Skip to main content

Out-of-Home Placement Decision-Making and Outcomes in Child Welfare: A Longitudinal Study

Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research volume 42, pages 70–86 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

After children enter the child welfare system, subsequent out-of-home placement decisions and their impact on children’s well-being are complex and under-researched. This study examined two placement decision-making models: a multidisciplinary team approach, and a decision support algorithm using a standardized assessment. Based on 3,911 placement records in the Illinois child welfare system over 4 years, concordant (agreement) and discordant (disagreement) decisions between the two models were compared. Concordant decisions consistently predicted improvement in children’s well-being regardless of placement type. Discordant decisions showed greater variability. In general, placing children in settings less restrictive than the algorithm suggested (“under-placing”) was associated with less severe baseline functioning but also less improvement over time than placing children according to the algorithm. “Over-placing” children in settings more restrictive than the algorithm recommended was associated with more severe baseline functioning but fewer significant results in rate of improvement than predicted by concordant decisions. The importance of placement decision-making on policy, restrictiveness of placement, and delivery of treatments and services in child welfare are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  • Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 .(1997). Pub. L. No. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115.

  • Anderson, R. L., Lyons, J. S., Giles, D. M., Price, J. A., & Estle, G. (2003). Reliability of the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths-Mental Health (CANS-MH) Scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(3), 279–289. doi:10.1023/a:1023935726541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2003). Placement stability and the psychosocial well-being of children in foster care. Research on Social Work Practice, 13(4), 415–431. doi:10.1177/1049731503013004001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, D. J., Dalgleish, L., Fluke, J., & Kern, H. (2011). The decision-making ecology. Washington, DC: American Humane Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, L. M., Bruch, S. K., Johnson, E. I., James, S., & Rubin, D. (2009). Estimating the “impact” of out-of-home placement on child well-being: Approaching the problem of selection bias. Child Development, 80(6), 1856–1876. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01372.x.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakey, J. M., Leathers, S. J., Lawler, M., Washington, T., Natschke, C., Strand, T., et al. (2012). A review of how states are addressing placement stability. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(2), 369–378. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.11.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chor, K. H. B. (2013). Overview of out-of-home placements and placement decision-making in child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 7(3), 298–328. doi:10.1080/15548732.2013.779357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chor, K. H. B., McClelland, G. M., Weiner, D. A., Jordan, N., & Lyons, J. S. (2012). Predicting outcomes of children in residential treatment: A comparison of a decision support algorithm and a multidisciplinary team decision model. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2345–2352. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chor, K. H. B., McClelland, G. M., Weiner, D. A., Jordan, N., & Lyons, J. S. (2013). Patterns of out-of-home placement decision-making in child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(10), 871–882. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.016.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crea, T. M., Usher, C. L., & Wildfire, J. B. (2009). Implementation fidelity of Team Decisionmaking. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 119–124. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fallon, T., Pumariega, A., Sowers, W., Klaehn, R., Huffine, C., Vaughan, T., et al. (2006). A level of care instrument for children’s systems of care: Construction, reliability and validity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15(2), 140–152. doi:10.1007/s10826-005-9012-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P. A., & Chamberlain, P. (2000). Multidimensional treatment Foster Care: A program for intensive parenting, family support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8(3), 155–164. doi:10.1177/106342660000800303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, P. A., & Gilliam, K. S. (2012). Multidimensional treatment foster care: An alternative to residential treatment for high risk children and adolescents. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(2), 195–203. doi:10.5093/in2012a20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhaber-Fiebert, J., Bailey, S., Hurlburt, M., Zhang, J., Snowden, L., Wulczyn, F., et al. (2012). Evaluating child welfare policies with decision-analytic simulation models. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39(6), 466–477. doi:10.1007/s10488-011-0370-z.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, G., Martinovich, Z., Gawron, T., & Lyons, J. S. (2009). Strengths moderate the impact of trauma on risk behaviors in child welfare. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 26(2), 105–118. doi:10.1080/08865710902872994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handwerk, M. L., Friman, P. C., Mott, M. A., & Stairs, J. M. (1998). The relationship between program restrictiveness and youth behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(3), 170–179. doi:10.1177/106342669800600305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helgerson, J., Martinovich, Z., Durkin, E., & Lyons, J. S. (2007). Differences in outcome trajectories of children in residential treatment. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 22(4), 67–79. doi:10.1300/J007v22n04_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. (2010). Policy Guide 2010.01 Child and Youth Investment Teams (CAYIT). Chicago, IL: Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

