|
|
Foster Care: Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on Young Children
(Letter Report, 04/04/94, GAO/HEHS-94-89).
The 1991 population of young foster care children differs significantly
from the 1986 population in the three locations GAO
reviewed--California, New York, and Pennsylvania, the states with the
largest average foster care populations in 1991. The 1991 population is
much larger, more of these children entered foster care due to some form
of neglect, these children have more health-related problems and are at
high risk for further problems due to prenatal drug exposure, and they
are more likely to be eligible for federal payments. Both federal and
state expenditures have felt the impact of the rising number of young
foster children and the decline in their overall health. Further, two
broad service needs overlap foster and health care programs. First,
drug abuse treatment programs for biological mothers and pregnant women
are needed to reduce the risks associated with prenatal drug exposure
and the likelihood that children will be removed from their families.
Second, services to address the health and developmental needs of
drug-exposed children are needed to treat their problems. Although few
alternatives to foster care are now available to these families, meeting
these needs should increase the chances for family reunification.
However, drug abuse, to the extent that it persists, will remain a
hidden contributor to the costs of various federal programs.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: HEHS-94-89
TITLE: Foster Care: Parental Drug Abuse Has Alarming Impact on
Young Children
DATE: 04/04/94
SUBJECT: Foster children
Public assistance programs
Drug abuse
Drug treatment
Health care services
Alcohol or drug abuse problems
Health care costs
Women
Federal/state relations
Parents
IDENTIFIER: California
New York
Pennsylvania
Los Angeles County (CA)
New York (NY)
Philadelphia (PA)
Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
AFDC
Medicaid Program
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on
Ways and Means
House of Representatives
April 1994
FOSTER CARE - PARENTAL DRUG ABUSE
HAS ALARMING IMPACT
ON YOUNG CHILDREN
GAO/HEHS-94-89
Young Foster Children
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AIDS - acquired immune deficiency syndrome
AFDC - Aid to Families with Dependent Children
EPSDT - early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment
FAS - fetal alcohol syndrome
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
HIV - human immunodeficiency virus
LSD - lysergic acid diethylamide
PCP - phencyclidine hydrochloride
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-251314
April 4, 1994
The Honorable Harold E. Ford
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As the nation's policymakers consider national health care and
welfare reforms, the information contained in this report should be
valuable in helping frame policies that can significantly impact one
of our most vulnerable population groups--young foster children--and
their families. The average number of children in foster care
nationwide increased 53 percent in 5 years, from 280,000 in 1986 to
429,000 in 1991. The three states we reviewed care for over 50
percent of the foster care population. In those states, the number
of children in foster care increased about 66 percent during that
period and the number of young foster children--those 36 months of
age and younger--more than doubled. Additionally, more young foster
children had health-related problems, including prenatal exposure to
drugs, in 1991 than in 1986.
This report responds to the first of three issues in your request;
that we compare and contrast the population sizes and distinctive
characteristics of young foster children in 1986 and 1991. As
agreed, we plan to report later on the two remaining issues: (1) how
and to what extent the service needs of young foster children are
identified and met, and (2) the areas where federal assistance to
states could best serve the needs of young foster children and
increase their chances of becoming self-sufficient or, at a minimum,
less dependent on government assistance later in life.
We reviewed foster care programs in California, New York, and
Pennsylvania, the states with the largest average foster care
populations in 1991. We analyzed statewide foster care databases for
California and New York and reviewed random samples of case files for
1986\1 and 1991 from those of 32,123 young foster children in three
locations: Los Angeles County, New York City, and Philadelphia
County.\2 These locations cared for a substantial portion of each
state's young foster children in 1991: 44 percent in California, 81
percent in New York, and 29 percent in Pennsylvania.
--------------------
\1 For one location in the 1986 sample, program officials could not
locate about 40 percent of the requested case files. Appendix I
describes the steps we took to ensure that comparisons between 1986
and 1991 case file review results were appropriate.
\2 Pennsylvania does not have a statewide foster care database; to
review this state's foster care program we relied on summaries that
the state compiles from aggregate data submitted by its counties.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The 1991 population of young foster children is significantly
different from the 1986 population in the locations reviewed in a
variety of ways: the 1991 population size is much larger, more of
these children entered foster care due to some form of neglect, their
biological parents are more likely to abuse drugs, these children
have more health-related problems and are at high risk for further
problems due to prenatal drug exposure,\3 and they are more likely to
be eligible for federal maintenance payments.
The number of young foster children increased at almost twice the
rate of the general foster care population. Neglect and caretaker
absence prompted an estimated 68 percent of removals, up from 47
percent in 1986. We estimate that families where at least one parent
was a drug abuser increased from 52 percent to 78 percent. An
increasing percentage of children had serious health-related problems
in 1991 and most of them were prenatally exposed to drugs.
