994).Timingis everything.
WorkResearchandAbstracts,18, 139-148.
630
Barth
Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Needell, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1994). Perjormunce indicatorsfor child welfare services in California. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Family Welfare Research Group. Berrick, J. D. & Needell, B. (in press). Recent trends in kinship care: Public policy, payments, and outcomes for children. In P. Curtis & D. Grady (E&.), Thefoster carecrisis:Translatingresearchintopracticeandpolicy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America and University of Nebraska Press. Berrick, J. D., Needell, B., Barth, R. P., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1997). The tender years: Child welfare services to young children. New York: Oxford University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. California Department of Social Services. (1994). Characteristics of agency adoptions in California (July 1992-June 1993). Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Social Services. (1996). Cal~ornia policy summit on kinship care: Summary report. Sacramento, CA: Author. Cook, R. (1991). A national evaluation of Title IV-E foster care independent living programs for youth. Rockville, MD: WESTAT. Courtney, M. (1995). Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families. Social Service Review, 69,226-241. Courtney, M. & Needell, B. (in press). Outcomes of kinship care: Lessons from California. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review. (Vol. 11). New York: Columbia University Press. Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1996). An experiment in family reunification-Correlates of outcomes of one-year followup. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 335-361. Goerge, R.M., Wulczyn, F. H., & Harden, A. W. (1994). A reportfrom the mzdtistate data archive: Foster care dynamics 1983-1992. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Goerge, R. M., Wulczyn, F. H., & Harden, A. W. (1995). Foster care dynamics (1983-1993): An upabte from the multistate foster care &ta archive. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Katz, L. (1990). Effective permanency planning for children in foster care. Social Work, 35(3), 220-226. Katz, L., Spoonemore, N., & Robinson, C. (1994). Concurrent planning: From permanency planning to permanency action. Mountlake Terrace, WA: Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho. Kossoudji, S. (in press). Race and adoption in Michigan. In D. Mont & R.Avery (Eds.j, Public agency adoption policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Mont, D. (April, 1993). Race and gender differences in the adoption of special needs children. Unpublished manuscript available from the author, Department of Consumer Economics and Housing. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 14853.
PermanentPlacementfor Young Children
631
Needell, B. N., Webster, D., Barth, R. P., & Armijo, M. (19!26).Pe&ormance indicators for child we~are services in California: 1995. Berkeley, CA: School of Social Welfare, Center for Social Services Research, Child Welfare Research Center. Piliavin, I., Sosin, M., Westerfelt, A. H., & Matsueda, R. L. (1993). The duration of homeless careers: An exploratory study. Social Services Review, 12, 5576-598. Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. New York: Macmillan. Proch, K. & Tabor, M. A. (1985). Placement disruption: A review of research. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 309-320. Roberts, D. & Gallagher C. (1994). Cooperative adoption medication project.’ Final report. Salem, OR: Department of Human Resources, Children’s Services Division. Rzepnicki, T. L., Schuerman, J. R., & Johnson, P. R. (1997). Facing uncertainty: Preventing high risk families. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Chifd welfare research review (Vol. 2) (pp. 229-25 1). New York: Columbia University Press. Takas, M. (1993), Kinship care and family preservation: A guide for states in legal and policy development. Washington, DC: American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law. Ten Broeck, E., & Barth, R. P. (1986). Learning the hard way: A pilot permanency planning project. Child Welfare, 65, 281-294. Testa, M. (1997). Kinship foster care in Illinois. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child weljare research review (Vol. 2) (pp. 101-130). New York: Columbia University Press. Thornton, J. L. (1991). Permanency planning for children in kinship foster homes. Child Weljare, 70,583-601. Werner, E. E. (1985). Stress and protective factors in children’s life. In A. R. Nicol (Ed.), Longitudinal studies in child psychology and psychiatry (pp, 335-355). New York: Wiley. Wulczyn, F. H. (1991). Caseload dynamics and foster care reentry. Social Service Review, 65, 133-156.