  • Illinois Department of Children and Family Services. (2013). Policy Guide 2013.03 Clinical Intervention for Placement Preservation (CIPP). Chicago, IL: Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

  • James, S. (2004). Why do foster care placements disrupt? An investigation of reasons for placement change in foster care. Social Service Review, 78(4), 601–627.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, S., Landsverk, J., & Slymen, D. J. (2004). Placement movement in out-of-home care: Patterns and predictors. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(2), 185–206. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leathers, S. J. (2006). Placement disruption and negative placement outcomes among adolescents in long-term foster care: The role of behavior problems. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30(3), 307–324. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.09.003.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1992). Reliability of the foster-care placement decision—A review. Research on Social Work Practice, 2(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. S. (2004). Redressing the emperor. Improving our children’s public mental health system. Westport: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. S. (2009). Communimetrics: A communication theory of measurement in human service settings. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. S., & Abraham, M. E. (2001). Designing level of care criteria. In L. J. Kiser, P. M. Lefkovitz, & L. L. Kennedy (Eds.), The Integrated Behavioral Health Continuum Theory and Practice (pp. 91–106). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J. S., Woltman, H., Martinovich, Z., & Hancock, B. (2009). An outcomes perspective of the role of residential treatment in the system of care. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 26(2), 71–91. doi:10.1080/08865710902872960.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magura, S., Staines, G., Kosanke, N., Rosenblum, A., Foote, J., DeLuca, A., et al. (2003). Predictive validity of the ASAM Patient Placement Criteria for naturalistically matched vs. mismatched alcoholism patients. American Journal on Addictions, 12(5), 386–397.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. M., Peters, C. L., & Glisson, C. (1998). Factors affecting case management recommendations for children entering state custody. Social Service Review, 72(4), 521–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. M., O’Reilly, A. L., Luan, X., & Localio, A. R. (2007). The impact of placement stability on behavioral well-being for children in foster care. Pediatrics, 119(2), 336–344. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-1995.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, A. J., Bruce, M. E., & Mcroy, R. G. (1984). Matching children with placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 6(2), 125–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, J. D., & Willet, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurence. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Snyder, E. H., Lawrence, C. N., & Dodge, K. A. (2012). The impact of system of care support in adherence to wraparound principles in Child and Family Teams in child welfare in North Carolina. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(4), 639–647. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.010.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Praed Foundation. (2010). Reliability and validity of the CANS. About the CANS. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.praedfoundation.org/About%20the%20CANS.html#Here.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2006). Preliminary FY 2005 estimates as of September 2006 (13). The AFCARS Report. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Preliminary FY 2006 estimates as of January 2008 (14). The AFCARS Report Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report14.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009a). Preliminary FY 2007 estimates as of October 2009 (15). The AFCARS Report Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report15.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2009b). Preliminary FY 2008 estimates as of October 2009 (16). The AFCARS Report Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report16.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Preliminary FY 2009 estimates as of July 2010 (17). The AFCARS Report. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcars_report17.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Preliminary FY 2010 estimates as of June 2011 (18). The AFCARS Report. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport18.pdf.

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2012). Preliminary FY 2011 estimates as of July 2012 (19). The AFCARS Report. Retrieved December 6, 2013, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport19.pdf.

  • Weiner, D. A., Schneider, A., & Lyons, J. S. (2009). Evidence-based treatments for trauma among culturally diverse foster care youth: Treatment retention and outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(11), 1199–1205. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (IDCFS). The authors would like to give special thanks to the Child and Youth Investment Teams (CAYIT), especially Teddy Savas and Lee Annes, for their invaluable insight and input.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Center for Mental Health Implementation and Dissemination Science in States for Children, Adolescents, and Families (IDEAS Center), New York University Child Study Center, New York University School of Medicine, 1 Park Avenue, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Ka Ho Brian Chor

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 710 North Lake Shore Drive, 12th Floor, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Gary M. McClelland, Dana A. Weiner & Neil Jordan

  3. Child and Youth Mental Health Research, School of Psychology, University of Ottawa, Vanier Hall, 4805, Ottawa, Ontario, K1N6N5, Canada

    John S. Lyons

Authors
  1. Ka Ho Brian Chor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary M. McClelland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dana A. Weiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Neil Jordan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. John S. Lyons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ka Ho Brian Chor.

