• No results found

Marginal Effects of Explanatory Variables on Predicted Time to

_t

General Permanency Model

Specific Discharge Outcomes

Mean

Reunification Adoption Guardianship Non-Permanent

Outcome

ey/ex Std. Err ey/ex Std. Err. ey/ex Std. Err ey/ex Std. Err. ey/ex Std. Err

Policy-level factors More groups approved to

adopt -0.046 0.009 ** -0.094 0.014 ** -0.042 0.008 ** 0.318 0.025 ** 0.021 0.010 * 2.542

Fewer restrictions on who can

adopt 0.878 0.018 ** 1.217 0.028 ** 0.296 0.016 ** 0.782 0.048 ** 0.508 0.023 ** 4.263

ASFA compliance rate 0.041 0.010 ** 0.128 0.015 ** -0.103 0.009 ** -0.083 0.027 * -0.273 0.012 ** 0.3965 Relative preference in

placement 0.262 0.013 ** 0.300 0.020 ** 0.075 0.013 ** 0.237 0.034 ** 0.152 0.016 ** 1.866

Kinship Care designated in

statute -0.024 0.002 ** -0.025 0.003 ** -0.002 0.002 0.013 0.006 * -0.054 0.003 ** 0.316

IVE payment per IVE child 0.283 0.007 ** 0.218 0.011 ** 0.114 0.006 ** 1.061 0.021 ** 0.046 0.009 ** 6341.8 CW expend per child in pop 0.049 0.006 ** 0.105 0.009 ** 0.029 0.005 ** -0.183 0.015 ** 0.051 0.006 ** 428.20 Placement rate per

substantiated victim -0.100 0.003 ** -0.101 0.005 ** -0.091 0.003 ** -0.076 0.008 ** 0.014 0.004 ** 0.607 State-level factors Unemployment 0.456 0.018 ** 0.652 0.029 ** 0.127 0.016 ** 0.828 0.051 ** 0.378 0.023 ** 9.768 Poverty Rate -0.648 0.020 ** -1.006 0.031 ** -0.079 0.018 ** -0.558 0.054 ** -0.076 0.024 * 15.063 Percent Urban -0.462 0.024 ** -0.240 0.038 ** -0.299 0.022 ** -1.078 0.066 ** -0.456 0.031 ** 254.14 CW administrative structure -0.021 0.003 ** -0.040 0.004 ** 0.027 0.002 ** -0.051 0.007 ** -0.069 0.003 ** 0.684 CW "flow" -0.281 0.007 ** -0.387 0.011 ** -0.099 0.007 ** -0.384 0.019 ** -0.189 0.009 ** 3.805 Family-level factors

Parental Substance Abuse -0.023 0.002 ** -0.013 0.003 ** -0.019 0.002 ** -0.058 0.004 ** 0.025 0.003 ** 0.272 Parental Incarceration -0.012 0.001 ** -0.028 0.001 ** 0.006 0.001 ** -0.010 0.002 ** 0.000 0.001 0.069 Unmarried birth family -0.023 0.001 ** -0.031 0.002 ** -0.021 0.001 ** -0.008 0.003 ** 0.006 0.002 * 0.163 Single mother home -0.068 0.003 ** -0.071 0.004 ** -0.062 0.003 ** -0.057 0.007 ** -0.012 0.003 ** 0.467 Single father home -0.006 0.001 ** -0.006 0.001 ** -0.006 0.001 ** -0.007 0.001 ** -0.001 0.001 * 0.049 Child-level factors

141

Table I.1 (continued)

African American 0.040 0.002 ** 0.032 0.003 ** 0.072 0.002 ** 0.036 0.004 ** 0.002 0.002 0.281

American Indian/Alaskan

Native 0.007 0.000 ** 0.007 0.001 ** 0.007 0.000 ** 0.004 0.001 ** -0.004 0.000 ** 0.020

