Educational Achievement Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: among Child Welfare Youth:

The Maltreatment and The Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathways (MAP) Adolescent Pathways (MAP)

Project Project

Presented at the August 22nd, 2008 Meeting of the Child Welfare Outcomes Expert Reference Group

Ontario Ministry of Child and Youth ServicesToronto, Canada

MAP InvestigatorsMAP Investigators

Christine Wekerle, Ph.D.Christine Wekerle, Ph.D. (PI; UWO; cwekerle@uwo.ca) (PI; UWO; cwekerle@uwo.ca)Michael Boyle, Ph.D.Michael Boyle, Ph.D. (McMaster) (McMaster)

Deborah Goodman, Ph.D.Deborah Goodman, Ph.D. (Toronto CAS) (Toronto CAS)Bruce Leslie, M.S.W.Bruce Leslie, M.S.W. (Catholic CAS) (Catholic CAS)

Eman Leung, Ph.D.Eman Leung, Ph.D. (UWO) (UWO)Harriet MacMillan, M.D.Harriet MacMillan, M.D. (McMaster) (McMaster)

Brenda Moody, M.B.A.Brenda Moody, M.B.A. (Peel Region CAS) (Peel Region CAS)Nico Trocmé, Ph.D.Nico Trocmé, Ph.D. (McGill) (McGill)

Randall Waechter, Ph.D.Randall Waechter, Ph.D. (UWO) (UWO)

MAP Advisory Board:MAP Advisory Board: Kong Chung, Lori Bell, Natasha Kong Chung, Lori Bell, NatashaBudzarov, Darlaine Mathews, David Firang, Dan Cadman, Susan GainesBudzarov, Darlaine Mathews, David Firang, Dan Cadman, Susan GainesCherry Chan, Mario Giancola, Judith Wharton, Bervin Garraway, Carla Cherry Chan, Mario Giancola, Judith Wharton, Bervin Garraway, Carla

Da Fonte, Jacqueline BittencourtDa Fonte, Jacqueline Bittencourt

MAP Project Funding AgenciesMAP Project Funding AgenciesThe MAP Project consists of 3 studies: MAP Feasibility Study; The MAP Project consists of 3 studies: MAP Feasibility Study;

MAP Longitudinal Study (Males & Females); MAP Knowledge MAP Longitudinal Study (Males & Females); MAP Knowledge Translation Study. The MAP thanks the following agencies:Translation Study. The MAP thanks the following agencies:

• The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Community Action HealthCommunity Action Health Research and theResearch and the Institute of Institute of Gender and HealthGender and Health

• The Ontario Ministry of Children & Youth Services The Ontario Ministry of Children & Youth Services • The Ontario Mental Health Foundation The Ontario Mental Health Foundation • The Provincial Centre of Excellence in Child The Provincial Centre of Excellence in Child & & YouthYouth Mental Mental

Health at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioHealth at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario• CIHR/Ontario Women’s Health Council Mid-Career Award (to CIHR/Ontario Women’s Health Council Mid-Career Award (to

CChristinehristine Wekerle) Wekerle)• The Public Health Agency of CanadaThe Public Health Agency of Canada• The Centre for Excellence in Research in Child Welfare The Centre for Excellence in Research in Child Welfare

MAP- General Methods MAP- General Methods Adolescents on active child welfare caseload in a large urban Adolescents on active child welfare caseload in a large urban

centre, from mid-adolescence to young adulthoodcentre, from mid-adolescence to young adulthood Youth are randomly selected for participation from all active Youth are randomly selected for participation from all active

participating Children’s Aid Society cases in 14.0 to 17.0 year participating Children’s Aid Society cases in 14.0 to 17.0 year age range (open for >6 months)age range (open for >6 months)

Recruitment rate of eligible participants at the initial testing point Recruitment rate of eligible participants at the initial testing point is approximately 70% (retention rate is 84%)is approximately 70% (retention rate is 84%)

