1. family and parenting
2. children

Looking After Children in the Looking Glass: Insights from a Matched Sample in
Canada and Australia
Ross A. Klein, PhD, Professor, Memorial University of Newfoundland, School of Social Work
Deirdre Cheers, Senior Manager, Barnardos South East Sydney & The LAC Project
Kathleen Kufeldt, PhD, Adjunct Professor, University of New Brunswick
Annette Kelly-Egerton, Senior Manager, Canberra Childrens Family Centre, Barnardos Australia
Scott Rideout, Research Assistant, University of New Brunswick
Presented at the Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies Conference / 7th International
Looking After Children Conference, 14 – 16 August 2006, Sydney, NSW.
The authors thank and acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada, which has funded this three year project. We also thank the agencies, workers, foster
carers and youth who have participated.
Looking After Children in the Looking Glass: Insights from a Matched Sample in Canada
and Australia
Abstract
As the Looking After Children (LAC) system is currently in use with foster children and youth in a
number of countries, it provides opportunities for international research collaboration. This paper
describes one such collaborative effort between Canada and Australia. As a practice tool using a
child centered approach to enhance the developmental needs of children and youth in care, LAC
has the capacity to connect research, policy and practice. For research and practice it measures
and enhances outcomes for children in care, and aggregation of LAC data allows policy makers
to assess current practices to ensure the achievement of intended program goals.
This paper presents a unique look at LAC, based on analysis of LAC records for a matched set
(by age and gender) of 63 children and youth in foster care in Canada and Australia (126 children
in total).
The analysis gives insight into the influence and role of socio-cultural, structural-
economic and family-situational factors by highlighting any differences in children and their
developmental outcomes in the two countries. The analysis also tells what is universal regarding
LAC and outcomes for children in care; identifying features and issues common across
international boundaries.
The matched set is drawn from a considerably larger sample of children and youth in care,
collected as part of large scale research funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. Data from the larger sample set are reported to the extent that they help
elucidate findings and patterns.
The research itself demonstrates the value of partnerships
between researchers and practitioners, and demonstrates ways in which data generated by LAC
can be used by practitioners and policy makers to improve out-of-home care.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, which has funded this three year project. We would
also like to thank the agencies, workers, foster carers and youth who have participated.
1
Looking After Children in the Looking Glass:
Insights from a Matched Sample in Canada and Australia
Introduction
Concern about outcomes for children in government care was the impetus for development of
Looking after Children (LAC), a case management system developed in the United Kingdom as a
tool to assess and improve developmental outcomes for children and youth in care (Parker,
Ward, Jackson, Aldgate & Wedge 1991). LAC is currently used in numerous countries throughout
the world, providing opportunities for international comparative research. Formulated as an
evidence based practice tool for use by out-of-home care agencies, it has also proven to be a
valuable research tool providing the opportunity for connecting research and practice (Jones,
2003).
This paper describes and reports findings from a collaborative international research project using
the Looking after Children Assessment and Action Record (AAR). A matched sample of children
in care from Canada and Australia are compared according to the seven LAC developmental
dimensions for assessment - health, education, identity, family and social relationships, emotional
and behavioural development, social presentation, and self care skills. Funded by the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), the project followed selected
children in care over a three year period. Barnardos Australia, a large non-government child and
family welfare organization, is a collaborative joint partner in the research with the University of
New Brunswick in Canada and New Brunswick Child and Family Services.
Background
It is widely accepted that children in care are entitled to the same support and guidance as those
growing up with family of birth, and may also need supplementary services. Early experiences of
abuse and neglect have far-reaching effects on future development. In order to compensate and
achieve positive developmental outcomes, the needs of children and young people in care must
be systematically and routinely assessed to develop comprehensive plans for care. However,
international research findings indicate generally poor outcomes for many in the care population.
Educationally, children in care demonstrate lower levels of academic achievement and
performance when compared to their peers (Altshuler 1997; Kufeldt 2003; Kufeldt, Simard, Tite &
Vachon 2003). They have disproportional high rates of physical, developmental and mental
health problems and unmet medical and mental health needs (Committee on Early Childhood and
Adoption and Dependent Care 2000; Dicker, Gordon & Knitzer 2001). Compounding these
problems are frequent moves, changes of worker and school transfers (Berridge & Cleaver 1987;
2
Cashmore & Paxman 1996; Delfabbro, Barber & Cooper, 2002; Kufeldt, Vachon, Simard,
Andrews & Baker, 2000; Ward, Macdonald, Pinnock & Skuse 2003). LAC is a system designed to
overcome such problems by ensuring systematic monitoring and routine assessment of the
needs of children and young people in care, and development of comprehensive care plans.
LAC consists of a set of inter-related Planning and Placement forms (comprising Essential
Information Records, Placement Plans, Care Plan, Consultation Papers and Review Records),
used in combination with six age related Assessment and Action Records. The system ensures
comprehensive information is recorded for children in care in all developmental aspects of their
lives. LAC informs care plans and decisions made about children’s lives in care, and requires
copies of all records to be given to all involved parties. Completion of LAC AAR’s according to a
prescribed schedule requires the participation of all key care partners. Because LAC records are
designed to be shared with all parties, social workers are required to actively involve foster
carers, residential workers, teachers, parents, and children and young people themselves, in LAC
assessments and care plans.
LAC in Canada
Child welfare in Canada is under the jurisdiction of ten individual provinces and three territories.
There is no federal legislation for children and youth in care, and thus no national standards. In
1996, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) consulted with provincial and territorial
Directors of Child Welfare, and called for proposals to determine outcomes of the care system for
Canadian children and young people. HRDC subsequently funded a national child welfare project
with contributions in kind from the participating provinces, piloting use of LAC AARs in six eastern
provinces (Kufeldt, et al, 2000).
