Selective Prevention: Using Administrative Data to Understand Response and Uptake Rates for Programs Designed to Improve Post Adoption and Guardianship Family Stability and Wellbeing

Background and Purpose: The National Quality Improvement Center for Adoption and Guardianship Support and Preservation (QIC-AG) conducted outreach to a select group of families: those with characteristics known at the time of adoption or guardianship finalization that suggested they might be at an elevated risk for post-permanency instability. A prevention framework required that early outreach occur prior to the onset of significant issues. However, one challenge in prevention research is to understand if those who respond to outreach are those most at risk. This study examined different response patterns of caregivers based upon known characteristics of children and families at the time of permanence.

Methods: This study conducted outreach to families (n=1,908) who had adopted or assumed guardianship of children through the foster care system, and whose children, at the time of the outreach, were between the ages of 11 and 16. Outreach was initiated by two parties: 1) agency staff who assessed interest in services and 2) university researchers, who mailed surveys. 

This study linked administrative data to agency outreach data and to survey response data. Data was then analyzed to understand if there were systematic differences between: 1) families who responded to either the university or the agency, compared to those who responded to neither, (2) families who responded to the university, but not the agency, and 3) families who spoke with the agency but did not respond to the university. Characteristics in the data included child gender, race, and foster care experiences (number of moves, age at permanence, type of permanence [adoption or guardianship], and length of time in foster care).

Results: While the nature of contact was different, of the 1,908 families in the target population, a total of 76% were successfully contacted through outreach. Results showed that 35% responded to both the agency and the university; 22% to the university only; 19% to the agency only, and 24% to neither form of outreach. In contrasting the 24% who responded to neither with those who responded to at least one form of outreach, families with girls (HR=1.34; CI=1.09, 1.66) and kinship caregivers (HR=1.28; CI=1.01, 1.62) were more likely to respond than non-kin caregivers or families with boys. Yet, when the data was subset to examine just those who responded to one group, but not the other, there were no statistically significant differences. However, there was a strong site effect (HR=2.75, CI=1.89, 3.99), suggesting differences across sites.

Conclusions and Implications: This study helps the field understand different characteristics of adoptive and guardianship families who are likely to respond to: 1) neither type of contact (agency outreach or university survey), 2) agency-only contact, and 3) university-only contact.  Moreover, site-specific outreach efforts will be described, and the variation by site regarding the characteristics of families who were most likely to respond will be discussed. These results can assist other practitioners and research teams consider optimal prevention-oriented outreach designs for adoptive and guardianship families.