Testing points across 3 yrs, mostly self-report measuresTesting points across 3 yrs, mostly self-report measures Also includes brief intelligence testing, computerized diagnostic Also includes brief intelligence testing, computerized diagnostic

interview, neuropsychological tests, and the Ontario Student interview, neuropsychological tests, and the Ontario Student Drug Use & Health Survey (OSDUHS; given at Years 1,2,3 Drug Use & Health Survey (OSDUHS; given at Years 1,2,3 testings) to compare child welfare youth to the Ontario testings) to compare child welfare youth to the Ontario population of youthpopulation of youth

This presentation on education/achievement outcomes This presentation on education/achievement outcomes considers initial and Year 1 MAP testing pointsconsiders initial and Year 1 MAP testing points

Maltreatment and Adolescent Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathways (MAP) Longitudinal Study – Pathways (MAP) Longitudinal Study –

Recruitment ProcedureRecruitment ProcedureLists of all current active

caseloads (sorted by child welfare system ID)

between 14 - 17 years of age forwarded to MAP

team.

Using random numbers table, youth randomly

selected for each agency geographic branch. Lists forwarded to MAP Liaison within the agency branch

MAP Liaison within child welfare agency contacts

caseworker of each youth. Workers determine

eligibility of youth for participation.

Caseworkers approaches youth with a research opportunity (standard script). If interested,

worker obtains permission for MAP researchers to

contact the youth

Worker faxes signed “recruitment form” if the

youth agrees, “inability to recruit form” if youth

ineligible/refuses, with contact information for

interested youth

MAP researchers meet youth for consent/data

collection. Consent forms and data separated to

maintain confidentiality. Guardian signs consent for

youth under 16 yrs.

Initial Testing Initial Testing –– Demographics Demographics N=453 child welfare-involved youth (52% female) participants at N=453 child welfare-involved youth (52% female) participants at

the initial time point (data collected Oct. 2002 – July 2008)the initial time point (data collected Oct. 2002 – July 2008) Mean age: M=16.4 years (SD=0.99)Mean age: M=16.4 years (SD=0.99) CAS status: 63% crown ward, 16% society ward, 16% CAS status: 63% crown ward, 16% society ward, 16%

community family, 5% temporary care community family, 5% temporary care Self-endorsed ethnicity: 30% two or more; 30% White, 25% Self-endorsed ethnicity: 30% two or more; 30% White, 25%

Black, 3% Latin American, 1% Chinese, 1% Filipino, 1% South Black, 3% Latin American, 1% Chinese, 1% Filipino, 1% South Asian, 1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1% Native, Asian, 1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1% Native, 6% Other6% Other

Living arrangements: 44% with foster parents, 24% in a group Living arrangements: 44% with foster parents, 24% in a group home, 8% with a single parent, 5% with one biological parent home, 8% with a single parent, 5% with one biological parent and one other parent, 5% living on own or with a friend, 4% with and one other parent, 5% living on own or with a friend, 4% with two biological married or common-law parents, 4% with other two biological married or common-law parents, 4% with other relatives, 6% otherrelatives, 6% other

1-Year Testing 1-Year Testing –– Demographics Demographics N=241 child welfare youth (53% female) at the 1-year time N=241 child welfare youth (53% female) at the 1-year time

point (data collected Aug. 2003 – July 2008)point (data collected Aug. 2003 – July 2008) Mean age: M=17.35 years (SD=0.96)Mean age: M=17.35 years (SD=0.96) CAS: 66% crown ward, 14% society ward, 16% community CAS: 66% crown ward, 14% society ward, 16% community

family, 4% temporary care family, 4% temporary care Self-endorsed ethnicity: 33% two or more, 27% White, 25% Self-endorsed ethnicity: 33% two or more, 27% White, 25%

Black, 7% Other, 3% Latin American, 1% Chinese, 1% Filipino, Black, 7% Other, 3% Latin American, 1% Chinese, 1% Filipino, 1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1% Native1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1% Native

Living arrangements: 38% with foster parents, 14% in a group Living arrangements: 38% with foster parents, 14% in a group home, 14% living on own or with a friend, 11% with a single home, 14% living on own or with a friend, 11% with a single parent, 10% other, 4.5% with other relatives, 4% with one parent, 10% other, 4.5% with other relatives, 4% with one biological parent and one other parent, 2.5% with two biological biological parent and one other parent, 2.5% with two biological married or common-law parents, 2% with adoptive parentsmarried or common-law parents, 2% with adoptive parents