Asian -0.001 0.000 ** -0.001 0.000 ** 0.001 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007

Hawaiian / Pacific Islander -0.001 0.000 ** -0.001 0.000 ** 0.000 0.000 * 0.001 0.000 * 0.000 0.000 0.002

Hispanic 0.001 0.001 -0.006 0.001 ** 0.007 0.001 ** 0.013 0.002 ** -0.005 0.001 ** 0.069

Multiracial 0.006 0.001 ** 0.003 0.002 0.008 0.001 ** 0.026 0.003 ** 0.006 0.002 ** 0.176

High utilization county 0.075 0.003 ** 0.080 0.004 ** 0.040 0.002 ** 0.141 0.007 ** 0.025 0.003 ** 0.464

Male child 0.013 0.003 ** 0.004 0.004 0.015 0.002 ** 0.013 0.006 * 0.015 0.003 ** 0.523

Documented disability 0.030 0.004 ** 0.093 0.007 ** -0.032 0.003 ** 0.035 0.010 * 0.015 0.004 ** 0.274

Mental Retardation 0.015 0.001 ** 0.018 0.002 ** 0.009 0.001 ** 0.008 0.003 * 0.000 0.001 0.020

Vision or hearing impaired 0.005 0.002 * 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.001 * 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.002 0.029

Physical disability 0.004 0.001 ** 0.005 0.001 ** 0.005 0.001 ** 0.006 0.002 * 0.000 0.001 0.012

Emotionally disturbed 0.053 0.009 ** 0.022 0.015 0.056 0.006 ** 0.065 0.022 * 0.008 0.010 0.155

Other medical condition 0.027 0.008 ** 0.010 0.013 0.038 0.005 ** 0.058 0.020 * -0.007 0.009 0.137 Total number of disabilities -0.008 0.019 0.052 0.033 -0.044 0.013 * -0.068 0.049 0.003 0.023 0.355 Total number of removals 0.120 0.006 ** 0.224 0.009 ** -0.022 0.006 ** -0.057 0.012 ** -0.001 0.004 1.286 Total number of placements 0.902 0.005 ** 1.428 0.008 ** 0.288 0.003 ** 0.604 0.011 ** 0.044 0.002 ** 3.026 Voluntary placement -0.014 0.001 ** -0.023 0.001 ** -0.004 0.001 ** -0.002 0.001 -0.003 0.001 ** 0.045

Physical abuse -0.022 0.001 ** -0.053 0.002 ** 0.002 0.001 0.025 0.004 ** 0.002 0.002 0.149

Sexual abuse 0.005 0.001 ** 0.006 0.001 ** 0.001 0.001 0.013 0.002 ** 0.004 0.001 ** 0.052

Neglect 0.040 0.005 ** 0.029 0.008 ** -0.027 0.005 ** 0.152 0.014 ** 0.007 0.005 0.562

Removed due to child issue -0.012 0.001 ** -0.009 0.002 ** 0.033 0.002 ** 0.048 0.004 ** -0.006 0.001 ** 0.085 Removed due to parent issue 0.033 0.002 ** 0.074 0.003 ** -0.018 0.002 ** 0.037 0.005 ** -0.005 0.002 * 0.207 Number of removal reasons 0.121 0.006 ** 0.303 0.010 ** -0.044 0.005 ** 0.085 0.015 ** -0.019 0.006 * 1.709 Placed in non-relative foster

care -0.101 0.002 ** -0.061 0.003 ** -0.018 0.002 ** -0.294 0.004 ** 0.009 0.003 * 0.235

Placed in home setting -0.216 0.001 ** -0.196 0.002 ** -0.204 0.001 ** 0.177 0.007 ** 0.103 0.003 ** 0.194 Placed in congregate care -0.033 0.001 ** -0.057 0.002 ** 0.223 0.009 ** 0.122 0.006 ** -0.007 0.001 ** 0.138 Placed in independent living 0.027 0.001 ** 0.030 0.001 ** 0.025 0.002 ** 0.024 0.003 ** -0.003 0.000 ** 0.014

