The Dangers of Foster Care? – Should new study findings lead to overhaul of child removal protocol
In a provocative new study, MIT professor Joseph J. Doyle asserts that children who are “at the margin of placement” suffer from “higher delinquency rates, along with some evidence of higher teen birth rates and lower earnings” when removed from their home, than those children allowed to remain at home.1 The study begs the question: should children from troubled homes, who are on the borderline for placement, be removed from their families? The answer, at least, initially seems to be the ever ambiguous, “it depends.”
The most important concern in child welfare cases is child safety. Although the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services is committed to “family centered practices,”2 the Nebraska Statutes emphasizes the state’s commitment to child safety. The juvenile code “shall be construed to…assure the rights of all juveniles to care and protection and a safe and stable living environment.”3 Therefore, any potential negative effects of foster care placement are moot when the safety when the safety of the child is threatened. The various state agencies all serve to protect the health and safety of children, and this study should in no way compromise those objectives. Agencies should continue to act cautiously in cases of child maltreatment, and always err on the side of caution until a secure home environment is established. However, the study does raise some interesting theories regarding more marginal placements.
When juvenile health and safety is not of immediate concern, removal may not always be the best option. The Nebraska Statutes memorialize Nebraska’s dedication to maintaining intact families. To accomplish the goals of juvenile care and protection, the state desires “to achieve these purposes…in the juvenile’s own home whenever possible, separating the juvenile from his or her parent when necessary for his or her welfare, the juvenile’s health and safety being of paramount concern.”4 Therefore, unless necessary, children should remain with their family and receive services in home. While many agencies have long held this practice ideal, there is now some interesting empirical data to support the theory.
Professor Doyle’s study analyzed child welfare cases of over 15,000 youths, between 1990 and 2001.5 The case examined only those cases which were assigned case managers on a rotating basis, which excluded sexual abuse and drug exposure cases.6 Further, to make sure that the children were of appropriate age for either employment or teen motherhood and delinquency, only children who were between the ages of 5 and 15 at the time of the initial abuse investigation were included.7 The study concluded that, with regards to juvenile delinquency, teen motherhood, and job earnings, “large benefits to foster care placement are unlikely for children on the margin” and that that these children appear “to have better longer-term outcomes when they remain at home.”
The study’s limitations make widespread abandonment of current placement practices inappropriate. The study focused on Illinois, “where placement of children with family members is more popular than the nation as a whole,” making it difficult to compare to data from other states.8 Also, the study only contains data from Illinois, meaning if any families chose to leave Illinois, their data would not be added to the study.9 The author acknowledges that this could be part of the reason for the increase in teen pregnancy and delinquency.10 Further, the effects of foster care placement on younger children remains unknown, since the statistics on teen motherhood and delinquency are “found in the 10-15 age group.”11 Finally, and perhaps most concerning is that the study did not take into account the length of time that the children spent in foster care.12 Perhaps children spending the least amount of time in foster care did not experience the increased delinquency and teen pregnancy rates reported by the study, but further research is required.
It is interesting to note that this study may, in some ways, stand in contrast to a study published in Pediatrics in 2001,13 which found that “youth who reunify with their biological families after placement in foster care have more behavioral and emotional health problems than youth who do not reunify.”14 However, a direct comparison between these two studies is impossible, since the Pediatric's study involved children who were removed and then returned to their homes, while Professor Doyle’s study compared children who were removed with those who remained at home. However, this study further adds to the complexity of the problem facing child welfare workers. In those cases where children must be removed from the home, their ability to succeed upon reunification seems contested. The value of these studies appears to be in continuing the discussion of best practices for children in the child welfare system. As the authors of the 2001 study conclude, “these studies perhaps best underscore the mixed emotions, concerns, and perspectives that need to be balanced by all in making weighty decisions that so pervasively affect the lives of children and families.”15
It is critical to remember that Professor Doyle’s study does not draw conclusions about the clear cut cases for removal, where children are in imminent or immediate danger. Instead, the study focused on the group at the margin, and thus the conclusions are not necessarily valid for cases on either extreme. Without more research, the study, although interesting, should not be used to support drastic changes in child welfare case management. As the author himself concludes, it is because of the extreme cases of child maltreatment potentially averted by removing children that “child welfare agencies may be willing to trade off higher delinquency, teen motherhood, and unemployment rates for slightly lower levels of serious abuse.”16 While the study provides the motivation to continue commitment to keeping families intact whenever possible, that evaluation must be made on a case by case basis, and must not sacrifice the safety and wellbeing of society’s most vulnerable members.
1 Joseph J. Doyle, Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care, AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, forthcoming, http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/doyle_fosterlt_march07_aer.pdf.
2 DHHS, Family Centered Practice, http://www.hhs.state.ne.us/jus/portrait/FCP.pdf
3 NEB. REV. STAT. § 43-246.1 (2006)
4 NEB. REV. STAT. § 43-246.5 (2006)(emphasis added).
5 Doyle, supra note 1, at 18.
6 Doyle, supra note 1, at 18.
7 Doyle, supra note 1, at 18.
8 Doyle, supra note 1, at 42.
9 Doyle, supra note 1, at 41.
10 Doyle, supra note 1, at 41.
11 Doyle, supra note 1, at 43.
12 Doyle, supra note 1, at 41.
13 Heather N. Taussig, Robert B. Clyman, John Landsverk, Children Who Return Home From Foster Care: A 6-Year Prospective Study of Behavioral Health Outcomes in Adolescence, PEDIATRICS, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/108/1/e10.
14 Taussig, et al, supra note 13, at Discussion.
15 Taussig, et al, supra note 13, at Discussion.
16 Doyle, supra note 1, at 43.