Selected MAP Outcome Selected MAP Outcome Measures: EducationMeasures: Education

Initial MAP testing:

•current grade and age (DOB); no. of persons in home

Year 1 MAP testing:

•current grade and age (DOB); no. of persons in home

• Ontario Student Drug Use Health Survey (OSDUHS) questionnaire – grade/marks usually obtain, number of personal computers in home; school engagement items, skip school, bullying @ school

• Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT)

KBIT InformationKBIT Information The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) measures two distinct The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) measures two distinct

cognitive functions: Vocabulary (expressive vocabulary & cognitive functions: Vocabulary (expressive vocabulary & definitions) and Matrices (pictures& abstract designs: Non-verbal)definitions) and Matrices (pictures& abstract designs: Non-verbal)

The K-BIT is administered in 15 to 30 minutesThe K-BIT is administered in 15 to 30 minutes Provides a quick estimate of intelligence (verbal vs. nonverbal)Provides a quick estimate of intelligence (verbal vs. nonverbal) Useful as a screening device for students who require extra helpUseful as a screening device for students who require extra help Provides composite, verbal, and nonverbal scores on a familiar Provides composite, verbal, and nonverbal scores on a familiar

scale M=100 and SD=15scale M=100 and SD=15 Internal Consistency: 1) Vocabulary = .93; 2) Matrices = .88; 3) IQ Internal Consistency: 1) Vocabulary = .93; 2) Matrices = .88; 3) IQ

Composite = .94Composite = .94 Test-Retest Reliability: 1) Vocabulary = .86 to .97; 2) Matrices = .80 Test-Retest Reliability: 1) Vocabulary = .86 to .97; 2) Matrices = .80

to .92; 3) IQ Composite = .92 to .95 to .92; 3) IQ Composite = .92 to .95

CAS Care Status and KBITCAS Care Status and KBIT At 1-year, 178 (74%) of youth responded to question on At 1-year, 178 (74%) of youth responded to question on

whether they still remain in the care of the CAS, and the whether they still remain in the care of the CAS, and the follow is the breakdown between youths’ CAS status at follow is the breakdown between youths’ CAS status at referral and 1-year in- and out-of-care status:referral and 1-year in- and out-of-care status:

Preliminary analyses revealed no statistical significant Preliminary analyses revealed no statistical significant differences in terms of youth performance on K-BIT and differences in terms of youth performance on K-BIT and school grades between youth who are in- and out-of school grades between youth who are in- and out-of care, and among youth of different CAS statuses.care, and among youth of different CAS statuses.

Access to ComputerAccess to Computer At 1-year testing, MAP youth on average have access to At 1-year testing, MAP youth on average have access to

similar number of PC compared to age-matched youth in similar number of PC compared to age-matched youth in Ontario high school population (MAP mean=2.44 Ontario high school population (MAP mean=2.44 [SD=.68]; Ontario youth mean=2.56 [SD=.52]. [SD=.68]; Ontario youth mean=2.56 [SD=.52].

98% of non CAS involved Ontario high school youth lived 98% of non CAS involved Ontario high school youth lived with at 1 parent or relatives (74% lived with both with at 1 parent or relatives (74% lived with both biological parents), and the average number of siblings is biological parents), and the average number of siblings is 1.92 (SD=1.53) 1.92 (SD=1.53)

The ratio of PC per person for MAP youth can be lowThe ratio of PC per person for MAP youth can be low

Age and school participation Age and school participation 37 out of 224 youth reported that they were currently not 37 out of 224 youth reported that they were currently not

in school, where 1-year ago 5 of these youth were in the in school, where 1-year ago 5 of these youth were in the ninth grade, 8 were in the tenth grade, 11 were in the ninth grade, 8 were in the tenth grade, 11 were in the 11th grade and 13 were in the twelfth grade 11th grade and 13 were in the twelfth grade

Suggesting possibly 11% drop-out rate for MAP youth.Suggesting possibly 11% drop-out rate for MAP youth. Among youth who were in school at MAP 1-year testing, Among youth who were in school at MAP 1-year testing,

