Young People Leaving CareYoung People Leaving Careand After Care and After Care

Judy Cashmore

After Care Forum Sydney

11 June 2003

OutlineOutline

Where have we come from?What do we know about young

people leaving care?What do we know about the longer-

term outcomes?Where do we go from here?

Where have we come from?Where have we come from? No legislative provision for assistance after care

(except discretionary training) in 1987 Act

“After care as the poor cousin of service delivery – at best informal and unfunded component …” (Fredman & Green 1994)

Results of continuing advocacy – ACWA Leaving Care Forum– AAYPIC now CREATE– Lessons from overseas esp UK, Canada and US– Timely independent research funded by DoCS

Where have we come from?Where have we come from?

Development of specialist services– $1.2 m funding announced in April 1996 – Allocated November 1996 ARC (Relationships Australia) incl abuse in care phone line ALIVE (Centacare) ACE (Burnside) Murungbai ( Aboriginal state-wide)

Additional funding and expansion of after care services to provide state-wide coverage

Where have we come from?Where have we come from? Specific legislative provisions (ss 165-170) in Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998

– Appropriate assistance based on need to age 25 years Information re resources and services Financial and other help re accommodation, setting up house,

education and training, finding employment, legal advice and accessing health services

– Requirement for leaving care plan in consultation with young person and family

– Entitlement to personal information, documents

First After Care Forum March 1998

LEAVING & AFTER CARELEAVING & AFTER CAREResearch and evaluationResearch and evaluation

1. Describing circumstances and establishing needs of young people leaving care

– Stein & Carey (1986)– Garnett (1992)– Taylor (1990) & Thomson (1993) Brotherhood of St Laurence– Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People

Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report

2. Evaluating leaving care schemes– Biehal, Clayden, Stein & Wade (1995). Moving on.– Broad (1998). Young people leaving care .. After the Children

Act 1989.– Barnados What works in leaving care.– US (WESTAT) and Canadian research and evaluation

On leaving careOn leaving care

“Multiple jeopardies”– Experiences before coming into care– Lack of stability in care– Poor educational performance– Low school completion rates– Limited contact with family members– Lack of support through early transition to

independence (Maluccio, Krieger & Pine, 1990)

After leaving careAfter leaving care

Increased risk of: Homelessness and mobility

Unemployment

Poverty – financial stress

Limited social support networks

Drug and alcohol use/abuse

Early parenthood

Poor physical and mental health (UK and Australian studies since Stein & Carey, 1986)

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCHAUSTRALIAN RESEARCH

Cashmore & Paxman (1996) Wards Leaving Care: A longitudinal study. Sydney: DoCS.

WARDS discharged over 12 month period: Interview group: n = 47/ 45 (4 not discharged) Non-interview: n = 44 (10 not discharged) Four interviews: (1) Before discharge

with wards (2) 3 mths after (n = 47)

(3) 12 mths after (n = 45)

(4) 4 - 5 years (n = 41)

Maunders, Liddell, Liddell M, & Green (1999). Young People Leaving Care and Protection. NYARS Report.

FACTORS INFLUENCING FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTCOMES, TRANSITIONOUTCOMES, TRANSITION

Positive influence– Stable positive experience in care– Mentor or advocate– Extended support– Family contact in care or re-established

after care– CARING RELATIONSHIPS(Maunders, Liddell, Liddell & Green, 1999)

FACTORS INFLUENCING FACTORS INFLUENCING OUTCOMES, TRANSITIONOUTCOMES, TRANSITION

Negative influence– Poor preparation and planning– Unstable accommodation at discharge– Unsuitable and unstable accommodation– Lack of support – financial and emotional– Unresolved anger to family members and

workers

STABILITYSTABILITY

Long-term placement for > 75 % time in care→ fewer schools→ more years of schooling→ report better school progress→ get on better with peers → fewer workers → more willing to ask for financial, emotional support esp from foster carers

Cashmore & Paxman, 1996 WARDS LEAVING CARE STUDY

Long-term placement for Long-term placement for > 75 % time in care> 75 % time in care

→82 % say needs met cf 39 % not LT→ 18 % say miss out on affection cf 70 %→ 24 % attempt / think re suicide cf 50 %→ happier after discharge → closer to ‘at home’ comparison group

Child’s perception of security /stability more important than actual stability

PermanencyPermanency? ? Stability? Stability? Security?Security?

Stability (or continuity) is means to an end sense of security and identity– > Capacity to form relationships– > Positive outcomes and adaptive adulthood

Not just continuity/stability of placement– Contact with parents and quality of contact– Siblings and extended family – School and friendships– Known and trusted workers

In care Ist year 4-5 years

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stable Not stable

Number of moves

Foster Family Supported Indep Friends Institution

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

3 mths pre 3 mths post

12 mths post 4-5 yrs post

Accommodation

Yrs 6-9 Yrs 10-11 Yr 12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Stable Unstable

Last year at school

3 mths pre 3 mths post 12 mths post 4-5 yrs post

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Work Study

Parent Unemployed

Other

Work activity: 1st to 4th interview

None Pregnant 1 2 3 4

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Male Female

Children?

What help What help did you need?did you need?