Appendix: Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Algorithm—placement criteria for residential treatment, group home, specialized foster care, and foster care

Appendix: Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Algorithm—placement criteria for residential treatment, group home, specialized foster care, and foster care

4. Residential treatment center (RTC) criteria

4.1 At least two or more ‘3’ among the following needs

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Adjustment to trauma 14 14
Psychosis 46 48
Attention deficit/impulse 47 49
Depression 48 50
Anxiety 49 51
Oppositional behavior 50 52
Conduct 51 53
Substance use 52 54
Attachment 53 55
Eating disturbance 54 56
Affect dysregulation 55 57
Behavioral regression 56 58
Somatization 57 59
Anger control 58 60

4.2 Three or more ‘2’ among the following needs

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Adjustment to trauma 14 14
Psychosis 46 48
Attention deficit/impulse 47 49
Depression 48 50
Anxiety 49 51
Oppositional Behavior 50 52
Conduct 51 53
Substance use 52 54
Attachment 53 55
Eating disturbance 54 56
Affect dysregulation 55 57
Behavioral regression 56 58
Somatization 57 59
Anger control 58 60

4.3 A rating of ‘2’ or ‘3’ on Developmental (32-intellectual/developmental) (CANS 2.0–34).

4.4 At least one ‘3’ among the following risk behaviors.

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Delinquency 65 67
Fire setting 67 69

4.5 Three or more ‘2’ among the following risk behaviors.

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Runaway 64 66
Delinquency 65 67
Judgment 66 68
Fire setting 67 69
Social behavior 68 70
Sexually reactive behavior 69 71

Referral to a Residential Treatment Center is indicated by a CANS that satisfies the following criteria matching rules:

Rule 1: (4.1 = TRUE OR 4.2 = TRUE OR 4.3 = TRUE) AND (4.4 = TRUE OR 4.5 = TRUE)

Rule 2: Consider a specialty program if

CANS 1.0 CANS 2.0
4.3 OR
(CANS 63 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 36 (Medical) OR
CANS 37 (Physical) OR
CANS 65 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3) 		4.3 OR
(CANS 65 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 37 (Medical) OR
CANS 38 (Physical) OR
CANS 67 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3)

3. Group home/treatment group home (GRH/IGH) criteria

A. Child is less than 12 years old.

3a.0 Child is less than 12 years old.

3a.1 At least one or more ‘3’ or two or more ‘2’ among the following needs.

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Adjustment to Trauma 14 14
Psychosis 46 48
Attention deficit/impulse 47 49
Depression 48 50
Anxiety 49 51
Oppositional behavior 50 52
Conduct 51 53
Substance use 52 54
Attachment 53 55
Eating disturbance 54 56
Affect dysregulation 55 57
Behavioral regression 56 58
Anger control 58 60

3a.2 A rating of at least ‘2’ on Developmental (32—Developmental/Intellectual)

(CANS 2.0–34)

3a.3 One ‘3’ among the following risk behaviors

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Delinquency 65 67
Fire setting 67 69

3a.4 Two or more ‘2’ among the following risk behaviors

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Runaway 64 66
Delinquency 65 67
Fire setting 67 68

Group Home Referral rule:

Rule A1: 3a.0 AND (3a.1 OR 3a.2) AND (3a.3 OR 3a.4)

Rule A2: Consider specialty program if

CANS 1.0 CANS 2.0
3a.2 OR
(CANS 63 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 36 (Medical) OR
CANS 37 (Physical) OR
CANS 65 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3) 		3a.2 OR
(CANS 65 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 37 (Medical) OR
CANS 38 (Physical) OR
CANS 67 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3)

B. Child is 12 through 14 years old

3b.0 Child’s age is 12 through 14 years

3b.1 At least one or more ‘3’ or two or more ‘2’ among the following needs

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Adjustment to trauma 14 14
Psychosis 46 48
Attention deficit/impulse 47 49
Depression 48 50
Anxiety 49 51
Oppositional behavior 50 52
Conduct 51 53
Substance use 52 54
Attachment 53 55
Eating disturbance 54 56
Affect dysregulation 55 57
Behavioral Regression 56 58
Somatization 57 59
Anger control 58 60