Runaway child 0.018 0.001 ** 0.021 0.001 ** 0.037 0.006 ** 0.026 0.003 ** -0.006 0.000 ** 0.017 y = predicted median _t in days (years) 1581.89 (4.33) 3532.27 (9.67) 4771.36 (13.08) 13836.5 (38.13) 7470.44 (20.52) ** <0.001; *<0.05

142

Appendix J: Speed of Discharge to Various Outcomes, Ranked by State

Table J.1: Speed of Discharge to Various Outcomes, Ranked by State

Permanency Reunification Adopt Guardianship Non-permanent

Faste

st

Wyoming * Wyoming * Washington * Wyoming * Arizona * Faste

st

South Dakota * New York * Idaho * Idaho * North Dakota *

New Jersey * South Dakota * New Mexico * South Dakota * Minnesota *

Idaho * New Jersey * Alaska * New Hampshire Kentucky *

New York * Idaho * Nevada * Oregon Tennessee *

North Dakota North Dakota Montana * New Jersey Wyoming * Tennessee Virginia South Dakota * Alabama Colorado * Iowa Alabama New Jersey * Indiana Idaho * Virginia Tennessee Indiana * Iowa * Delaware * Oregon South Carolina Oklahoma * Ohio * Ohio * Montana Oregon North Carolina * Pennsylvania * South Dakota *

Alabama Montana Texas * Delaware Wisconsin * Ohio Georgia Tennessee * Minnesota * Connecticut * Georgia Iowa Kansas * Montana * Virginia * Pennsylvania Ohio Louisiana * Florida * Mississippi * South Carolina Delaware Kentucky * Georgia * Nebraska * New Hampshire Mississippi Maine * Washington * Vermont * Indiana Kentucky Arkansas * Alaska * West Virginia * Connecticut Alaska Hawaii * Arkansas * Arkansas * Alaska North Carolina Ohio * Virginia * New Hampshire * West Virginia Pennsylvania Mississippi * Kentucky * Hawaii *

Kentucky * West Virginia Iowa * Wisconsin * Rhode Island *

Delaware Indiana New Hampshire Tennessee * Florida *

North Carolina * Colorado * Florida North Carolina * Kansas *

Washington * Louisiana South Carolina Colorado * Utah *

Mississippi * New Hampshire Georgia Connecticut * Georgia *

Louisiana * Washington * Arizona South Carolina * Indiana *

Colorado * Vermont Delaware Arizona * Pennsylvania *

Arizona * Michigan Connecticut Nebraska * Louisiana *

California * Arkansas * Wisconsin Hawaii * South Carolina *

Nebraska * Connecticut Alabama Nevada * California *

Michigan * Arizona * Oregon Mississippi * Alabama

Arkansas * Nebraska * Michigan California * Iowa

Wisconsin * California * Wyoming Michigan * Oregon

Texas * Maryland Utah * Oklahoma * Montana

Rhode Island Hawaii Pennsylvania * New Mexico * Oklahoma *

Hawaii * Massachusetts * Virginia * Utah * Nevada *

Nevada * Texas * West Virginia * Louisiana * Texas *

Vermont Rhode Island Massachusetts * Kansas * New Mexico *

Minnesota * Wisconsin * California * Missouri * North Carolina *

S

lowe

st

Oklahoma * Oklahoma * North Dakota * North Dakota * New Jersey *

S

lowe

st

Massachusetts * Florida * Missouri * Rhode Island * Massachusetts *

Maryland * Nevada Vermont * DC * Michigan *

New Mexico Minnesota * Minnesota * West Virginia * New York *

Florida * New Mexico Maryland * Texas * Maine *

Utah * Utah * Nebraska * Maine * Missouri *

DC * DC Rhode Island * Massachusetts * DC *

Maine * Maine * New York * Vermont * Washington *

Missouri * Kansas * Colorado * New York * Maryland *

Kansas * Missouri * Illinois * Maryland * Alaska *

Illinois * Illinois * DC * Illinois * Illinois *

* indicates the state discharges to outcome significantly faster/slower than predicted based on explanatory variables in hazard model. ~ The horizontal bar in each column is zero. States above the bar are taking less time to reach the outcomes, whereas states below the bar are taking longer.