The project, as well as testing the feasibility of using LAC in Canada, was able to identify how the
development of children in care compared to their peers through comparison with Statistics
Canada’s National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth (NLSCY). The results clearly
demonstrated the value and power of LAC to measure and improve outcomes for children in care.
In parallel, two other initiatives took place. In British Columbia, LAC materials were piloted in
selected areas of the province, and in Ontario, Prescott-Russell Children’s Aid Society recruited
Dr. Robert Flynn of the University of Ottawa for the Evaluating Child Welfare Outcomes (ECWO)
Project, funded by the Provincial Government. In conjunction with the Ontario Association of
Children’s Aid Societies (OACAS), the ECWO project leaders made a further successful
application to the Trillium Foundation for funding to expand the sample size and the number of
participating Children’s Aid Societies. The HRDC national study contributed its Ontario data base
3
of 130 youth, from four Children’s Aid Societies, to the Trillium project. The results of this work
again confirmed the value of the LAC approach. The use of LAC AARs not only helped to
improve the quality of Plans of Care for Ontario children, but also facilitated care planning and
review (Flynn, Lemay & Biro 1998). This work has continued with support from the Ontario
Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Social Sciences Humanities Council of
Canada (Flynn, Lemay, Ghazal & Hébert 2002; Flynn & Byrne 2005; Lemay 2002).
In 2001 the Child Welfare League of Canada assumed the task of coordinating LAC
implementation in all interested provinces and territories, using revised versions of the AARs
developed by Flynn. The AAR-C2 is currently being used in a number of Canadian provinces and
territories.
LAC in Australia
Initial LAC implementation in Australia occurred at a similar time as in Canada. Social work
academics from the University of Western Australia (Clare 1997) and Latrobe University in
Victoria were instrumental in creating awareness of LAC, actively seeking research funds for pilot
implementations of the system. Australian research on outcomes for children and youth in care
echoes international research indicating frequent placement changes, instability, and lack of
continuity in care (Cashmore & Paxman 1996). This knowledge of poor care outcomes
contributed to growing Australian interest in the LAC system. In 1995, Dr Elizabeth Fernandez
(University of New South Wales (NSW)) visited the UK on sabbatical, meeting with many of the
developers of the LAC system and returning to NSW with system knowledge and LAC training
materials. Dr Fernandez at that time had a pre-existing collaborative research relationship with
Barnardos Australia.
Western Australia and Victoria were the first sites of LAC use in Australia. In Victoria the nongovernment agency Kildonan introduced LAC for children and young people in care in the early
1990’s. Subsequently in 1994, other Victorian non-government agencies began to meet with the
Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS) to discuss implementing the LAC AARs with all
children and young people in care. This resulted in a pilot implementation in the DHS Eastern
Metropolitan Region in 1996. This Victorian pilot was subject to two evaluation reports (Clark &
Burke 1998; Wise 1999); the latter used standardised instruments and techniques and found
improved outcomes in relation to health and well being for children and young people in care as a
result of use of the LAC AARs.
In Western Australia in 1993, a joint government/non-government committee purchased a licence
to trial the UK LAC materials in that state, and by 1995/96 a number of LAC research projects
4
were underway, including projects that trialled the full LAC system (Planning and Placement
forms and AARs) and that incorporated detailed evaluation (Clare 1997).
In NSW commencing in 1997 Barnardos Australia, a large non-government child and family
welfare agency providing out-of-home care for over one thousand children and youth each year,
implemented LAC for all placements (Dixon 2001). This implementation was assisted by a three
year Australian Research Council grant to the UNSW School of Social Work, and Barnardos. The
project involved, in addition to LAC implementation in Barnardos, full adaptation of all UK LAC
materials to Australian child and family legislation and out-of-home care practice, for all Territories
and States. A direct result of the UNSW/Barnardos research was translation of the original UK
LAC system to the Australian context, making an Australian version of LAC readily available to all
government and non-government agencies throughout the country (Barnardos Australia 2002,
see also www.lacproject.org ).
LAC implementation has subsequently spread throughout Australia, to the extent that the system
is currently used with over half of the total number of Australian children and young people in
care. In the Australian Capital Territory (commencing in 2000), Victoria (commencing in 2002),
and Tasmania (commencing in 2003) LAC is used by all government and non-government care
agencies. LAC was officially launched in Western Australia in 2001, having already been used
there prior to this for a number of years. In NSW the majority of non-government out-of-home
care agencies, including some indigenous programs, are using LAC. It would appear that, given
the lack of a national approach to ensuring standards for monitoring and regulating out-of-home
care, the use of LAC in Australia is fulfilling an important role in setting the agenda for
consistency in collection of data on outcomes for children and youth in care (Wise 2003). In
addition LAC is assisting work towards setting a national agenda for quality improvement and
planning for the population of Australian children and young people in care.
The joint Canada/Australia research
In 2002 Dr Kathleen Kufeldt organized a collaborative paper on LAC at the 14th International
Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect. Co-written with representatives of other countries using
LAC and including Barnardos Australia (Kufeldt, Clare, Cheers, Herczog & Jones 2002), “Looking
after Children World Wide” drew together colleagues from the UK, Canada, Hungary and
Australia and presented the development and context of the LAC system in the countries
represented by the authors. It also provided discussion of the importance of, and benefits to be
gained by, international research connections. Barnardos Australia was subsequently
approached to participate in a Canadian SSHRC funding application, initiated by the University of
New Brunswick. The overall goal of this collaborative project was to assess and compare
5
outcomes and quality of care provided for children and young people in out-of-home care in
selected Canadian and Australian agencies.
