The effects of the LAC approach on the evolution of children in care'

1
The effects of the LAC approach on the evolution
of children in care.

• Marie-Claude Simard, Researcher, Centre jeunesse
  de Québec- Institut Universitaire
• Véronique Noël, LAC Coordinator, Association des
  centres jeunesse du Québec
• Marie-Andrée Poirier, Professor, École de service
  social, Université de Montréal

This project is possible thanks to the National
Crime Prevention Strategy of the canadian
government, in collaboration with the Ministère
de la sécurité publique du Québec
2
Agenda

• A brief mention of the Quebec youth protection
  context.
• The LAC approach in Quebec.
• The LAC research project
• Methodology
• Preliminary Results
• Limits
• Next steps.

3
Quebec youth protection context

• In Canada, child protection is within provincial
  jurisdiction.
• The Youth Protection Act (YPA) was introduced in
  1979 and was revised with major changes in 2007.
• YPA is applied in an authoritarian context.
• YPA is to be used cautiously and only when
  necessary.

4
Quebec
specifities

• Goals of the YPA
• Ensure the protection of minor children whose
  security and development is or may be considered
  in danger
• To intervene in order to protect the child and to
  improve exercise of certain parental
  responsabilities.

5
Foster care in Quebec

• In 2007-2008, 30 891 children received services
  from the Youth Centres.
• 11 914 foster children on the 31st of March 2008,
  of which around 58 are living in a foster
  family.
• 5 090 children were placed until their majority
  (long term) out of which 1 053 were abandoned.
• Source Bilan des directeurs de la protection de
  la jeunesse (2008). Au nom de la loi, la bonne
  mesure au bon moment. Association des centres
  jeunesse du Québec, 52p.

6
LAC implementation history

• Implementation process since 2003
• Partnership with the Association des Centres
  
• Jeunesse du Quebec.
• Four Youth Centres in four different Quebec
  regions.
• Research project
• Phase 1 (2003 2006) implementation evaluation
• Phase 2 (2006 - 2009) outcomes evaluation

7
Outcomes evaluation Objectives

• Document the outcomes of the use of LAC and the
  AAR on
• the foster parents' and case workers' practices
• the development and welfare of the young people.

8
Outcomes evaluation variables

• Foster families practices
• Conflict resolution
• Shared activitites
• Quality of parenting
• Quality of child-foster parent relationship
• Social Workers practices
• Quality of needs assessment
• Quality of plan of care

• Child outcomes variables
• Emotional and behavioural
  development (
  ex Anxiety, pro-social behaviour,
  
  physical opposition and aggression)
• School progress
• Self-esteem
• Health conditions
• Foster care stability
• Placement satisfaction

9
Outcomes evaluation preliminary results

• Analysis of time effects between T1 and T3
• Standardized scales General linear model (paired
  sample).
• Three standardized scales
• Child outcomes anxiety / physical opposition and
  aggression.
• Child and foster parents relationship conflict
  resolution.
• Objectives Descriptives statistics.
• Child is reaching some developmental objectives
  
• Health, education, emotional and behavioural
  development.

10
Outcomes evaluation Source of data

• Assessment and Action Record (AAR-2nd canadian
  version).
• Retains seven developmental dimensions of
  original UK version health education
  identity family and social relationships social
  presentation emotional and behavioural
  development self-care skills.
• Retains monitoring questions objectives.
• 8 age-appropriated AAR 0-12 months, 1-2 years,
  3-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-11 years, 12-15 years,
  16-17 years and 18 to 21 years.
•  Canadianized  by incorporating many items and
  measures from the National Longitudinal Survey of
  Children and Youth (NLSCY), allowing comparisons
  with Canadian children from the general
  population.

11
Sample child characteristics

• n 50 youths (AAR 5 years and older)
• Primary reason for admission to care
• - Neglect 42
• - Caregiver capacity 28
• - Abandonment 12
• Age at first placement 3.54 ( 3.29) years old

12
Sample child characteristics

• Time 1 n50
• Average age 9.50 ( 3.28) years.
• Average duration of placement in the actual
  foster family
• 5.21 (3.66) years.

• Time 3 n50
• Average age 11.80 ( 3.37) years.
• Average duration of placement in the actual
  foster family
• 6.62 (4.31) years.
• Between time 1 and 3 14 (7/50) of children
  known a foster familys change.

13
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
14
At time 3, we oberve no significant time effect
on child outcomes variables.
15
Child Outcomes Anxiety

• Anxiety scale
• 10 Items
• Score 8 to 24
• Higher scores indicate a greater prevalence of
  behaviours associated with anxiety and emotional
  disorders
• Parent and child reported

16
Child Outcomes physical opposition and
aggression

• Physical opposition and aggression scale
• 3 Items
• Score 3 to 9
• Higher scores indicate a greater incidence of
  behaviours associated with physical aggression
  and opposition.
• Parent and child reported

17
At time 3, we oberve a significant time effect on
child and foster parents relationships conflict
resolution.
18
Foster families practices conflict resolution

• Conflict resolution scale
• 8 Items
• Score 8 to 24
• Higher scale scores are indicative of a greater
  number of foster parent/young person disagreement
  
• Parent reported

19
At time 3, we oberve some changes on development
objectives.
20
Health objective All ongoing health conditions
and disabilities are being dealt with (n48).
21
Education objective Child is acquiring special
skills and interests (n43).
22
Emotional/behavioural objective Child is
receiving effective services for all persistent
problems (n46).
23
Limits of these preliminary results

• Small sample Should not be considered
  representative of all young people in out-of-home
  care in Quebec.
• Short period of time to observe effects on child
  outcomes.

24
Next steps

• Comparison LAC and non-LAC foster children on
  some indicators (ex stability, placement
  breakdown, youths aggravation situation).
• Comparison LAC children and children from the
  general population with the NLSCY.
• Qualitative analysis of LAC workers plan of
  care.
• Analysis of foster parents practices.

25
THE END!Questions or comments?

• Contacts marieclaudesimard.cj03_at_ssss.gouv.qc.ca
  marie-andrée.poirier_at_umontreal.canoël.veronique_at_g
  mail.com