143

Appendix K: Significant Predictors of Child Discharge Outcomes

Table K.1: Significant Predictors of Child Discharge Outcomes Permanency

Increased Likelihood Decreased Likelihood

Policy

 Groups approved to adopt  Kinship care in statute  Placement rate per victim State  Decentralized CW administrative structure  Poverty rate  Percent urban  CW flow Family

 Parental substance abuse  Parental incarceration  Unmarried parents  Single mother  Single father Child  Age at removal  Asian child

 Hawaiian/Pacific islander child  Voluntary placement

 Physical abuse

 Removal because of child issue  Relative FC  Home placement  Congregate care Policy  Adoption restrictions  ASFA compliance

 Relative preference in statute  Payment generosity  Expenditure generosity State  Unemployment Child  Black child

 American Indian/Alaskan Native child  Multiracial

 High utilization county

 Male

 Disability

 Mental retardation  Physical disability  Emotional disability  Other medical disability  Total number of removals  Number of placements  Sexual abuse

 Neglect

 Removed because of parent issue  Number or removal reasons

 IL

144 Table K.1 (continued)

Reunified

Increased Likelihood Decreased Likelihood

Policy

 Groups approved to adopt  Kinship care in statute  Generosity of access State  Decentralized CW administrative structure  Poverty rate  % urban  CW flow Family

 Parental substance abuse  Parental incarceration  Unmarried parents  Single mother  Single father Child  Age at removal  Asian child

 Hawaiian/Pacific Islander child  Hispanic child

 Voluntary placement  Physical abuse

 Removal for child issue  Relative FC  Home placement  Congregate care Policy  Adoption restrictions  ASFA compliance

 Relative preference in statute  Payment generosity  Expenditure generosity State  Unemployment Child  Black child

 American Indian/Alaskan Native child  High utilization county

 Disability

 Mental retardation  Physical disability  Total number of removals  Number of placements  Sexual abuse

 Neglect

 Removed because of parent issue  Number or removal reasons

 IL

145 Table K.1 (continued)

Adoption

Increased Likelihood Decreased Likelihood

Policy

 Groups approved to adopt  ASFA compliance rate  Generosity of access State  Poverty rate  % urban  CW flow Family

 Parental substance abuse  Unmarried parents  Single mother  Single father Child

 Disability

 Total number of removals  Voluntary placement  Neglect

 Removed because of parent issue  Number of removal reasons  Relative FC

 Home placement

Policy

 Adoption restrictions  Relative preference in statute  Payment generosity  Expenditure generosity State  Unemployment  Decentralized CW administrative structure Family  Parental incarceration Child  Age at removal  Black child

 American Indian/Alaskan Native child  Asian child

 Hispanic child  Multiracial child  High utilization county

 Male

 Mental retardation  Physical disability  Emotional disability  Other medical condition  Number of placements  Removed for child issue  Congregate care

 IL

146 Table K.1 (continued)

Other Permanency (i.e. Guardianship)

Increased Likelihood Decreased Likelihood

Policy  Expenditure generosity  Generosity of access State  Decentralized CW administrative structure  Poverty rate  % urban  CW flow Family

 Parental substance abuse  Parental incarceration  Single mother  Single father Child

 Age at removal

 Total number of removals  Relative FC

Policy

 Groups approved to adopt  Adoption restrictions  Relative preference in statute  Payment generosity

