Measuring Child and Adolescent Well-Being in the Child Welfare System
Methods: Data were collected from a quality assurance review administered by a state child welfare agency in the Midwest. This peer-review process of a random sample of child welfare cases is aimed at improving services to children in each specific region of the state. A sub-sample of CHINS cases were selected for this study (N=386). The outcome variable is the overall child status (α=.802), defined as a mean score of 8 indicators (range 1-6) of child status under the three federal performance standard domains (safety, permanency, and well-being). Predictor variables were practice performance indicators defined as core practice functions in this child welfare setting. These include the role and voice of the child/family members, team formation, team functioning, cultural recognition, assessing and understanding the child, assessing and understanding the family, long-term view, child and family planning process, planning transitions/adjustments, intervention adequacy, resource availability, maintaining relationships, and tracking and adjusting. Linear regression (SPSS 21; all p<.05) was used in bivariate analyses to identify which practice performance indicators influenced the overall child status. Then, controlling for the age of the child, all of the significant predictors were included in a multivariate linear regression model. Age stratified analyses (under 5 years; 5 years and older) were also conducted.
Results: Older age was associated with a lower score in overall child status for CHINS cases (B=-.69). The role and voice of the child/family members (B.083), assessing and understanding the child (B=.205), long-term view (B=.144), and tracking and adjusting (B=.133) were all significantly associated with a higher scores in the overall child status. For cases where the child was under 5 years of age, higher scores in long term view (B=.307) and assessing and understanding the child (B=.257) were the only significant associations with higher scores in the overall child status. For those cases where the child was 5 years and older, the higher scores in the overall child status were associated with higher scores in assessing and understanding the child (B=.206) and tracking and adjusting (B=.164) along with lower scores in assessing and understanding the family (B=-.106).
Conclusion: These data contribute to the understanding of CHINS cases and how agency practice indicators may affect the overall child status. In child welfare cases, these data support the need for case managers to understand the children they are serving, have clear goals in place, and be flexible to change plans when needed. Human service professionals and case managers take a positive step toward creating and maintaining plans that safeguard child well-being when they recognize the unique needs of each child.