Research objectives included:
•
assessment and comparison of developmental outcomes for the sample group/s with
their peers in the general population, and exploration of possible effects of political and
contextual factors in the two geographical locations
•
promotion of international collaboration in order to improve services for children in care
•
providing a better understanding of the effects that differing policies and procedures can
have on the lives and developmental outcomes of children in care
Funding for the project has been provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada (SSHRC), a federal agency with the mandate to promote and support
university-based research and training in the area of social sciences and humanities. The final
proposal for the project was submitted in September 2002 with a three year block of funding
awarded in 2003. The funding was awarded in recognition of the existing gap in knowledge
regarding the predictors of child outcomes in foster care and the effects of state intervention into
the lives of children in care.
From Barnardos’ perspective, the request from a research institution in Canada for Australian
participation in the proposed project represented an important opportunity to further existing
connections within the LAC international research and practice community. Barnardos Australia
also saw the proposal as an opportunity to contribute to theoretical knowledge of LAC, to building
the practice base concerning what contributes to good outcomes for children and young people in
care, and to provide new information on comparative outcomes for children and young people in
care. It was also anticipated that the project may lead to an increase in the use of LAC by
Australian agencies, a move that could be reinforced by international publication of research
results. This was perceived by Barnardos as being of particular importance given that Australia,
like Canada, has neither national legislation for child care and protection nor regulated standards
for the care which children and young people receive when unable to continue living with their
birth families.
Research design and data collection
The primary tool used in the research is the Looking after Children Assessment and Action
Record, with data collected from sites in the province of New Brunswick in Canada and from the
Australian Capital Territory. In New Brunswick, the research team has worked closely with the
provincial Department of Family and Community Services in Fredericton, where the AARs are
6
used with children and young people in guardianship care. The Australian AARs were obtained
through the partnership with Barnardos Australia.
When approached to participate in the project Barnardos first considered which children and
young people would be involved, of the over one thousand per annum placed in foster care with
the agency. As the AAR was to be the primary data collection instrument, and this tool is used
with children in care for six months or more, this narrowed the potential Barnardos component of
the sample to approximately three hundred children and young people. The next consideration
was that NSW children and young people in long-term care were already involved in an extensive
ten year longitudinal study of outcomes of foster care, therefore Barnardos did not wish to over
research these two hundred children. The decision was therefore made that the group to be
involved in the joint Canada/Australia research would be those in the Australian Capital Territory
(ACT). The SSHRC grant provided funds to reimburse Barnardos for staff and administrative
costs involved in copying completed AARs for the ACT sample group. This was an important
incentive for Barnardos to participate in the project, given that agency welfare program funds
could not be used to subsidize research under the terms of government grants.
In both Canada and Australia, in order to ensure participant confidentiality, all identifying names
were removed prior to photocopied forms being sent to the research team. Participants were
identified and tracked via an anonymous ID number. The agencies retained listings of all forms
copied and sent; this was important in tracking additional information required in situations such
as A&AR pages being missing or incomplete.
Sample size and description
The sample for this paper is matched for age and sex. It is comprised of 126 young people (63
from both NB and ACT), drawn from a larger sample of 198 youth (112 from NB and 86 from
ACT) and 291 AARs. There are slightly more males than females (55% versus 44%) and as
seen in Table 1, two-thirds of the youth are 10 years of age or older.
TABLE 1:
Age
(years)
1-4
Age Breakdown of Sample
NB
n=63
ACT
n = 63
14%
5-9
21%
10+
65%
7
DATA PRESENTATION
The following sections will describe the data with regard to each of the dimensions included on
the AARs. After this description there will be a discussion the findings and any implications and
recommendations.
Health Dimension
We explore four areas: health checks and immunizations, diet, physical activities, and knowledge
of health risks. While similar in many ways, youth in care in NB and ACT have some striking
differences.
Health checks and immunizations Young people in NB and ACT receive preventative medical
and dental examinations at about the same rate – between 95% and 98% -- however ACT youth
are more likely than NB youth to have had a hearing test (56% versus 43%). They are also more
likely to have had an eye exam (41% versus 27%) and dental exam (68% versus 50%) within the
previous six months. Conversely, youth in ACT are less likely than NB youth to have up-to-date
immunizations (51% versus 74%).
Diet While foster parents, social workers, and youth in each country all perceived that the youth
in care had a healthy diet, there were glaring differences in what youth included in their diet.
When asked about food choices, a similar proportion of youth in ACT and NB included fruits and
vegetables, dairy products, grain products, and meats. However NB youth were twice as likely as
ACT youth to include “snack or junk foods” in (80% versus 37%).
Table 2 provides a comparison of NB and ACT youth on a number of food categories. There is a
statistically significant difference between the two cohorts on several items: NB youth are more
likely than ACT youth to consume potatoes (including French fries/chips). A significantly larger
proportion of NB youth also consume milk, but this difference may be offset in part by a greater
proportion of ACT youth including cheese in their diet. The other significant difference is the
proportion of youth who consume junk and snack food – NB youth are significantly more likely
than ACT youth to consume potato chips/crisps, cookies/biscuits, and pop/fizzy drinks. These
differences are a likely artifact of the difference in Canadian and Australian consumption patterns
generally.