Specifically, an estimated 58 percent of young foster children had
serious health-related problems in 1991 compared with 43 percent in
1986. Those at high risk for problems due to prenatal drug exposure
increased from 29 percent to 62 percent over this period. Cocaine
was the most prevalent drug children were prenatally exposed to in
both years; documented prenatal cocaine exposure increased from 17
percent to 55 percent between 1986 and 1991. A larger percentage of
young foster children qualified for federal maintenance payments in
1991 than previously. At the same time, the growing number of young
foster children increased overall maintenance expenditures,
compounding their financial impact on government. Federal and state
governments in these three states alone spent over $2 billion in 1992
to maintain foster children of all ages.
These changes have implications for federal foster care and health
care programs. Both federal and state expenditures have felt the
impact of the growth in the number of young foster children and the
decline in their overall level of health. Further, two broad service
needs overlap foster and health care programs. First, drug abuse
treatment programs for biological mothers and pregnant women are
needed to reduce the risks associated with prenatal drug exposure and
the likelihood that children will be removed from their families.
Second, services to address the health and developmental needs of
drug-exposed children are needed to treat their problems. While few
alternatives to foster care currently exist for many of these
families, meeting both of these service needs should increase the
possibility that such families can be reunified and leave the foster
care system. However, drug abuse, to the extent it continues to
occur, will remain a hidden contributor to the costs of various
federal programs.
--------------------
\3 We included alcohol abuse in our definition of drug abuse.
However, the documented incidence of alcohol use was low, about 6
percent in 1991 and 3 percent in 1986.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
While the federal, state, and county governments and foster parents
share responsibility for providing care and services to foster
children, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
responsible for the management and oversight of federal programs
benefiting foster children. The programs are authorized primarily by
the Social Security Act. The act, in part, authorizes expenditures
to (1) maintain foster children who are eligible under the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, (2) assist states in
providing child welfare services, and (3) provide medical care.
Primarily, HHS establishes federal regulations and monitors states'
compliance with them for children placed in federally funded foster
care and other programs under the act and administers federal funding
for them.
Federal expenditures for the administration and maintenance of
AFDC-eligible foster children are authorized under title IV-E of the
Social Security Act. Those expenditures increased from about $637
million in 1986 to over $2.2 billion nationwide in 1992. The federal
portion of foster care maintenance costs varies by state and is
linked to a state's Medicaid matching rate. The federal portion
ranges from 50 percent to 83 percent of the maintenance cost for
AFDC-eligible foster children; states or counties are responsible for
the full cost of maintaining foster children who are not eligible for
AFDC benefits. Thus, payments to foster parents for the care of an
AFDC-eligible foster child are comprised of federal, state, and in
some cases county monies.
In addition to maintenance funds under title IV-E, federal funds
authorized in other titles of the Social Security Act may be used to
provide medical and other needed services to foster children. States
may participate in programs such as title IV-B, federal matching
grants for various child welfare services; title XIX, Medicaid, for
medical services for foster children; and, title XX, block grants for
a wide array of social services for children. Data were unavailable
to estimate the additional federal, state, and county expenditures
for these other services for foster children. However, we previously
reported that median costs associated with newborn medical care for
infants known to be prenatally drug-exposed were approximately $1,100
to $4,100 higher (in 1989 dollars) than for other infants. Further,
an HHS study provides an example of Medicaid costs in California from
1986 to 1988 for children from birth to 24 months of age. HHS
reported a 2-year average Medicaid expenditure of $1,551 for children
who were not identified as being prenatally exposed to drugs compared
to $2,285 for those who were known to be exposed.\4 Further, medical
expenses for drug-exposed foster children from birth to 12 months of
age were 62 percent greater than the medical expenses for
drug-exposed children who were not in foster care.
--------------------
\4 An Exploratory Analysis of the Medicaid Expenditures of Substance
Exposed Children Under 2 Years of Age in California, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation and Health Care
Financing Administration, HHS (1993) (study prepared by SysteMetrics,
a division of MEDSTAT Systems, Inc., Cambridge, Mass.). The average
was calculated for all children receiving Medicaid benefits in
California, not just foster children. It also excluded costs for the
federally mandated Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and
Treatment (EPSDT) services and delivery services at birth. However,
we believe that this is a reasonable minimum estimate of average
costs for foster children as well.
MORE YOUNG CHILDREN IN FOSTER
CARE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
The foster care populations in the states reviewed increased
dramatically between 1986 and 1991, with the number of young foster
children increasing at a faster rate. The total foster care
population in these states increased 66 percent while the number of
young foster children increased 110 percent. During the same years,
the total number of young children in these states increased 19
percent, indicating that a greater percentage of all young children
in these states entered foster care in 1991 than entered previously.