State

 Unemployment Child

 Black child

 American Indian/Alaskan Native child  Hispanic child

 Multiracial child  High utilization county  Number of placements  Physical abuse  Sexual abuse  Neglect

 Removed for child issue  Removed for parental issue  Number of removal reasons  Home placement

 Congregate care

 IL

 AOWL

Non-Permanent Outcome (i.e. Aged-Out)

Increased Likelihood Decreased Likelihood

Policy

 ASFA compliance rate  KC in statute

State

 Decentralized administrative structure  % urban  CW flow Family  Single mother Child  Age at removal

 American Indian/Native American child  Hispanic

 Voluntary placement  Removed for child issue  Congregate care

 IL

 AWOL

Policy

 Adoption restrictions

 Relative preference in placement  Generosity of payment  Generosity of expenditures  Generosity of access State  Unemployment Family

 Parental substance abuse Child

 Multiracial

 High utilization county

 Male

 Disability

 Number of placements  Sexual abuse

147

References

Abramovitz, R. & Bloom, S.L. (2003). Creating sanctuary in residential treatment for youths: From the “well-ordered asylum” to a “living-learning environment.”

Psychiatric Quarterly 74(2), 119-135.

Acock, A.C. (2012). A Gentle Introduction to Stata, 3rd edition. College Station, TX: STATA Press.

Albert, V.N., King, W.C. & Iaci, R. (2007). Welfare Returns and Temporary Time Limits: A Proportional Hazard Model. Social Work Research, 31(1), 7-18. Albritton, R. (1989). Impacts of Intergovernmental Financial Incentives on State

Welfare Policymaking and Interstate Equity. Publius: The Journal of Federalism,

19(2), 127-141.

Allen, M. & Bissell, M. (2004). Safety and Stability for Foster Children: The Policy Context. The Future of Children, Vol. 14(1), 49-73.

Alt, J. & Lowry, R. (1994). Divided Government, Fiscal Institutions, and budget Deficits: Evidence from the States. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 811-828.

Appelbaum, L.D. (2001). The Influence of Perceived Deservingness on Policy Decisions Regarding Aid to the Poor. Political Psychology, 22(3), 419-442. Avery, R.J. (1998). Adoption Assistance under P.L. 96-272: A Policy Analysis.

Children and Youth Services Review, 20(1/2). 29-55.

Avery, R.J., & Butler, J.S. (2004). Time dependence and unmeasured heterogeneity in administrative data analysis: Application to adoption photolisting services data.

Children and Youth Services Review, 26i, 235-248.

Avery, R.J., Butler, J.S., Schmidt, E.B., & Holtan, B.A. (2009). AdoptUsKids national photolisting service: Characteristics of listed children and length of time to placement. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 140-154.

Badeau, S. & Gesiriech, S. (2003). A Child’s Journey through the Child Welfare System. Washington, D.C.: The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care.

http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=24.

Bailey, M.A. & Rom, M.C. (2004). A Wider Race? Interstate Competition across Health and Welfare Programs. The Journal of Politics, 66(2), 326-347. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression through

Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582.

148

Barrilleaux, C., Holbrook, T., & Langer L. (2002). Electoral competition, Legislative Balance, and American State Welfare Policy. American Journal of Political

Science 46(2), 415-427.

Barth, R. P. (1997). Effects of age and race on the odds of adoption versus remaining in long-term out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 76(2), 285-308.

Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., & Berry, M. (1994). Timing is everything: An analysis of the time to adoption and legalization. Social Work Research, 18(3), 139-148 Barth, R. P., Snovvden, L. R., Broock, E. T., Clancy, E., Jordan, C, & Barusch, A. S.

(1986). Contributors to reunification or permanent out-of-home care for physically abused children. Journal of Social Service Research, 9(2/3), 31-45. Beck, N. (1982). Parties, Administrations, and American Macroeconomic Outcomes.

American Political Science Review, 76, 83-93.