3b.2 A rating of ‘2’ or ‘3’ on Developmental (32 - Developmental/Intellectual)

3b.3 One ‘3’ among the following risk behaviors

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Delinquency 65 67
Fire Setting 67 69
Sexually reactive behavior 69 71

3b.4. Two or more ‘2’ among the following risk behaviors

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Runaway 64 66
Delinquency 65 67
Fire Setting 67 69
Sexually reactive behavior 69 71

3b.5 A rating of ‘3’ on at least two or more of the following:

CANS Subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
School attendance 41 43
Judgment 66 68
Social behavior 68 70

Group Home Referral rule:

Rule B1: 3b.0 AND (3b.1 OR 3b.2) AND (3b.3 OR 3b.4 OR 3b.5)

Rule B2: Consider specialty program if

CANS 1.0 CANS 2.0
3b.2 OR
(CANS 63 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 36 (Medical) OR
CANS 37 (Physical) OR
CANS 65 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3) 		3b.2 OR
(CANS 65 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 37 (Medical) OR
CANS 38 (Physical) OR
CANS 67 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3)

C. Child is aged 15 or above

3c.0 Youth’s age is 15 or above

3c.1. Attachment (CANS 53) (CANS 2.0: 55) is rated as a ‘2’ or ‘3’

3c.2 Meets criteria for Specialized Foster Care (FHS)

3c.3 Parenting Role (CANS 86 (CANS 2.0: 89) rated a ‘2’ or ‘3’

Group Home Referral rule:

Rule C1: 3c.0 AND ((criteria for section B above) OR (3c.1 AND 3c.2) OR 3c.3)

Rule C2: Consider specialty program if

CANS 1.0 CANS 2.0
3c.2 OR
3c.3 OR
(CANS 63 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 36 (Medical) OR
CANS 37 (Physical) OR
CANS 65 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3) 		3c.2 OR
3c.3 OR
(CANS 65 (Sexual Aggression) OR
CANS 37 (Medical) OR
CANS 38 (Physical) OR
CANS 67 (Delinquency) = 2 or 3)

2. Specialized foster care (FHS) Criteria

2.1 A rating of ‘2’ or ‘3’ on one of the following.

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Medical 36 37
Physical 37 38
Somatization 57 59

2.2 At least one ‘2’ or ‘3’ on one of the following

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Adjustment to trauma 14 14
Psychosis 46 48
Attention deficit/impulse 47 49
Depression 48 50
Anxiety 49 51
Oppositional behavior 50 52
Conduct 51 53
Substance use 52 54
Attachment 53 55
Eating disturbance 54 56
Affect dysregulation 55 57
behavioral regression 56 58
Anger control 58 60

2.3 A rating of ‘3’ on at least one of the following:

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Intellectual/developmental 32 34
Motor 70 72
Sensory 71 73
Communication 72 74
Failure to thrive 73 75
Regulatory problems 74 REMOVED
Substance exposure 78 79
Independent Living Skills 84 87

2.4 A rating of ‘3’ on at least one of the following.

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
School behavior 39 41
Social behavior 68 70
Sexually reactive Behavior 69 71

2.5 A rating of ‘2’ or ‘3’ on at least one of the following.

CANS subject CANS 1.0 question # CANS 2.0 question #
Suicide risk 59 61
Self mutilation 60 62
Other self harm 61 63
Danger to others 62 64
Sexual aggression 63 65
Runaway 64 66
Delinquency 65 67
Fire setting 67 69

Specialized Foster Care referral rule:

2.1—Medically complex

OR.

2.2 and (2.3 OR 2.4 OR 2.5)—Mental Health

1. FOSTER HOME (FHB/FHP) Criteria

The only rule for recommended placement into FHB or FHP is that if Child and Youth Central Information System indicates this as the current placement type, and no other part of the algorithm suggests another Level of Care, then we use the Child and Youth Central Information System placement type.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chor, K.H.B., McClelland, G.M., Weiner, D.A. et al. Out-of-Home Placement Decision-Making and Outcomes in Child Welfare: A Longitudinal Study. Adm Policy Ment Health 42, 70–86 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0545-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-014-0545-5

Keywords

  • Child welfare
  • Out-of-home placements
  • Team decision-making
  • Decision support algorithm
  • Outcomes