(See fig. 1 and tables II.1-II.4 in app. II.)
Figure 1: Increase in Foster
Care and Child Populations in
Three States Between 1986 and
1991
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Part of New York's increase in foster children is due to the
provisions of the New York Supreme Court case, Eugene F., which
required all foster children placed with relatives to be included in
foster care caseloads and eligible for services.
Pennsylvania's count of "Young Foster Children" consists of all
foster children under age 5, as its aggregate data did not break out
children under age 3.
California and New York foster children counts represent all children
in foster care at any time during the review year; Pennsylvania data
for foster children represent year-end counts, as comparable data
were not available.
Sources: California and New York--state databases;
Pennsylvania--aggregated state data; except "All Children and All
Young Children"--Bureau of the Census midyear estimates.
NEGLECTFUL OR ABSENT PARENTS
TRIGGERED MOST REMOVALS FROM
HOME
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Neglect and caretaker absence or incapacity were the primary reasons
why young children were removed from their families in both
California and New York, the states where data were available.
Together, these reasons accounted for approximately 47 percent and 68
percent of the removals in 1986 and 1991, respectively. No other
reasons for removals, such as physical abuse, accounted for a large
portion of the entries of young children into foster care in either
year. For example, all types of abuse accounted for 11 percent of
the removals of young children in 1986 and 7 percent in 1991. (See
fig. 2 and table II.6 in app. II.)
Figure 2: Reasons for Removal
of Young Children From Home in
California and New York
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: There were other reasons for removals that did not account for
significant portions of total removals. In addition, some cases only
show broad service program categories, such as "court ordered
placement;" others are listed as unknown or error.
\a Includes removals due to neglect, caretaker absence or incapacity,
relinquishment, and voluntary placements.
\b Consists of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
\c Consists of New York data only. This state uses up to two reasons
for removal, thus, abuse and/or neglect can be cited. Further, the
definitions of some reasons for removal, such as Health/Safety, refer
to abuse and/or neglect.
Source: State electronic databases.
DRUG ABUSE FURTHER IMPACTS
TROUBLED FAMILIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
To better describe the parents' situation around the time their
children were removed from home, we reviewed random samples of case
files for certain difficulties that families face in the three
locations reviewed. Of these situations, estimated increases in the
number of parents who abused drugs or had other children in foster
care are significant between 1986 and 1991. Fully 78 percent of the
young foster children reviewed had at least one parent who was
abusing drugs or alcohol in 1991 compared with 52 percent in 1986.
Families with other children in foster care increased from 68 percent
to 79 percent. Further, families with no other children decreased
from an estimated 18 percent to 11 percent during this time.
Families in 1991 had additional serious problems in common with their
counterparts in 1986 in the three locations. For example, the
percentage of young foster children who came from families with at
least one parent absent was high in both years, estimated at about 70
percent. In addition, over 27 percent of the young foster children
in these years came from families where both parents were absent from
the home around the time of the child's removal, according to our
estimates. (See fig. 3 and table II.7 in app. II.)
Figure 3: Family Situation in
Three Counties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Differences are not statistically significant at the 95-percent
confidence level.
Source: Case file review.
The urgent need for attention to the problems that these families
face is underscored by the facts that in 1991, about one-third of
these families were comprised of drug-abusing single mothers and most
had more than one child in foster care. Without treatment programs
designed for pregnant women and mothers, women are likely to continue
using drugs, leaving few alternatives to foster care for these
families. Yet, as we previously reported, access to treatment
programs for pregnant women is lacking.\5
--------------------
\5 ADMS Block Grant: Women's Set-Aside Does Not Assure Drug
Treatment for Pregnant Women (GAO/HRD-91-80, May 6, 1991).
MORE CHILDREN ARE ILL OR AT
HIGH RISK
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Young children in foster care have or are at high risk for a wide
range of health problems. In the locations reviewed, young foster
children with serious physical health problems increased
significantly, to an estimated 58 percent; similarly, 62 percent of
them were at high risk for serious health problems due to prenatal
drug exposure in 1991. The comparable estimates for 1986 were 43
percent and 29 percent, respectively.\6 (See fig. 4 and table II.8
in app. II.)
Figure 4: Health Conditions of
Young Foster Children in Three
Counties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Consists of prenatal drug exposure (including alcohol exposure)
and drug withdrawal or symptoms.
\b Consists of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), low birth weight,
cardiac defects or heart problems, HIV positive or AIDS,
developmentally delayed, and other serious problems.
\c Consists of psychologically disturbed and behavioral problems.
\d Consists of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
\e Differences are not statistically significant at the 95-percent
confidence level.
\f Consists of children who did not have any of the above conditions.
