Spatial Analysis of Public Child Welfare Constituents

Purpose: Across the nation, child welfare agencies are experiencing an increase in clients and a decrease in federal funding which places a heavy burden on these systems and impacts those they serve. Agencies are called upon to change and improve how they serve families, deliver services, and coordinate with each other (NASW Standards for Practice in Child Welfare, 2013). Mapping, through Geographic Information System (GIS) technology, is an emerging method used to address such challenges by displaying data in a cogent and usable manner. Data are presented from one such endeavor initiated to ensure the continued efficacy of New Hampshire’s Division for Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF).

Methods: DCYF data for all active out-of-home placement cases on 3/1/12 were used in analysis: birthparents (n=602), children-in-care (n=611), and corresponding out-of-home placements (n=611). Addresses were used to find geographic coordinates in the following manner: location at removal (child, birthparent/s), location of child’s current out-of-home placement (child, foster parent, relative placement, residential facility), and location of DCYF District Offices (DOs; 12 offices state-wide). Using Arc GIS software, these data were geocoded to interpolate spatial location coordinates and make associations with various layers of information. Methods produced graphic representations of system stakeholders, community resources, school districts, and communities of origin as associated with each individual case. In addition to descriptive statistics, the outcome variable for current analysis is proximity defined as driving distance. Data are presented as maps generated in Arc GIS resultant of geocoding. Particular focus is placed on child welfare challenges attributable to the rural nature of NH.

Results: Findings are presented as maps that simultaneously depict spacio-temporal locations and their interactions between variables. However, herein these will be described due to format constraints. Findings assessed through buffer zones indicate that 57% of birthparents live <10 miles from DOs, while 31.44% of placed children in their out-of-home placements are in this same distance range. Median driving distance for birthparents to DOs is 19 miles or 29 minutes. However, 5.47% of birth parents and 12.13% of children in placements have distances >50 miles. Mapping of birthparent/child location at time of removal compared to coordinates of child’s current placement revealed median drive time of 26 minutes or 17 miles. This may suggest that some children in placement could encounter a change in their school district. Although most children and their birthparents are within a reasonable distance of each other, this factor, coupled with a lack of public transportation in rural areas, may impact reunification efforts and burden child welfare resources. Particularly, as population density decreases, the number of out- of- home placements also decrease significantly, while distances between children, their birthparents, and DOs increase; this may indicate the need to cultivate placements in rural areas.

Implications: Data indicate that children, those responsible for out- of- home placement care, and birthparents may experience difficulties based on distance particularly in rural communities. Implications for length of stay, family reunification, termination of parental rights, child well- being, and allocation of child welfare services are among those noted.