edna shimoni – central bureau of statistics

A follow up on a cohort of maltreated A follow up on a cohort of maltreated children treated in the community and children treated in the community and

in out-of-home placements: in out-of-home placements: Background and outcomesBackground and outcomes

Edna Shimoni – Central Bureau of StatisticsEdna Shimoni – Central Bureau of Statistics

Rami Benbenishty – Bar Ilan University and Haruv InstituteRami Benbenishty – Bar Ilan University and Haruv Institute

Child Welfare Services

The child welfare system consists of multiple types of services designed to protect children and promote their welfare

There are major dimensions that distinguish between these services: Community vs. Out-of-home Voluntary vs. Involuntary Welfare vs. Juvenile Delinquency Welfare vs. Education (in Israel)

Community vs. Out-of-home care Community services are intended to support

children and families in the community. They are intended to preserve the family, while protecting the child and promoting his/her well being.

The current treatment ideology in Israel is to provide services in the community and refrain from taking children out of homes, unless it is absolutely necessary to protect the child.

Out of Home Services are designed for children who need to leave their home for a short or long period, for reasons related to the child himself or his family, which endanger him, or do not allow a proper environment.

Welfare vs. Correction system

Often juvenile delinquents are considered a separate population and not part of the child welfare system.

In Israel this group is considered not only perpetrators but also victims of maltreatment. Therefore children in juvenile correctional facilities are included in this study.

Welfare Residential Care vs. Educational Residential Care (Youth villages)

Israel has a long standing system of educational residential facilities (Youth Villages)

Voluntary Most residents are from the geographical and

social periphery; sometimes considered similar to the welfare population

Methodological IssuesResearch Limitations

Current studies are hampered by small and biased samples.

Administrative data use. Linking databases problems – no unique id number. Cannot control background variables underlying

different treatments Limited to information contained in administrative

data bases.

Study objectives

To assess the cumulative probability to receive child welfare services in the community and in out-of-home placements

To describe the background and risk factors of children who were treated in the community and in out-of-home placements

To examine the outcomes of children in different types of placements.

What are not the study objectives

The study does not intend and cannot assess the quality of care provided to children in different types of placement.

The study does not intend and cannot compare the quality of care provided to children in different types of placement.

Methods

The study is based on an integration of multiple administrative databases containing information on a whole cohort of children born in 1989.

The databases contained information on demographic characteristics of children and their parents, educational participation and achievement, child and parent criminal involvement, abortion and teen age parenthood, income and socio economic status of residence.

Methods

Study variables based on administrative data: Students (in primary and secondary education); Matriculations exams and standardized testing Dropped out of school Juvenile probation officers Criminal records and convictions Live births Abortions Classification of local authorities by the socio-economic

level of the population School attendance officers Youth workers registry Parental income

Target population: cohort of children born in 1989 (19 years old in 2008)

GroupAbsolute numbers%

Whole cohort 125,982100

Study group14,52711.5

Children with disabilities9320.7

Total out-of home placements11,8829.4

Youth villages4,9153.9

Foster care2470.2

Juvenile Delinquency 5580.4

Residential care1,2921

Religious boarding schools ('Yeshiva's)4,7723.8

Other out of home980.1

Community interventions1,7131.4

 Rest of the cohort111,45688.5

Study Groups by Gender     

SubgroupTotalBoysGirls

Whole cohort 93,21347,70245,511

100.0%51.2%48.8%

Study group7,9224,7583,164

100.0%60.1%39.9%

Total out-of home placements6,7714,0642,707

100.0%60.0%40.0%

Youth villages4,8432,8951,948

100.0%59.8%40.2%

Foster care21895123

100.0%43.6%56.4%

Juvenile Delinquency 463296167

100.0%63.9%36.1%

Residential care1,183747436

100.0%63.1%36.9%

Community interventions1,151694457

100.0%60.3%39.7%

Marital status of parents

9%

20%

43%

17%20% 19%

9%15%

30%28% 30%

25%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Whole cohort Youth villages Foster care JuvenileDelinquency

Redidential care Communityinterventions

At least one parent is absent Both parents are divorced

Father’s education – years of schooling

5.2%

10.8%

9.6%

13.0%

14.5%

16.9%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Whole cohort

Youth villages

Foster care

Juvenile Delinquency

Redidential care

Community interventions

Up to 8

-

-

Parents criminal convictions, 1999-2008

7%9%

25%22%

23%21%

1% 2%

12%

7%8%

5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Whole cohort Youth villages Foster care JuvenileDelinquency

Redidential care Communityinterventions

Fathers

Mothers

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Cohort

Educational

Foster care

JuvenileCorrections

WelfareResidnetial

Communityservices

Unsuccessfulattempt

Not enough forcollege

Sufficient forcollegeadmission

Matriculation Exams

Criminal records of children

7%

14%23%

84%

31%29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Whole cohort

Youth villages

Foster care Juvenile Delinquency

Residential care

Community interventions

Births and abortions

2%

11%

7%5%

7%

20%

13%

3%

8%

7%6%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Whole cohort  Youthvillages

Foster care JuvenileDelinquency 

Residentialcare

Communityinterventions

Gave birthTerminated her pregnancy

There were major background differences between children in out-of-home placements and other children in the cohort.

Children in Youth villages have different background and have reached better educational outcomes than children in Welfare placements.

The educational outcomes of children in out-of-home placements are especially troublesome.

There is a clear need to address the educational outcomes of youth in care.

Conclusions and Implications

Conclusions and Implications

The outcomes for youth in juvenile delinquency placements are much worse than the rest of youth in out-of-home care. There is a clear need for re-assessment of practices in this area.

Out-of-home care does not close the gap between children in welfare and the rest of their cohorts. It is therefore important to continue to address the needs of this group of maltreated children. E.g. – Services for transitioning out-of-care.

Finally, this study has limitations that should be addressed in future research.

Thank you תודה

&

Shalom שלום

Edna Shimoni ednas@cbs.gov.il

Rami Benbenishtyramibenben@gmail.com