However, these children may have had minor illnesses.
Source: Case file review.
Medical research suggests that the chronic illnesses these children
have or are at risk for, such as developmental delays, may have been
caused or compounded by prenatal exposure to drugs and alcohol.
Supportive services and treatment beyond those needed by the average
child will be required for many of them.
In addition, the number of drug-exposed children may be
underestimated. We relied on mothers' self-reporting of drug use as
well as the more objective toxicology tests. Yet, not all children
or mothers are tested at birth for drugs and, when tested, only
recent drug use can be confirmed. In 1991 only 59 percent of young
foster children were known to have received a toxicology test at
birth to determine prenatal drug exposure in the days before
delivery. We previously reported that hospitals differ in their
efforts to identify drug-exposed infants.\7 Further, while hospitals
serving primarily Medicaid patients are more likely to perform
toxicology tests than those serving primarily non-Medicaid patients,
drug use during pregnancy is as likely to occur among privately
insured women as among those relying on public assistance for their
health care.
--------------------
\6 We considered a child to be prenatally drug-exposed if any of the
following conditions were documented in the child's foster care
records: mother self-reported drug use during pregnancy, toxicology
test results for mother or infant were positive for drug use, or
infant was diagnosed as having drug-withdrawal symptoms.
\7 Drug-Exposed Infants: A Generation at Risk (GAO/HRD-90-138, June
28, 1990).
COCAINE USE ESCALATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Cocaine was the most prevalent drug that young foster children were
known to be prenatally exposed to in both years. The percentage of
young foster children estimated to have been prenatally exposed to
cocaine increased significantly, from 17 percent in 1986 to 55
percent in 1991. Because toxicology tests cannot identify the form
of cocaine used, we often could not determine whether crack or
another form of cocaine had been used; however, in some cases mothers
self-reported crack use. Of the children who were prenatally
drug-exposed in 1991, 24 percent of their mothers used more than one
kind of drug during pregnancy. (See fig. 5 and table II.9 in app.
II.)
Figure 5: Prenatal Drug
Exposure in Three Counties
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Includes crack and other cocaine derivatives.
\b Includes heroin and methadone.
\c Differences are not statistically significant at the 95-percent
confidence level.
\d Includes methamphetamines.
Source: Case file review.
The increased use of cocaine by the mothers of young foster children
adds additional urgency to the need for drug treatment programs if
the impact of drug abuse on foster care is to be alleviated. Studies
have found that prenatal cocaine exposure can be addictive and can
result in withdrawal symptoms, direct injuries, and disabling effects
on developing fetuses. When the crack derivative of cocaine is used,
the user can become addicted much more quickly and the effects of the
exposure on the fetus are more severe. We previously reported that
researchers attribute crack's popularity among women to its low cost
and the users' perception that smoking a drug is more acceptable and
less intrusive than injecting one.\8 Further, we reported that a
study of prostitutes found that cocaine and crack users are as likely
as intravenous drug users to test positive for the human
immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes AIDS. Other research has
found that mothers who abuse cocaine are likely to have three to five
children. Thus, cocaine-abusing women may have a greater impact on
both the foster and health care systems than users of other drugs.
--------------------
\8 Drug Abuse: The Crack Cocaine Epidemic--Health Consequences and
Treatment (GAO/HRD-91-55FS, Jan. 30, 1991).
FOSTER CARE COSTS INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
A greater portion of foster care maintenance expenditures for young
children shifted to the federal government between 1986 and 1991,
compounding the impact of the increase in overall foster care
maintenance costs. Much of the 110-percent growth in the population
of young foster children between 1986 and 1991 occurred among those
who were AFDC-eligible for federal matching funds, thereby placing
even greater financial responsibility on the federal level. (See
fig. 6 and table II.10 in app. II.)
Figure 6: Sources of Foster
Care Maintenance Funding in
California and New York
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: State electronic databases.
For the three states reviewed--California, New York, and
Pennsylvania--total foster care maintenance expenditures, including
both state and federal portions, increased from about $848 million in
1986 to over $2 billion in 1992.\9 In 1992, foster parents of young
children received a minimum monthly payment of $345 in California,
$353 in New York, and $330 in Pennsylvania. However, foster parents
can receive much higher payments to care for children with special
needs. For example, in New York City, foster parents caring for very
sick children can be paid as much as $1,281 per month for each child
in their care. Further, if foster children require specialized care
in a group setting, maintenance payments could be even higher; for
example, the maximum monthly payment is $4,762 in Los Angeles County.
--------------------
\9 No national data exist on total costs for foster care.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
We conducted our work between November 1992 and November 1993 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Our scope and methodology are discussed further in appendix I. As
agreed with your office, we did not obtain written comments on this
report, but discussed its contents with state and county program
officials in California, New York, and Pennsylvania and officials
from HHS. We incorporated their comments where appropriate.