Becker, M.A., Jordan, N., & Larsen, R. (2007). Predictors of successful permanency planning and length of stay in foster care: The role of race, diagnosis and place of residence. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1102-1113.

Bensonsmith, D. (2005). Jezebels, Matriarchs, and Welfare Queens: The Moynihan Report of 1965 and the social construction of African-American women in welfare policy. In A.L. Schneider & H.M. Ingram (Eds.) Deserving and Entitled:

Social Constructions and Public Policy (pp. 1-33). New York: State University of

New York Press.

Bernstein, N. (2001). The Lost Children of Wilder: The Epic Struggle to Change Foster

Care. New York: Vintage Books.

Berry, F.S. & Berry, W.D. (1992). Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 715-742.

Berry, W.D., Ringquist, E.J., Fording, R.C., & Hanson, R.L. (1998). Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93. American Journal of

Political Science, 42(1), 327-348.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books. Brooks, D., Barth, R.P., Bussiere, A., & Patterson, G. (1999). Adoption and race:

Implementing the Multiethnic Placement Act and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions. Social Work, 44(2), 167-178.

Brown, R.D. (1995). Party Cleavages and Welfare Effort in the American States. The

American Political Science Review, 89(1), 23-33.

Buehler, C., Orme, J.G., Post, J., & Patterson, D.A. (2000). The Long-Term Correlates of Family Foster Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(8), 595-625.

149

Carrillo, P.E., Early, D.W., & Olsen, E.O. (2012). A Panel of Price Indices for Housing, Other Goods, and All Goods for All Areas in the United States 1982-2010.

Unpublished manuscript. Available at

http://artsandsciences.virginia.edu/economics/facultystaff/eoo.html.

Child Trends. (2010). State Child Welfare Policy Database. Retrieved from

http://www.childwelfarepolicy.org/.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2005). Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and

Neglect: Summary of State Laws. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2007). Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008a). Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and

Neglect: Summary of State Laws. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2008b). Placement of Children with Relatives. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2009a). Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2009b). Major Federal Legislation Concerned with

Child Protection, Child Welfare, and Adoption. Washington, D.C. Retrieved

from www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/otherpubs/majorfedlegis.cfm.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2009c). Parental Drug Use as Child Abuse:

Summary of State Laws. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2009d). Who May Adopt, Be Adopted, or Place a

Child for Adoption?: Summary of State Laws. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2010a). Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and

Neglect: Summary of State Laws. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2010b). Placement of Children with Relatives. Washington, D.C.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from

www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm.

Collins-Camargo, C. Sullivan, D., & Murphy, A. (2011). Use of data to assess performance and promote outcome achievement by public and private child welfare agency staff. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(2), 330-339.

150

Connell, C.M., Katz, K.H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J.K. (2006). Leaving foster care – the influence of child and case characteristics on foster care exit rates. Children and

Youth Services Review, 28, 780-798.

Costin, L.B., Karger, H.J., & Stoesz, D. (1996). The Politics of Child Abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press.

Courtney, M.E. (1994). Factors Associated with the Reunification of Foster Children with Their Families. Social Services Review, 68(1), 81-108.

Courtney, M. (2005). Youth aging out of foster care. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Transitions to Adulthood and Public Policy. Issue 19, accessible at:

http://transitions.s410.sureserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/courtney-

foster-care.pdf.

Courtney, M.E. & Dworsky, A. (2006). Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA. Child & Family Social Work, 11, 209-219. Courtney, M.E. & Hook, J.L. (2012). Timing of exits to legal permanency from out-of-

home care: The importance of systems and implications for assessing

institutional accountability. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2263-2272. Courtney, M.E., Hook. J.L., & Lee, J.S. (2010). Distinct Subgroups of Former Foster

Youth during Young Adulthood: Implications for Policy and Practice. Chicago:

Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Courtney, M.E., & Yin-Ling I.W. (1996). Comparing the Timing of Exits from Substitute Care. Children and Youth Services Review, 18 (4–5), 307–334.

