100P
The Child Protection Achievement Gap
Scholars have conducted extensive research on disparities in academic achievement based on race and socioeconomic status, yet academic disparities for children in Child Protective Services (CPS) have only recently begun to garner attention. Recent research has revealed that children in CPS face academic challenges, but important questions remain unanswered. This study analyzed the academic performance of children at varying levels of CPS involvement, including involvement in a child protection case (CP) and out-of-home placement (OHP). This study sought to identify if an achievement gap is associated with involvement in CPS and, if so, to analyze whether deeper involvement in CPS yields increasingly poor academic outcomes.
Methods:
Minnesota’s Social Services Information System (SSIS) statewide data was used to identify children with a CP or OHP experience during or prior to the academic year 2009-2010. Records for these children were matched to their corresponding 2009-2010 educational and standardized test records for math and reading. Once matched, participants were divided into three mutually exclusive groups: General Population (GP; n=410,491), Child Protection (n=6,875) and Out-of-Home Placement (n=2,122). A cross-sectional design, with descriptive analysis and binary logistic regression, was used to assess if a CPS achievement gap existed and whether deeper involvement in CPS led to differences in proficiency rates on standardized reading and math tests while controlling for race and poverty.
Results:
Findings revealed that a demonstrable achievement gap existed between children in CPS and those in the general student population. Proficiency rates for CPS-involved children were 33% (reading) and 38% (math) lower than for non-CPS-involved children. Proficiency rates for OHP children further decreased by 11% (reading) and 17% (math) as compared to their CPS-involved peers. Logistic regression analysis revealed that CPS-involved children were 2.8 times (reading & math) less likely (p<.05), and OHP children were 3.5 (reading) - 3.8 (math) times less likely (p<.05), to demonstrate proficiency than their non-CPS peers. Differences in proficiency between CPS and OHP children were significant when controlling for poverty but became non-significant after controlling for race.
Implications:
An independent achievement gap for CPS-involved children clearly exists. However, the finding of no difference in academic proficiency between children in CP and OHP suggests that interventions that wait for an OHP may be too late. The achievement gap is present by the time a child is involved in CP; therefore practice interventions should be structured accordingly. Academic challenges of CPS-involved children suggest a need for cross-system collaboration and information-sharing early in the CPS process. Non-significant differences between CP and OHP children when controlling for race also suggest that racial disproportionality in Minnesota’s OHP population should be a call to action for CPS professionals. Future research is needed to better understand the timing and patterns of CPS involvement (and potentially OHP) as they pertain to the achievement gap. In addition, a deeper investigation is needed of the academic impact of both school-specific and non-school-specific factors associated with involvement in CPS.