In addition, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we
plan no further distribution of this report until 21 days after its
issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of
Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, the Director of the
Office of National Drug Control Policy, program officials in the
states reviewed, and other interested parties. We will also make
copies available to others upon request. For additional information,
please call me on (202) 512-7215. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Jane L. Ross
Associate Director
Income Security Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
To accomplish the objectives of our review, we obtained and analyzed
data on state foster care programs and the children in them from the
three states with the largest average monthly foster care populations
in 1991--California, New York, and Pennsylvania. Over 50 percent of
the nations's foster children are under the jurisdiction of the three
states we reviewed.
We used a variety of approaches to meet our objectives. We analyzed
electronic state and county foster care databases; conducted a case
file review based on generalizable random samples; interviewed
Department of Health and Human Services, state, and county foster
care officials; conducted a telephone survey of child welfare
advocacy groups and other child welfare experts; conducted group
interviews with foster parents and case workers; reviewed foster care
and related literature; reviewed applicable portions of the Social
Security Act and other legislation; and reviewed foster care agency
regulations and other documents.
STATEWIDE DATA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
To determine the foster care population size, reasons for removal,
and funding eligibility of young foster children, we analyzed
electronic foster care databases for states where they were
available, California and New York. State officials provided us with
automated records for all children who were in foster care at any
time during calendar years 1986 and 1991.
We could not obtain comparable electronic records for Pennsylvania as
that state has not established an automated case record system.
Instead we relied on aggregate data available in management reports
for 1986 and 1991 to determine the size of the state foster care
population. Thus, we relied on end-of-year data, which undercounts
the total foster care population for that state.
To determine the population size for all children in the three
states, we used 1986 and 1991 Bureau of the Census midyear estimates.
COUNTY CASE FILE DATA
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
To determine additional characteristics of young foster children, we
reviewed statistically representative samples of foster care case
files for the county with the largest foster care population in 1991
for each of the states reviewed. To identify those locations, we
again used the state foster care databases for California and New
York; for Pennsylvania, we relied on information provided by state
officials. The counties identified are Los Angeles County, New York
City, and Philadelphia County, respectively.\1 To complete our
sampling, Philadelphia County officials provided us with an
electronic database of foster children in that county in 1986 and
1991. Table I.1 shows the number of children in that county whose
electronic records were initially supplied to us by county officials
and the final number of children whose records remained after we
expunged records that did not meet our criteria because they were for
children who were in emergency homeless shelters, not foster care.
Table I.1
Initial and Final Population Sizes for
Philadelphia County's Electronic
Database of Children in Foster Care
Initial Initial
size Final size size Final size
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Philadelphia 8,852 7,405 8,885 7,704
County
database
------------------------------------------------------------
Before drawing the sample, we narrowed the databases to include only
foster children whose third birthday occurred no later than December
31 in the year under review. In addition, we stratified the foster
care records of the 32,123 young foster children in our population by
location and by year. Our initial samples contained 932 children.
The population and initial sample sizes are shown in table I.2.
Table I.2
Initial Population and Sample Sizes for
Children in Foster Care
Populati Populati
on Sample on Sample
-------------------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Los Angeles County 4,241 226 8,249 137
New York City 4,381 150 13,171 150
Philadelphia County 746 142 1,335 127
============================================================
Total\a 9,368 518 22,755 414
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Sample size totals are provided to indicate the composition of the
initial samples. When used in analyses, sample strata were weighted.
We requested all foster care case files for each child in the
samples. A few case files were dropped from the samples because the
child did not meet the criteria of being in foster care during the
review year or was not of the appropriate age. In addition, other
case files were dropped because county officials could not locate
them. In particular, for one county, many of the 1986 case files we
requested could not be found. By comparing demographic data for
available and unavailable case files in that county, we determined
that the two groups had similar characteristics. Further, state and
county program officials told us that they are unaware of differences
between the available and unavailable case files and believe that
they represent the same population. We concluded that the dropped
case files were likely to be analogous to those we reviewed. Thus,
we used them for comparisons with 1991.
Our final sample size was 759 young foster children. We used an
adjusted population size, inversely proportional to our dropout rate,
to project to the county level; however, the data cannot be projected
to these states as a whole or to the national population of foster
children. Initial and final sample sizes, along with the percentages
of the initial samples used, are shown in table I.3.
Table I.3
Sample Sizes and Percentages of Initial
Samples Used
Percent of
initial
Initial Final sample
sample sample used
------------------------ ---------- ---------- ----------
1986
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County 226 132 58.4
New York City 150 131 87.3
Philadelphia County 142 113 79.6
============================================================
Total\a 518 376 73.6
1991
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles County 137 122 89.1
New York City 150 145 96.7
Philadelphia County 127 116 91.3
============================================================
Total\a 414 383 93.6
------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentage totals are weighted averages showing the percentage of
the total population covered by the final samples.