Daly, K. & Tonry, M. (1997). Gender, Race, and Sentencing. Crime and Justice, 22: 201- 252.

De Jong, G.F., Graefe, D.R., Irving, S.K., & St. Pierre, T. (2006). Measuring State TANF Policy Variations and Change after Reform. Social Science Quarterly,

87(4), 755-781.

Doyle, J.J. Jr. (2007). Child Protection and Child Outcomes: Measuring the Effects of Foster Care. The American Economic Review, 97(5), 1583-1610.

Doyle, J.J, Jr. (2008). Child Protection and Adult Crime: Using Investigator Assignment to Estimate Causal Effects of Foster Care. Journal of Political Economy, 116(4), 746-770.

Dworsky, A. (2005). The Economic Self-Sufficiency of Wisconsin’s Former Foster Youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(10), 1085-1118.

151

Dworsky, A. & Courtney, M.E. (2010). The risk of teenage pregnancy among

transitioning foster youth: Implications for extending state care beyond age 18.

Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1351-1356.

Eamon, M.K. (2002). The Effect of Economic Resources on Reunification of Illinois Children in Substitute Care. Children and Family Research Center. Available at

http://www.cfrc.illinois.edu/publications/rp_20020520_TheEffectOfEconomicRes

ourcesOnReunificationOfIllinoisChildrenInSubstituteCare.pdf.

Estefan, L.F., Coulter, M.L., V&eWeerd, C.L., Armstrong, M., & Gorski, P. (2012). Receiving mandated therapeutic services: Experiences of parents involved in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2353-2360. Fellowes M.C. & Rowe, G. (2004). Politics and the New American Welfare State.

American Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 362-373.

Fording, R.C. (1997). The Conditional Effect of Violence as a Political Tactic: Mass Insurgency, Welfare Generosity, and Electoral Context in the American States.

American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 1-29.

Fry, B.R. & Winters, R.F. (1970). The Politics of Redistribution. American Political

Science Review, 70, 1127-1135.

Gambrill, E. (2008). Decision Making in Child Welfare: Cosntraints and potentials. In D. Lindsey & A. Shlonsky (Eds.) Child Welfare Research: Advances for Practice

and Policy (pp. 175-193). New York: Oxford University Press

Gautheir, Y., Fortin, G., & Jeliu, G. (2004). Clinical Application of Attachment Theory in Permanency Planning for Children in Foster Care: The Importance of

Continuity of Care. Infant Mental Health Journal, 25(4), 370-396. Gelles, R.J. (1975). The social construction of child abuse. American Journal of

Orthopsychiatry, 45, 363-371

Glisson, C, Bailey, J. W., & Post, J. A. (2000). Predicting the time children spend in state custody. Social Service Review, 74,253-280.

Goerge, R.M, et al. (2002). Employment Outcomes for Youth Aging Out of Foster Care. Final Report. University of Chicago Chapin Hall Center for Children. Available

at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/fostercare-agingout02/.

Grogan, C.M. (1994). Political-Economic Factors Influencing State Medicaid Policy.

Politically Research Quarterly 47, 589-622.

Hacking, I. (1999). The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

152

Halperin, R. & Harris, J.L. (2004). Parental Rights of Incarcerated Mothers with Children in Foster Care: A policy vacuum. Feminist Studies, 30(2), 339-352.

Hayward, R.A. & DePanfilis, D. (2007). Foster children with an incarcerated parent: Predictors of reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1320-1334. Hero, R.E. (1998). Faces of Inequality: Social Diversity in American Politics, New

York: Oxford University Press.

Hero, R.E. & Tolbert, C.J. (1996). A Racial/Ethnic Diversity Interpretation of Polities and Policy in the States of the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 851-871.

Hibbs, D. (1977). Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political

Science Review, 71, 1467-1487.