164 of them had also reported their current grade level, 164 of them had also reported their current grade level, the breakdown as follows:the breakdown as follows:

K-BIT Scores & School GradesK-BIT Scores & School Grades 187 of those who completed K-BIT were currently in 187 of those who completed K-BIT were currently in

school. Higher percentage of MAP youth scored on the school. Higher percentage of MAP youth scored on the low range of K-BIT as compared to the normative low range of K-BIT as compared to the normative population:population:

K-BIT Scores & School GradesK-BIT Scores & School Grades Yet, unlike what is observed in the general population, Yet, unlike what is observed in the general population,

there is no statistical significant relationship between there is no statistical significant relationship between school grades and K-BIT scores when the distribution of school grades and K-BIT scores when the distribution of individuals across the two dimensions are concerned, individuals across the two dimensions are concerned, and the correlations are not significant (rs=.00 to .06).and the correlations are not significant (rs=.00 to .06).

K-BIT Scores & School Grades K-BIT Scores & School Grades (Gender Differences)(Gender Differences)

The relationship (or the lack thereof) between K-BIT and The relationship (or the lack thereof) between K-BIT and school grade was in fact masked by the effect of gender.school grade was in fact masked by the effect of gender. When regression models on the Year 1 testing data were ran When regression models on the Year 1 testing data were ran

separately in MAP males and MAP females, with age and separately in MAP males and MAP females, with age and number of PCs controlled for:number of PCs controlled for:

In females, K-BIT Vocabulary (verbal IQ) and Matrices In females, K-BIT Vocabulary (verbal IQ) and Matrices (performance IQ) significantly predicted youth-reported “ususal” (performance IQ) significantly predicted youth-reported “ususal” school grades MAP youth (school grades MAP youth (BB=0.011, =0.011, SESE=0.006; =0.006; pp=.05 and =.05 and BB=0.011, =0.011, SESE=0.005, respectively), such that the higher the IQ, =0.005, respectively), such that the higher the IQ, the higher the self-reported “usual grades” achieved at school.the higher the self-reported “usual grades” achieved at school.

Neither K-BIT IQ scores significantly predicted self-reported Neither K-BIT IQ scores significantly predicted self-reported “usual” school grades in male youth“usual” school grades in male youth

These are, though, all based on same time-point variables, These are, though, all based on same time-point variables, youth perception of achievement, not school recordsyouth perception of achievement, not school records

What other factors may influence academic What other factors may influence academic achievements beside intelligence?achievements beside intelligence?

What other factors may influence academic What other factors may influence academic achievement in MAP female youth?achievement in MAP female youth?

For females, variables such as the number of skipped classes (past month) and rating of one’s teacher accounted for significant amount of unique variance in school grades even when entered simultaneously into regression models with youth age and K-BIT IQ scores.

The removal of school social- emotional variables did not result in significant drop in the predictability of the model.

The removal of school engagement variables (skip school, perception of excellent teachers) resulted in a significant drop in predictability of the model.

What other factors may influence academic What other factors may influence academic achievement in MAP males?achievement in MAP males?

For male, the number of class skipped accounted for significant amount of unique variance in school grades even when entered simultaneously into regression models with K-BIT IQ scores

The removal of school social-emotional variables did not result in significant drop in the predictability of the model.

The removal of school engagement variables (no. past month classes skipped) caused significant drop in the total amount of variance accounted for by the model.

Thoughts from MAP findings:

Need for early literacy intervention, maintain verbal learning over years

Develop achievement to performance higher abilities Conduct a brief intelligence screen prior to high school

(gr.8) – capture under-achieving, high IQ Enhance home PC access in multiple person settings or

individual Caseworker’s monitoring of school skipping monthly and

intervene early on student-teacher relationship, feelings of “attachment” to school (Activities? Principal? Friends?) for both female and male students at high school outset and in an on-going fashion

Enhance school-child welfare partnering, e.g., education system liaison; study buddy pairing (older; younger CAS youth); assigned teacher mentor to meet regularly with youth, to deal with school engagement and school social-emotional variables, especially with new school entry