We examined the foster care case files beginning at a child's first
entry into foster care until the end of the review year or until the
child was discharged from foster care, whichever occurred earlier.
We used an automated data collection instrument to record information
from the case files. The recorded information was reviewed for
accuracy by the individual preparing it before finalizing each
electronic record. We also reviewed the case file data for
consistent coding among individuals; minor adjustments were made to
the coding as a result of that review.
We analyzed the case file data using univariate analysis, a
descriptive statistical method. We also used a t-test to determine
statistically significant differences between the 1986 and 1991 data.
In addition, when combining the strata, we weighted them to adjust
for disproportionate sampling. Finally, we found that results from
the three locations were similar; thus, the locations could be
combined for analysis.
For data derived from the case file review, the percentage estimates
reported in the letter and the numerical estimates reported in
appendix II are point estimates. The precision of these estimates
varies with the quantitative relationship of a number of attributes
in a population. We are 95-percent confident that the point
estimates fall within the confidence intervals reported in appendix
II. Conversely, there is a 5-percent chance that the confidence
intervals do not contain the actual population.
We performed limited tests of the completeness of the case files.
However, we did not independently verify the accuracy of the
electronic databases provided to us by state and county officials.
--------------------
\1 New York City is comprised of five boroughs and is treated in the
state database as a county.
DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
ANALYSIS RESULTS
========================================================== Appendix II
This appendix presents the numerical values for the data discussed in
the body of this report. Where appropriate, point estimates and
confidence intervals are provided. The appendix includes statewide
data and case file review results for the review years of 1986 and
1991.
Table II.1
All Children in Foster Care in Three
States
Percent
1986 1991 change
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
California\a 70,240 109,804 56.3
New York\a,b 44,613 84,997 90.5
Pennsylvania\c 13,181 17,737 34.6
============================================================
Total 128,034 212,538 66.0
------------------------------------------------------------
\a California and New York counts of foster children represent all
children who were in foster care at any time during the review year.
\b Part of New York's increase in foster children is due to the
provisions of the New York Supreme Court case, Eugene F., which
required all foster children placed with relatives to be included in
foster care caseloads and eligible for services.
\c Pennsylvania's count of foster children represents year-end
counts, as data on the total number of children in foster care at any
time during the year were not available.
Sources: California and New York--state databases;
Pennsylvania--aggregate state data.
Table II.2
Young Children in Foster Care in Three
States
Percent
1986 1991 change
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
California\a 10,039 18,786 87.1
New York\a,b 6,443 16,215 151.7
Pennsylvania\c 2,341 4,537 93.8
============================================================
Total 18,823 39,538 110.1
------------------------------------------------------------
\a California and New York counts of foster children represent all
young children who were in foster care at any time during the review
year.
\b Part of New York's increase in foster children is due to the
provisions of the New York Supreme Court case, Eugene F., which
required all foster children placed with relatives to be included in
foster care caseloads and eligible for services.
\c Pennsylvania's count of young foster children represents year-end
counts, as data on the total number of young children in foster care
were not available. Further, that count is for foster children under
the age of 5 years, as its aggregate data did not break out children
under age 3 years.
Sources: California and New York--state databases;
Pennsylvania--aggregate state data.
Table II.3
All Children in Three States
Percent
1986 1991 change
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
California 7,044,750 8,172,768 16.0
New York 4,341,069 4,359,573 0.4
Pennsylvania 2,840,991 2,825,376 -0.5
============================================================
Total 14,226,810 15,357,717 7.9
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of the Census midyear estimates.
Table II.4
Young Children in Three States
Percent
1986 1991 change
--------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
California 1,320,377 1,671,335 26.6
New York 730,588 828,255 13.4
Pennsylvania 465,077 491,742 5.7
============================================================
Total 2,516,042 2,991,332 18.9
------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Bureau of the Census midyear estimates.
Table II.5
States' Young Children in Foster Care in
Three Counties
Selected Percent of Selected Percent of
State county state State county state
foster foster foster foster foster foster
care care care care care care
-------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Californ 10,039 4,241 42.2 18,786 8,249 43.9
ia\a
New 6,443 4,381 68.0 16,215 13,171 81.2
York\a
Pennsylv 2,341 746 31.9 4,537 1,335 29.4
ania\b
================================================================================
Total 18,823 9,368 49.8 39,538 22,755 57.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a California and New York counts of foster children represent all
young children who were in foster care at any time during the review
year.