8
Table 2
Food Choices Included in Diet
NB
ACT
Fruit
83%
93%
Vegetables and salads
85%
95%
Potatoes (including French fries/chips) (p=.001)
82%
51%
Milk (p=.032)
98%
86%
Cheese
48%
54%
Cereal and grains
80%
82%
Rice
30%
21%
Pasta (e.g. spaghetti, macaroni)
39%
24%
Breads
91%
97%
Meat
87%
93%
Fish
13%
18%
Eggs
22%
23%
Legumes/Pulses (baked beans, lentils)
14%
16%
Nuts
11%
9%
Potato chips/crisps (p=.000)
46%
14%
Cookies/biscuits (p=.001)
52%
21%
Pop/fizzy drinks (p=.001)
36%
9%
Candy/sweets
23%
14%
Physical Activities Practically all youth reported participating in physical activity on a regular
basis. In NB, 96% of youth were physically active either on a daily basis or at least several times
a week; for the ACT, the percentage was 98%. There were 4 young people, 3 from NB and 2
from ACT who only exercised once a week or less. One source of exercise is playing sports. A
higher percentage of NB children and youth (72%) reported they took part in a particular sport,
belonged to a sports club or played on a team compared to ACT youth (61%).
Health Risks Young people 10 years and older (n=82) were asked about their knowledge about
the health risks associated with the use of tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Virtually all youth in NB
and ACT report being given information about the risks. None of the ACT youth reported using
tobacco, drugs or alcohol. Seven NB young people stated they smoked tobacco (four were
regular smokers, two occasional and the remaining, a social smoker); three of the seven
expressed a desire to quit. Five NB youth reported occasionally drinking alcohol; none reported
drug use.
9
Young people 10 years and older were also asked about their knowledge about issues related to
sex and sexuality. Generally speaking, most youth in both ACT and NB received information
about sex and sexuality however a higher proportion of NB youth reported receiving this
information as compared to their ACT peers. Table 3 shows the differences on three items.
Table 3
Education About Sex and Sexuality
Have they been given information about:
NB
ACT
•
Sexuality and sexual orientation
94%
82%
•
Sex and birth control
85%
74%
•
Health risks of unprotected sex (p=.003)
97%
70%
Summary With only a few exceptions, there are not large differences between youth in ACT and
NB on items in the Health Dimension. Many of the differences, while interesting, may be artifacts
of the two cultures/societies. For our purposes, the findings validate the value and the sensitivity
of the AARs for both best practice and for research. This will be discussed in greater depth later.
Education Dimension
The following section is based on responses of school aged young people – 108 young people 5
years or older. We look again look at several areas where there are significant differences
between the matched sample, including school experience, placement disruption, and
participation in extracurricular activities.
School experience The majority of youth in both NB and ACT (77% and 84% respectively) attend
a mainstream school.
Thirty percent of the youth in each location is identified as having a
learning disability. Interestingly, the sample differs with regard to absenteeism. As shown in
Table 4, a higher percentage of NB youth missed school days during the previous school year
(69% versus 57%) and they were out for a longer period of time than the ACT cohort. A higher
Table 4 – Number of Days Absent from School by Location
NB
ACT
0 days
30%
43%
Less than 7 days
48%
47%
Between 7 and 20 days
17%
7%
21 or more days
4%
3%
10
percentage of NB youth (69% versus 41%) similarly reported being absent during the previous
term as compared to youth from ACT (p=.019); 18 young people (14 from NB and 4 from ACT)
report being suspended from school (p=.029).
Youth in NB and ACT were similar in the proportion who believed they were doing as well as they
could in their educational performance. However, as seen in Table 5, they differed widely in their
perception of how others saw their performance – youth in ACT were more likely to believe their
teacher and biological parents would similarly assess their educational performance while NB
youth were more likely to believe other’s assessment was lower than their own, especially the
assessment of the teacher. Social workers were also asked whether they felt the young person’s
educational ability matched their performance – those in NB said “yes” in almost the same
proportion as the youth from NB; social workers in ACT less frequently believed the child was
performing up to ability than the child him/herself.
While on surface this may be viewed
negatively, it can also be positively. High but achievable expectations is an important element in
building resilience – seeing greater potential than the youth sees for him or herself is a reflection
of these expectations.
Table 5 – Is Educational Performance Consistent with Academic Ability?
NB
ACT
Child’s view of:
•
Self
62%
63%
•
Teacher’s view
51%
62%
•
Biological Parents view
58%
65%
•
Foster Parents view
58%
55%
59%
46%
Social Worker’s view of Child
School Disruption/Changes The majority of young people experienced disruption during their
educational careers – of interest here are those other than normal transitions and changes
experienced by all youth.. Seventy percent of the NB youth and 62% of ACT youth experienced
school disruptions. Two youth in NB had 10 or more school changes however otherwise the
patterns were similar in both locations: roughly 50% of youth had less than 5 school changes;
14% had 5 – 9 school changes. The school disruptions are generally associated with placement
changes – as seen in Table 6 the number of school changes increases with the number of
changes in placement.
11
Table 6 – School Changes by Placement Changes (p=.004)
Number of placement changes
1 to 3
4 to 10
11 or more
Don’t know
Number of school changes
n=33
n=33
n=10
n=18
None (n=20)
24%
18%
10%
28%
1 to 3 (n=38)
61%
36%
30%
17%
4 to 10 (n=23)
6%
39%
40%
22%
0
3%
10%
0
Don’t know (n=10)
6%
3%
10%
33%
N/A – not in school (n=1)
3%
0
0
0
11 or more (n=2)
These school changes have profound impacts. Those who change schools are absent more
days than those who don’t change schools – 54% of youth with no school changes had no
absences compared to 31% of youth who did change schools. Those who change schools are
also less likely to believe they are doing as well as they can in school, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7 – Is Youth Doing as Well as They Can at School by School Change
Change Schools?
Doing as well as they can?
Yes
No
Child’s view of:
•
Self
56%
92%
•
Teacher’s view
48%
73%
•
Foster Parents view
48%
79%
Reading and Literacy The majority of youth stated they read when not in school. This includes
82% of the NB youth and 88% of the ACT youth. The majority reported owning more than 10
books (75% and 82% of NB and ACT youth respectively). Also, a little over two thirds of youth
report visiting the library on regular basis (69% of NB youth and 65% from ACT). However, 14
young people (8 from NB and 6 from ACT) do not read when not in school. Six young people (4
from NB and 2 from ACT) do not own any books and 19 young people (9 from NB and 10 from
ACT) who never visit a library.