Good stable affordable accommodationEducation / employment1/3 young women pregnant or parentsFinancial supportMental health issuesContact with familyAdvice

MANAGING FINANCIALLYMANAGING FINANCIALLY

65% usually able to make ends meet

But number have to:

‘Go without’ or ‘cut back’ on:– Dentist: 15 4 (46%)– Clothing 6 15 (51%)– Telephone 3 16 (46%)– Food 10 (24%)

SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORTSUPPORT

Primary sources of help– Own family 17 (incl sibs, extended)– Partners 8 Partner’s family 6– Foster family 5 Friends 3

Asked about:– NGOs 19 DoCS 10– DSS 13 Credit card 12– Gambling 8

No-one to ask 12 Not willing to ask 3

Perceived SECURITYPerceived SECURITY

*Coded as positive, negative, medium:

Was there anyone ever feel loved you?Anyone ever feel secure with?Feel as if listened to?Miss out on things other kids had?Miss out on affection?Grow up too fast – bad thing? * Based on 12 months post data

SOCIAL SUPPORTSOCIAL SUPPORT

Continuing contact with foster familyPositive relationship with at least some

family members (parents, sibs, extended)

Friends to rely onOther social network (church, community)

Little/none Some Strong

0

2

4

6

8

10

Social support

Secure Moderate

Insecure

Perceived security by social support

Well better Well same Problems betterProblems sameProblems worse

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Stable Unstable

Faring well by stability

Well better Well same Problems better Problems same Problems worse

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Secure Moderate Not secure

Faring well by perceived security

CONTACT WITH FAMILYCONTACT WITH FAMILY4 - 5 years out of care4 - 5 years out of care

93% have some contact with family– 48% in contact with parent/s at least

monthly– 63% in contact with some siblings– 29% with grandparents– 24% with aunts / uncles etc

56% have unresolved issues to sort outQuality of contact and support varied

Contact with family (+)Contact with family (+)

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

Contact with family (-)Contact with family (-)

I might see her (mother) five times in 3 months and then I won’t see her for 6 months. I got back in contact last year after not seeing her for about 6 years. She rang me up; she was in a refuge with no money and her boyfriend had beaten her up.

I haven’t had anything to do with her for 12 years and until she grows up, I’m not prepared to.

Contact with foster carersContact with foster carersafter careafter care

60% had continuing contact at W4 but level of support varied– 13 had been in LT stable care + 2 with GMo– 2 in ST stable care– 8 in LT unstable care (3 self-selected carers)– 2 in ST unstable care

9/25 (36%) would have liked more contact

SENSE OF SECURITY SENSE OF SECURITY with foster family after carewith foster family after care

Continuing contact with foster carersCan manage contact with birth family Feel they can ask for support

– Emotional and financial– See as place can call home – celebrations,

use as secure base etc– Would ask for support eg pregnancy etc

Contact with foster carersContact with foster carers

• No, I’m happy with the way things are. We just live around the corner from them and I’m treated as part of the family – birthday and Christmas presents like all the other kids and if I’m not there for something, I’m missed.

• We’ve always been in close contact, they are family.• I’d like them to make more effort so it wasn’t up to me

to initiate it all the time. I get the feeling that now that we have moved out that we’ve gone back to being foster children.

DOMAINS OF RESILIENCEDOMAINS OF RESILIENCE * * Employment* (ever employed?) * Living arrangements – mobility, homelessness* Education (completed high school?)* Drug and alcohol (ab)use * Mental health – depression, suicide ideation * Criminal behaviour * Relationships

– Contact, unresolved family issues– Partner, domestic violence– Social activity * * (McGloin & Spatz Widom, 2001)

Insecure Moderate Secure

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Mean risk score by perceived security

Little support Some Strong support

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Mean risk score by social support

SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMSSIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS Drug and alcohol (ab)use

– 19.5% drugs (4 serious); 29% “drink too much”

Domestic violence Turbulent relationships, few long-term Mental health – depression, suicide ideation Future planning ? Lack of supportive networks Unresolved family issues (60%)

CLUSTER OF DIFFICULTYCLUSTER OF DIFFICULTYn = 11n = 11

– All either unemployed or parents– Have to ‘cut back on’ or ‘go without’

number of necessities / services– Smaller subset have no savings, debts,

and few, if anyone, to turn to– More likely to have been in unstable care

Stable / Unstable: X 2 = 12.6, 2 df, p < .002

CLUSTER FARING WELLCLUSTER FARING WELL

All employed or parentsUsually make ends meet and doing

better than others of same ageFelt secure in care and more likely to

have been in stable careSignificant “mentor” or belong to

community (eg church, armed forces) and/or ability to turn to others for help

AFTER LEAVING CAREAFTER LEAVING CAREHelp Needed?Help Needed?

Finding and paying for appropriate accommodation Establishing / setting up house Assistance with fees and information about

training and education Finding and preparing for employment/interviews Access to income support / financial assistance Mentoring Contacting family members Access to health services– drug and alcohol,

sexual and mental health Access to records, documents

POLICY AND PRACTICE POLICY AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONSIMPLICATIONS

Stable and secure care– > Education and employability– > Caring relationships

Case planning and review – rather than “luck of the draw”

Family contact and stability “Family for life” where possible

– > financial and emotional support beyond 18 Voice and choice Ongoing support through to “independence”

CCOSTS OF INADEQUATE OSTS OF INADEQUATE PROVISIONPROVISION

Unemployment46% neither working/studying cf 17% nationally (ABS)

Poor educational performance Early parenting – inter-generational effects

Drug and alcohol use Crime? Loneliness/unhappiness /? well-being: $$$?

VISION FOR THE FUTUREVISION FOR THE FUTURE Greater stability and security in care Every young person leaving care with plan and

support Clarity re State and Commonwealth responsibility

esp18 - 25 years Housing, training and establishment support Involvement of young people and choice of different

forms and models of support Proper evaluation of services

– Accessibility and equity– Appropriateness and effectiveness