\b Pennsylvania's state count of young foster children represents
year-end counts, as data on the total number of young children in
foster care at any time during the year were not available. Further,
that count is for foster children under the age of 5 years, as its
aggregate data did not break out children under age 3 years.
However, the count for the selected county represents all children
under age 3 years who were in foster care at any time during the
year.
Sources: California and New York--state databases;
Pennsylvania--aggregate state data and county database.
Table II.6
Reasons for Removal of Young Children
From Home in California and New York
Abuse Abuse
and/ and/
or or
Neglec Abuse\ neglec Neglec neglec
t\a b t\c t Abuse t
------------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
California 4,259 1,844 -- 15,340 2,495 --
New York 3,524 14 1,028 8,497 17 1,522
============================================================
Total 7,783 1,858 1,028 23,837 2,512 1,522
------------------------------------------------------------
Note: There were other reasons for removals that did not account for
significant portions of total removals. In addition, some cases only
show broad service program categories, such as "court ordered
placement," and others are listed as unknown or error.
\a Includes removals due to neglect, caretaker absence or incapacity,
relinquishment, and voluntary placements.
\b Consists of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
\c Consists of New York data only. This state uses up to two reasons
for removal, thus, abuse and/or neglect can be cited. In addition,
the definitions of some reasons for removal, such as Health/Safety,
refer to abuse and/or neglect.
Sources: State databases.
Table II.7
Family Situation Around the Time of
Removal From Home in Three Counties
Upper Lower Upper Lower
Statistical Point Point Point Point bound bound bound bound
Sit ly estimat estimat estimat estimat s, s, s, s,
uat significant e, e, e, e, perce perce perce perce
ion change\a number percent number percent nt nt nt nt
--- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ----- ----- -----
Social Problems
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dru yes 3,572 51.8 16,660 78.2 58.0 45.6 83.4 73.0
g
ab
us
e
Cri no 1,132 16.4 3,604 16.9 20.7 12.7 20.7 13.5
mi
na
l
re
co
rd
Inc no 1,037 15.0 2,587 12.1 19.0 11.0 15.7 8.6
ar
ce
ra
te
d
Hom no 2,305 33.4 6,809 32.0 39.0 27.9 37.4 26.5
el
es
s\
b
Dom no 867 12.6 1,989 9.3 16.5 9.2 12.9 6.4
es
ti
c
vi
ol
en
ce
Div no 0 0.0 60 0.3 1.8 0.0 2.2 0.0
or
ce
d
Parents absent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At no 4,754 68.9 14,828 69.6 75.3 62.6 75.3 64.0
le
as
t
on
e
pa
re
nt
ab
se
nt
Fat no 4,512 65.4 14,353 67.4 71.8 59.1 73.1 61.7
her
ab
se
nt
Mot no 2,125 30.8 6,454 30.3 36.3 25.4 35.6 25.0
her
ab
se
nt
Bot no 1,883 27.3 5,978 28.1 32.5 22.1 33.3 22.9
h
pa
re
nt
s
ab
se
nt
Dec no 96 1.4 570 2.7 3.8 0.5 5.4 1.3
ea
se
d
Siblings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sib yes 4,659 67.5 16,790 78.8 73.7 61.4 83.9 73.8
li
ng
s
in
fo
st
er
ca
re
in
re
vi
ew
ye
ar
Sib no 667 9.7 1,608 7.6 12.7 6.6 10.5 4.6
li
ng
s
no
t
in
fo
st
er
ca
re
in
re
vi
ew
ye
ar
No yes 1,242 18.0 2,357 11.1 22.4 13.7 14.7 7.5
si
bl
in
gs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Statistically significant change between 1986 and 1991.
\b Includes unstable residency.
Source: Case file review.