Role of foster parents Foster parents were actively involved in the educational experiences of
these young people. Foster parents were identified as at least one of the people who helped
young people with their homework for 94% of NB youth and all 48 ACT youth. They were also
12
identified as one of the people in regular contact with the school to discuss the young person’s
progress. This was the case for 86% of NB youth and 96% of ACT youth. Three individuals (2
from NB and 1 from ACT) felt no-one took on this role.
Participation in extra activities The majority of young people (80% of NB youth, 67% ACT youth)
took part in school outings and trips. Similar percentages took part in non-classroom activities.
As seen in Table 8, NB youth tended to participate in extra activities in slightly higher proportions,
especially with regard to participation in “clubs or organizations.” This may be an artifact of ACT
versus NB, but is still important to note.
Table 8 – Participation in Extra Activities
NB
ACT
Sports
73%
61%
Music
38%
30%
Other skills or interests (e.g. art, drama, cooking, etc)
71%
67%
Involved with other clubs or organizations (p=.004)
43%
21%
Summary The NB and ACT cohorts are similar in most respects with regard to the educational
dimension. As expected, placement disruption is positively related to change in schools, and
change in schools is related to absenteeism and to the youth’s self-assessment as to whether
they are performing in school as well as they can. The only significant differences between NB
youth and ACT youth on the Education Dimension relate to the tendency for ACT youth to believe
others assess their educational performance similar to their own assessment; and to the fact that
NB youth are more involved in extra activities, especially clubs and organizations.
Identity Dimension
The Identity Dimension focuses on a child’s self awareness and knowledge of their personal and
family history. With few exceptions, youth in both locations had information about their birth
family. Most knew why they were in case, but the proportion is smaller in NB (70%) than ACT
(84%). Interestingly, social workers in both NB and ACT overwhelmingly believed the youth knew
why they were in care.
Preservation of past experiences With so much disruption in their lives, young people in care are
at risk of losing valuable information about their past. Young people 14 years and younger were
asked if a personal album was being made. These life books can provide a wealth of personal
13
memories and mementos connecting them to their past. About two-thirds of youth 10 years of
age or older in NB and ACT had collected information about their past. This is less than the 83%
of youth between the ages of 5 and 9 who have this information. In sum, there were 30 youth (17
NB and 13 ACT) who did not have a personal album; 11 (3 NB and 8 ACT) did not believe they
needed one.
Religion Young people 10 years and older were asked if they belonged to a particular religion. A
higher percentage of NB youth (55%) reported they did as compared to their ACT peers (35%).
Cultural identity Young people 10 years and older were also asked if they were aware of their
ethnic background. Ninety-eight percent of ACT youth said yes as compared to 83 percent of NB
youth.
For the most part, youth were placed with foster parents sharing the same cultural
background but this is not always possible. The breakdown by locations is shown in Table 9.
Table 9 – Do Child and Foster Parents Share Cultural Background by Location (p=.03)
Child and Foster Parents:
NB
ACT
Same ethnic background
86%
71%
Similar background
12%
20%
Not same ethnic background
2%
17%
Don’t know
0%
2%
Self view Social workers were asked to assess whether the young person had a positive view of
self and his/her abilities. Eighty-seven percent of NB youth and 98 percent of ACT youth were
described as having either a usually positive self view or positive in some situations. There were
six young people (5 NB and 1 ACT) where the social worker felt the child had a generally
negative self view. Of these six young people, 5 experienced some form of maltreatment, 4 were
neglected, and 5 were described by social workers as having emotional or behavioural problems.
Summary There were again not a lot of differences between ACT and NB youth on the Identity
Dimension. It is interesting however to note the differences in matching of children to foster
parents of the same ethnic background, and to be reminded of the importance of life books or
other methods for children to have a connection with their past and that many children do not
have this information.
14
Family and Social Relationships
The AARs provide rich information about family and social relationships.
These are now
explored.
Placement (in)stability The majority of youth overall experienced less than 5 caregivers during
their time in care, but there was a difference between NB and ACT. While 58 percent of ACT
youth had less than 5 placements, this was the case for only 41 percent of NB youth. Overall, the
mean number of placements was 5.4. For NB youth it was 6.5; for ACT youth it was 4.3.
Despite placement changes, social workers generally indicated that the child received continuity
of care during the previous year.
Interestingly, in New Brunswick where there was greater
instability over time, social workers were more likely than their ACT counterparts to say there was
continuity over the past year. This is shown in Table 10. In order to better understand the data it
would helpful if the AARs assessed placement stability over a period longer than one year. A
several year perspective would be more useful for research and for practice.
Table 10 – Social Worker Assessment of Continuity of Care
During Previous Year (p=.015)
Continuity of Care:
NB
ACT
Yes
83%
59%
No - some disruptions
(One change)
15%
30%
No - serious disruption
(Two or more changes)
2%
11%
Relationships with Foster Family With one exception, youth universally indicated they had a good
relationship with their foster mother and in both ACT and NB, 78 percent of youth had a good
relationship with others in the household. There was an interesting difference between NB and
ACT youth with regard to their relationship with the foster father. Ninety-three percent of NB
youth said they and their foster father had a good relationship. Only 78 percent of ACT youth
reported the same positive relationship.
Time Away from Foster Parents
In both regions, half of the children and young people
experienced regularly spent a proportion of time away from their foster parents, typically with
either alternate caregivers or home visits. A few youth (4 in NB, 2 in ACT) felt this time away had
a negative effect; 3 foster parents from NB and 1 from ACT also felt this had a negative effect.