Hill, K.Q. & Leighley, J.E. (1992). The Policy Consequences of Class bias in State Electorates. American Journal of Political Science, 36(2), 351-365. Ingram, H., Schneider, A.L. & DeLeon, P. (2007). Social Construction and Policy

Design. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd ed. (pp. 93-

126).

Jansson, B.S. (2005). The Reluctant Welfare State: American Social Welfare Policies –

Past, Present, and Future, 5th edition. Australia: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Jennings, E.T. (1979). Competition, Constituencies, and Welfare Policies in American States. American Political Science Review, 73, 414-429.

Johnson, E.I. & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Parental Incarceration: Recent trends and implications for child welfare. Social Service Review, 76(3), 460-479.

Jonson-Reid, M., Drake, B., & Kohl, P.L. (2009). Is the overrepresentation of the poor in child welfare caseloads due to bias or need? Children and Youth Services Review,

31, 422-427.

Karch, A. (2006). National Intervention and the Diffusion of Policy Innovations.

American Politics Research, 34(4), 403-426.

Karger, H.J. & Stoesz, D. (2010). American Social Welfare Policy: A Pluralist

Approach, 6th edition. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Karoll, B.R. & Poertner, J. (2002). Judges’, Caseworkers’, and Substance Abuse

Counselors’ Indicators of Family Reunification with Substance-Affected Parents.

153

Kempe, C. H., Silverman, F. N., Steele, B. F., Droegemueller, W., & Silver, H. K. (1962). The Battered-Child Syndrome. Journal of the American Medical

Association, 181: 17-24.

Leslie, L.K., Hurlburt, M.S., Landsverk, J., Rolls, J.A., Wood, P.A., & Kelleher, K.J. (2003). Comprehensive Assessments for Children Entering Foster Care: A national perspective. Pediatrics, 112(1), 134-142.

Lewis-Beck, M. (1977). The Relative Importance of Socioeconomic and Political Variables for Public Policy. American Political Science Review, 71, 559-565. Maynard, R.A. (1997). Paternalism, Teenage Pregnancy Prevention and Teenage Parent

Services. In The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty, ed. L.M. Mead. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 89-129.

McDonald, J. Salyers, N., & Shaver, M. (2004). The foster care straitjacket: Innovation,

federal financing & accountability in state foster care reform – A report by fostering results. Urbana-Champaign: Children and Family Research Center at

the School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Retrieved from http://www.fosteringresults.org/reports/pewreports_03-11-

04_straightjacket.pdf.

McMurtry, S. L., & Lie, G. L. (1992). Differential exit rates of minority children in foster care. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 28(1), 4

Mead, L.M. (1997). The New Paternalism: Supervisory Approaches to Poverty. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

Miller, R. L., Benjamin, D. K., & North, D. C. (2003). The Economics of Public Issues,

Thirteenth Edition. Boston: Addison Wesley.

Misra, J., Moller, S. & Karides, M. (2003). Envisioning Dependency: Changing Media Depictions of Welfare in the 20th Century. Social Problems, 50(4), 482-504. Moffitt, R. (1987) Historical Growth in Participation in Aid to Families with Dependent

Children: Was There a Structural Shift? Journal of Post-Keynesian Economics, 9, 347-363.

Moffitt, R. (1990). Has Sate Redistribution Policy Grown More Conservative? National

Tax Journal, 43, 123-142.

Murray, C. (1984). Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980. New York: Basic Books.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. (2003). Reporting Laws: Drug-Exposed Infants. Washington, D.C.

154

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. (2004). Parties to an Adoption. Washington, D.C. National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. National Adoption

Information Clearinghouse. (2005a). Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect. Washington, D.C.

National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect Information. National Adoption Information Clearinghouse. (2005b). Placement of Children with Relatives. Washington, D.C.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2012). Party Control of State Legislatures. Available from

http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/2010_Legis_and_State_pre.pdf