Table II.8
Health Conditions of Young Foster
Children in Three Counties
Hea
lth Upper Lower Upper Lower
con Statistical Point Point Point Point bound bound bound bound
dit ly estimat estimat estimat estimat s, s, s, s,
ion significant e, e, e, e, perce perce perce perce
s change\a number percent number percent nt nt nt nt
--- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ----- ----- -----
At yes 1,996 28.9 13,290 62.4 34.2 23.7 68.2 56.6
ri
sk
fo
r
se
ri
ou
s
he
al
th
pr
ob
le
ms
\b
Dru yes 1,799 26.1 13,202 62.0 31.1 21.1 67.8 56.2
g-
ex
po
se
d
Dru yes 1,746 25.3 12,786 60.0 30.3 20.4 65.9 54.2
g-
ex
po
se
d
(e
xc
lu
de
s
al
co
ho
l)
Alc yes 176 2.6 1,198 5.6 5.1 1.3 8.7 3.2
oh
ol
-
ex
po
se
d
(e
xc
lu
de
s
dr
ug
s)
Dru yes 1,171 17.0 5,936 27.9 21.6 12.4 33.2 22.6
g
wi
th
dr
aw
al
Ser yes 2,977 43.2 12,420 58.3 49.1 37.2 64.1 52.5
io
us
he
al
th
pr
ob
le
ms
\c
Fet no 77 1.1 257 1.2 3.5 0.3 3.5 0.4
al
al
co
ho
l
sy
nd
ro
me
Low yes 985 14.3 5,084 23.9 18.3 10.2 28.9 18.9
bi
rt
h
we
ig
ht
Hea no 409 5.9 1,786 8.4 9.2 3.8 12.0 5.0
rt
pr
ob
le
ms
HIV no 0 0.0 383 1.8 1.8 0.0 4.3 0.6
or
AI
DS
Dev yes 546 7.9 3,753 17.6 11.0 4.9 22.0 13.2
el
op
me
nt
al
ly
de
la
ye
d
Oth yes 2,352 34.1 10,119 47.5 39.7 28.5 53.3 41.7
er
Abu no 243 3.5 569 2.7 6.2 2.1 5.3 1.4
se
d\
d
Phy no 175 2.5 509 2.4 5.1 1.5 5.0 1.2
si
ca
l
Sex no 56 0.8 60 0.3 2.9 0.2 2.2 0.0
ual
Emo no 29 0.4 0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.8 0.0
ti
on
al
Psy yes 11 0.2 833 3.9 2.0 0.0 6.9 2.1
ch
os
oc
ia
l
pr
ob
le
ms
\e
Psy no 0 0.0 236 1.1 1.8 0.0 3.4 0.3
ch
ol
og
ic
al
ly
di
st
ur
be
d
Beh yes 11 0.2 773 3.6 2.0 0.0 6.6 1.9
av
io
ra
l
pr
ob
le
ms
No yes 2,543 36.9 4,162 19.5 42.5 31.2 24.1 15.0
kn
ow
n
se
ri
ou
s
he
al
th
pr
ob
le
ms
\f
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Statistically significant change between 1986 and 1991.
\b Consists of prenatal drug exposure (including alcohol exposure)
and drug withdrawal or symptoms.
\c Consists or fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), low birth weight,
cardiac defects or heart problems, HIV positive or AIDS,
developmentally delayed, and other serious problems.
\d Consists of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.
\e Consists of psychologically disturbed and behavioral problems.
\f Consists of children who did not have any of the above conditions.
However, these children may have had minor illnesses.
Source: Case file review.
Table II.9
Prenatal Drug Exposure in Three Counties
Pre
nat
al
dru Upper Lower Upper Lower
g Statistical Point Point Point Point bound bound bound bound
exp ly estimat estimat estimat estimat s, s, s, s,
osu significant e, e, e, e, perce perce perce perce
re change\a number percent number percent nt nt nt nt
--- ----------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ----- ----- ----- -----
Coc yes 1,185 17.2 11,642 54.7 21.8 12.6 60.8 48.5
ai
ne
\b
Alc yes 230 3.3 1,509 7.1 6.1 1.9 10.4 4.5
oh
ol
Mar no 203 2.9 1,028 4.8 5.5 1.7 7.8 3.1
ij
ua
na
Opi no 496 7.2 1,551 7.3 10.5 5.0 10.7 4.9
at
es
\c
Amp no 96 1.4 361 1.7 3.5 0.6 4.0 0.7
he
ta
mi
ne
s\
d
PCP no 225 3.3 301 1.4 5.7 1.9 3.6 0.5
Tob no 152 2.2 181 0.8 4.8 1.1 3.0 0.2
ac
co
LSD no 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.8 0.0 1.8 0.0
Not yes 4,363 63.3 7,289 34.2 69.4 57.1 39.7 28.8
kn
ow
n
to
be
pr
en
at
al
ly
ex
po
se
d
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Statistically significant change between 1986 and 1991.
\b Includes crack and other cocaine derivatives.
\c Includes heroin and methadone.
\d Includes methamphetamines.
Source: Case file review.
Table II.10
Sources of Foster Care Maintenance
Funding in California and New York
Federal Nonfederal Federal Nonfederal
funding funding funding funding
------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
California 5,496 2,572 10,487 3,245
New York 4,384 751 13,649 738
============================================================
Total 9,880 3,323 24,136 3,983
------------------------------------------------------------
Sources: State databases.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix III
Robert L. MacLafferty, Assistant Director
Kerry Gail Dunn, Evaluator-in-Charge
Helen Cregger
Lynne M. Fender
Susan J. Malone
Sheila E. Murray
Tranchau T. Nguyen
Terri M. Paynter
Susan K. Riggio
Ann T. Walker
Cameo A. Zola
_
|