15
Family contact As seen in Table 11, the proportion of young people in regular contact with their
family was remarkably low. Contact with their birth mother, maternal grandparents and a sibling
was higher for ACT than NB youth. A greater proportion of NB youth had contact with their
paternal grandparents.
Table 11 - In regular contact (weekly or monthly)
with Family Members by Location
Contact with:
NB
ACT
Birth mother
36%
46%
Birth father
18%
15%
Maternal grandparents
25%
32%
Paternal grandparents
21%
5%
Siblings
29%
41%
Even though the percentage of youth in regular contact with their birth family was low, 72 percent
of NB youth and 70 percent of ACT youth were satisfied with their level of contact. When social
workers were asked about the beneficial role family contact has on the young people, differences
were found between NB and ACT. As seen in Table 12, in ACT 51 percent saw family contacts
as helpful whereas in NB less than one-third saw the child’s contact with the birth family as
helpful in strengthening the bond with the birth family.
Table 12 - Contact with Birth Family Strengthens
Relationship by Location (p=.026)
Contact with birth family helpful?
NB
ACT
Yes – most contacts are helpful
32%
51%
No – some/most contacts are unhelpful
42%
36%
No family contact
26%
9%
0
4%
Don’t know
There were interesting variations by age in the proportion of youth having parental contact. In
ACT the percentage of youth with parental contact decreases with age: 88 percent for those age
1 – 4, 54 percent for those age 5 – 9, 43 percent for those 10 years of age or older. In NB
parental contact is lowest in the youngest age group (1 – 4) at 22 percent, highest in the middle
age category (5 – 9), at 63 percent, and roughly in between at 40 percent for those 10 years or
16
older. Even with these variations, a relationship exists between the length of time in care and the
presence of family contact. As shown in Table 13, as time in care increases the percentage of
youth in contact with their biological parents decreases. This relationship will be explored in
further depth later.
Table 13 – Contact with Biological Parents by Time in Care (p=.001)
Contact with Biological Parents?
Time in care:
Yes
No
Less than 19 months
76%
24%
20 through 55 months
52%
48%
56 months or longer
26%
74%
Not surprisingly, those in contact with biological parents could identify more of their family
members than those without contact. When asked how many members of their birth family they
could name, 78% of those in contact could name all or most of their family. For those without
contact, this percentage dropped to 53%.
But as already noted, family contact is not always positive in all respects. Social workers indicate
that young people without family contact experienced a higher degree of continuity in their
placements during the previous 12 months than youth who did have contact with the family (see
Table 14).
Also, a higher percentage of those without contact were described as definitely
attached to their foster parents. This was true for 90% of the youth without contact as compared
to 82% of those with contact.
Table 14 – Family Contact and Social Worker Assessment of Continuity of Care (p=.017)
Contact with Biological Parents?
Placement Changes over past 12 months:
Yes
No
Continuity (no placement changes)
37%
63%
Some disruptions (One change)
64%
36%
Serious disruption (Two or more changes)
83%
17%
Those without parental contact were also more likely to be seen by social workers as free of
emotional and behavioural problems (71% versus 29%), were less likely to have visited a mental
17
health professional in the past (44% versus 56%) and to currently be seeing a mental health
professional (48% versus 52%) as compared to youth who do not have family contact..
Sources of support Young people 5 years and older were asked if there was anyone in their lives
they could turn to in times of need. Eighty-two percent of NB youth responded affirmatively as did
75% of ACT youth. Social workers generally concurred – 73% of the NB and 75% of the ACT
(20/40) youth reportedly had maintained a long term relationship with an adult for at least three
years. A further 21% of NB and 20% of ACT youth had a short-term relationship (i.e., between 1
and 3 years).
Youth also draw on friendships. The vast majority from both regions (98% in NB, 89% in ACT)
say they had a special friend they could talk to about personal things, yet 19 youth report having
no “long-term” or “new friends.” Of those with friends, NB youth have more “long term” and “new
friends” than their ACT counterparts, but this doesn’t appear to make a difference. Eighty-five
percent of youth report seeing their friends on a regular basis. Thirteen youth (7 from NB, 6 from
ACT) rarely or never see their friends.
Summary The Family and Social Relationship Dimension provides some interesting insights.
Curiously, while NB has more placement changes, social workers in ACT are more likely to say
there was placement discontinuity in the past year. Perhaps the fact that LAC had been in use in
NB for a longer period of time is associated with greater placement continuity now as opposed to
the recent past. The low level of contact between children in care and their birth family is also
curious. While more youth in ACT than NB have contact with their birth family, the number is well
below 50 percent in both locations. But parental contact is not always viewed as helpful in
building a family bond – social workers view it positively one-half the time in ACT and in only onethird of the cases in NB. As well, placement continuity is more problematic when there is parental
contact than when there isn’t. This is an area that needs further attention given the literature
which supports the belief that children in care should have regular contact with their family.
Emotional and Behavioural Development Dimension
The Emotional and Behavioural Development dimension asks youth to respond to a list of
statements. Each statement describes a certain behaviour or trait and they are to indicate the
extent to which the statement describes them based on the past three months.
Table 15
presents responses along four themes: aggression, anxiety, peer relations and attentiveness. As
seen, although not statistically significant (except for “gets into fights”), a larger proportion of ACT
youth appear to be aggressive and to have anxiety and worry than youth in NB. The set of
18
questions about peer relations suggests that NB youth may be a bit more social than ACT youth,
but the differences are small.
Table 15 – Youth Attitudes (Emotional/Behavioural Dimension) by Location
Aggressiveness and Disruption
Often in trouble for being defiant/disobedient/disruptive in school/home
Often shows they are angry and lose their temper
Gets into fights and pick on others (p=.044)
Deliberately break or steal things
Anxiety and Worry
Can be over-friendly with people they don't know well
Is extremely suspicious of other people's motives
Worries a lot
Often gets aches and pains
Has difficulty in sleeping because or worry and anxiety
Sometimes wets the bed
Has strong feelings of sadness
Is frightened of particular things or situations
Deliberate inure themselves
Peer Relations
Is considerate of others feelings
Comfort others who are upset
Likes to share things with others
Is popular with other youth
Finds it hard to mix with other youth or is very shy
Finds it easy to make and keep close friends
Likes to let others join in their activities
Ability to Focus and Stay on Task
Find it easy to concentrate when they want to
Rushes into things without thinking
Find it difficult to stick to things for more than a few moments
Are very restless and fidgety
NB
ACT
24%
34%
5%
3%
30%
40%
22%
13%
21%
19%
13%
16%
2%
8%
6%
17%
5%
19%
19%
33%
19%
10%
9%
9%
22%
6%
71%
81%
83%
64%
26%
67%
81%
68%
61%
64%
66%
31%
57%
72%
68%
49%
24%
31%
68%
62%
36%
33%
For older youth (those over age 10), foster parents are asked to respond to the same list of
behaviour indicators.
Of the 31 statements listed, there were only 6 where there was
disagreement and these wholly related to the youth’s sociability – the youth saw themselves as
more social and self-disclosing than did the foster parents.
Mental health
Social workers were asked if they believed young people had emotional or
behavioural problems. As shown in Table 16, the majority of young people were identified as
having some type of problem behaviour -- only 33% of NB youth and 21% of ACT youth did not
exhibit any emotional or behavioural problems. The majority was receiving treatment; however,
there were 6 young people (2 NB, 4 ACT) who were not.
19
Table 16 – Emotional and Behavioural Problems by Location
NB
ACT
No problems
33%
21%
Minor problems
20%
37%
Problems requiring remedial action
33%
23%
Serious problems requiring specialized intervention
12%
16%
Don’t know
2%
2%
Experiences of Abuse
It is interesting that while all ACT youth experienced some form of
maltreatment (and were more likely to experience multiple types of abuse), this was the case for
only two-third of NB youth. One-third was known to have experienced no abuse prior to coming
into care. Table 17 shows types of abuse suffered by those who were abused
Table 17 - Types of Abuse by Location
Type of abuse:
NB
ACT
Physical (p=.021)
35%
63%
Sexual
17%
13%
Emotional (p=.009)
35%
66%
Neglect
74%
90%
(p=.054)
Information was available for 38 youth on how they were dealing with the effects of past
maltreatment. The majority from both regions, 94% from NB and 86% from ACT, were receiving
some type of help – ACT young people more typically received informal support from their foster
parents, social workers or other adults in their lives.
Summary It is difficult to make any general statements based on the limited data we have, but it
would appear that ACT youth are more likely to enter care because of abuse and more likely to
have experienced multiple forms of maltreatment.
This may explain some of the subtle
differences in youth attitudes and mental health. ACT youth are more likely than NB youth to be
assessed as having emotional or behavioural problems, they are slightly more aggressive, worry
and are frightened more, appear a bit less social, and may be a bit more impulsive. These are
impressions from the data derived from the AARs and need further discussion before a more
definitive statement can be made.
20
Social Presentation Dimension
Both the young people/foster parents of the younger children and their caseworkers consistently
believed the young people fit in socially with their peers and other adults. There was nothing
remarkable to report from the AARs.
Self Care Dimension
This dimension poses age appropriate questions to young people 5 years of age and older to
determine their ability to take care of their own needs. The varying questions and different AAR
formats created difficulties in completing data analysis, but Table 18 reflects the skills or activities
identified for youth in each locations. While the two cohorts of youth are similar in many ways,
there are also significant differences.
Table 18 – Personal Habits and Living Skills by Location
NB
ACT
Regular personal hygiene (p=.015)
94%
76%
Make their bed (p=.056)
87%
71%
Clean their room
91%
81%
Do the dishes (p=.000)
95%
52%
Change a fuse/reset a breaker (p=.014)
68%
39%
Pack for a weekend away
93%
81%
Shop/hairdresser alone (p=.025)
73%
45%
Handle small amounts of money
73%
73%
Prepare a meal or snack
85%
76%
Can they use a public telephone?
94%
86%
Regularly uses public transportation (p=.044)
94%
75%
Youth can cross roads safely?
84%
62%
Regularly takes precautions against attack
91%
77%
Avoids common hazards
86%
80%
Can make an emergency phone call
89%
82%
Can you undertake simple first aid?
72%
67%
It appears that NB youth are more independent and take greater responsibility for themselves, but
this may be as much an artifact or location and culture as anything else.
21
Another Look: Time in Care and Family Contact
As already indicated, it appears that family contact decreases with length of time in care. It has
also been noted that NB youth have spent a longer time in care as compared to their ACT peers.
This is attributable in part to the fact that in NB AARs are used with those in permanent care.
The mean time for NB youth in care was 67.6 months compared to 40.5 months for the ACT
youth. When the sample is divided into thirds, the difference between ACT and NB become
easily visible (see Table 19)
Table 19 – Time in Case by Location (p=.001)
Time in care
NB
ACT
1 to 19 months
9%
44%
20 – 55 months
40%
32%
56+ months
51%
24%
Table 20 looks more specifically at whether the youth has family contact while controlling for time
in care. The results are startling. Contact with the birth mother and maternal grandparents
decreases with length of time in care. In contrast, contact with the birth father remains stable
(one-third have contact with birth father regardless of length of time in care) and contact with
paternal grandparents increases. Contact with siblings is highest (42%) during the middle length
of time in care (20 – 55 months) but roughly the same for shorter and longer periods at 27% 30%.
Table 20 – Family Contact by Length of Time in Care
19 months or less
20 - 55 months
56+ months
Birth mother (p=.008)
45%
40%
16%
Birth father
33%
33%
33%
Maternal grandparents (p=.004)
41%
55%
5%
Paternal grandparents
25%
25%
50%
Siblings
30%
42%
27%
Conclusions
The data presented has some interesting insights; however a full understanding depends on
discussion of the findings with practitioners in both ACT and NB. It is possible to draw several
conclusions at this point. First and most important is that the study demonstrates the value of the
22
AAR and companion documents not only for practice but as tools for research. The information
and insights derived are grounded and the data appears to be reliable. While we encourage
others to undertake research using LAC, we must also caution those wishing to do cross-national
comparisons. Our analysis was hampered by differences between the AARs used at different
times in Canada and also differences between the Canadian version and that used by Australia.
If policy makers and researchers want to pursue cross-national comparisons, there needs to be
greater attention to maintaining comparability in the AAR used in different locales.
A second issue raised by this research is the importance of contact with birth parents, especially
birth mothers. Our findings indicate a low level of contact between children in care and their birth
parents, and even where there is contact it is not consistently viewed positively. These findings
seem to contradict the view that contact between child and birth parents is an important element
for a child. Perhaps this issue needs further study, especially from a child’s perspective, in order
to tease out best practices with this population.
The data here helps define some of the
questions that need to be asked.
A final issue is the differences between youth in ACT and NB. This paper has just begun to
scratch the surface – the analysis is continuing – with a view toward disentangling artifacts of
culture or society from actual behavioural and attitudinal differences.
We have made some
preliminary observations which will be the basis for dialogue and discussion from which a more
comprehensive analysis and clearer conclusions can be drawn.
References
Altshuler, S. J. (1997). A reveille for school social workers: Children in foster care need our help.
Social Work in Education, 19(2), 121-127.
Barnardos Australia. (2002). The UK Looking After Children System in Australia: Thoughts and
Experiences of Barnardos Australia LAC Implementation. Monograph 47
Berridge, D. & Cleaver, H. (1987). Foster Home Breakdown. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Cashmore, J. & Paxman, M. (1996). Wards Leaving Care-A Longitudinal Study. Social Policy
Research Centre for NSW Department of Community Services, Sydney.
Clare, M. (1997). The UK Looking After Children Project: Fit for out-of-home care practice in
Australia? Children Australia, 22(1), 29-35.
Clark, R. and Burke, G. (1998). Looking After Children: An Evaluation of the Victorian Pilot
Program. Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Inc.
Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption and Dependent Care (2000). Developmental Issues for
Young Children in Foster Care. Pediatrics, 106(5), 1145-1150.
23
Delfabbro, P. H., Barber, J. G. & Cooper, L. (2002). Children entering out of home care in South
Australia: Baseline analysis for a three year longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services
Review, 24(12), 917-932.
Dicker, S., Gordon, E. & Knitzer, J. (2001). Improving the odds for the healthy development of
young children in foster care. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Dixon, D. (2001). Looking after Children in Barnardos Australia-Managing Children’s Lives in Outof-Home Care. Children Australia, 26(3), 27-32.
Flynn, R.J., Lemay, R., Ghazal, H. & Hébert, S. (2003). PM3: A Performance Measurement,
Monitoring, and Management System for Child Welfare Organizations. In K. Kufeldt & B.
McKenzie (Eds). Child Welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 319-330).
Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.
Flynn, R. J. & Byrne, B. A. (2005). Overview and findings to date of research in the Ontario
Looking After Children Project. OACAS Journal, 49(1), 12-21.
Flynn, B., Lemay, R., Biro, C. (1998). Evaluating Child Welfare Outcomes (ECWO) Project,
Newsletter, fall(3).
Jones, H. (2003). The relationship between research, policy and practice in delivering an
outcome-led child welfare service. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds). Child Welfare:
Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 368-376). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier
University Press.
Kufeldt, K. (2003). Graduates of guardianship care: Outcomes in early adulthood. In K. Kufeldt &
B. McKenzie (Eds). Child Welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 209-216).
Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press
Kufeldt, K., Simard, M., Tite, R. & Vachon, J. (2003). The Looking After Children in Canada
Project: Educational Outcomes. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie. Child Welfare Connecting
research, policy and practice. (pp. 177-189). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Kufeldt, K., Simard, M., Vachon, J., Baker, J. & Andrews, T. (2000). Looking After Children in
Canada: Final report. Fredericton: University of New Brunswick.
Kufeldt, K., Clare, M., Cheers, D., Herczog, M. & Jones, H. (2002). Looking After Children World
Wide, paper presentation at 14th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Denver
Colorado USA, July 7-10.
Lemay, R. (2002). Is Looking After Children just another ORAM or IFR? Ontario Looking After
Children Newsletter, 2(1).
Parker, R., Ward, C., Jackson, S., Aldgate, J. & Wedge, P. (Eds.) (1991). Looking after children:
Assessing outcomes in child care. London: HMSO.
Ward, H., Macdonald, I., Pinnock, M. & Skuse, T. (2003). Monitoring and improving outcomes for
children in out-of-home care. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.). Child Welfare Connecting
research, policy and practice. (pp. 167-176). Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Wise, S. (1999). The UK Looking After Children approach in Australia. Australian Institute of
Family Studies.
Wise, S. (2003). Using Looking After Children to create an Australian out-of-home care database.
Children Australia, 28(2). 38-44.
24