First year after care: How are they doing and what contributes to their life satisfaction?

First year after care: How are they doing and what

contributes to their life satisfaction?

Tamar DinismanProf. Anat ZeiraThe Hebrew University of Jerusalem

A longitudinal research

Why care leavers? The change in young people transition to

independent lives (Arnett, 2000; Schoeni & Ross, 2005)Different conditions for youth aging out of

care:◦Abrupt move ◦Lack of emotional and financial support from

parents (Cashmore & Paxman, 1996; Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Wade, 2008 )

Gloomy picture of care leavers from varied countries (e.g. Stein & Munro, 2008)

Distinctive services and policy in numerous countries

Knowledge gaps

The Israeli situationNo legislation or general policyOut-of-home placement in Israel:

◦Vast majority to residential care (80%)◦Two main types of residential care:

treatment-oriented and educational-oriented

The different transition to independent living

The present study is a further step in the growing body of knowledge (Benbenishty, Schiff, Zeira)

Part of longitudinal survey

The purpose of the studyTo examine the condition of care

leavers on their first year after care, in six life domains

To Identify factors, on the verge of leaving care, which contribute to their successful adjustment a year after◦The current presentation: Life

satisfaction

T1

T2

Work experience

Education functioning

Self esteem

Origin

Individualcharacteristic

Staff Peers

Close relative

Birth parents

Social supportcharacteristic

Participate in ILPs

ILPsin the setting

Type

Well being

Normative behavior

Social support

Transition to Independent living

Economic security

Housing stability

Adaptation to the army

Institutional characteristic

Methods

First step 272 Second step: 234

26 residential settings in Israel

Main sample characteristics:◦average age 19 (SD= 1.00)◦60.7% boys◦23% Israeli born, 42.8% Ethiopian,21.2%

former Soviet UnionProcedures:

◦First step: self-administered survey in the settings & interviews with the directors about ILPs held in their settings

◦Second step: phone interview

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsDependent variables:

Well being

Normative behavior

Social support

Economic security

Housing stability

Adaptation to the army

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Well being

Normative behavior

Social support

Economic security

Housing stability

Adaptation to the army

Adaptation to the unit and duty

Social adaptation

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Well being

Normative behavior

Social support

Housing stability

Adaptation to the army

Economic security

Economic hardships: Debts Insufficient money Cutbacks Subjective evaluation of

general economic state

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Well being

Normative behavior

Social support

Economic security

Adaptation to the army

Housing stability

Current accommodation

Accommodation stability in the future

Instruments Independent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Well being

Normative behavior

Economic security

Adaptation to the army

Social support

Relationship with birth parents

Peer support Contact with

residential staff

Housing stability

Instruments and AnalysisIndependent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Well being

Economic security

Adaptation to the army

Normative behavior

Binge drinking Involvement

with the police

Housing stability

Social support

Instruments and AnalysisIndependent variables: Valid and

new instrumentsIndependent variables:

Economic security

Adaptation to the army

Well being

Life satisfaction (7-SLSS) 1-4

Mental health

Housing stability

Social support

Normative behavior

Results:The first year

Fare adjustment in most life domainsNumerous difficulties in two domains

◦Economic security◦Future housing stability

Small group with critical difficulties:◦Lack of permanent activity◦Absence of stable accommodation◦Delinquency◦Binge drinking◦Insufficient contact with birth parents

Main activity

61%

9%

12%

8%3% 4% 2%

ArmyNational serviceWorkStudyVolunteering yearPre military academy

Normative Behavior

82% did not engage in binge drinking in the last month 8.3% were engaged in binge drinking

8.8% were involved with the police

Social support network

6.6% do not have any contact with their birth parentsSuitable quality of relation with parents: M = 3.65 SD = 0.72 (1-5)Large amount of peer support: M = 4.24 SD = 0.74 (1-5)67.5% have some contact with staff

Life satisfaction (1-4): M = 2.8 SD = 0.67

Economic hardships

25% 23%

35%

18%

Four Three One-two Non

Housing stability 7.9%

experienced lack in place to

stay, since they left care

4.4% (10 youth) did not have a place to stay during the research

24.6% will not be able to stay in their current place for long

Factors contribute to life satisfaction

***p < 0.001

  Model 1   Model 2 Variables B β   B βLearning difficulties -.16 -.22***   -.17 -.23***Self-esteem .27 .21***   .16 .12Positive mother-relationship

  .21 .32***

Peer support - tangible       -.12 -.14 Peer support - emotional       -.06 -.07Peer support - affection       -.06 -.08Peer support - advice       .16 .21Peer support - interactions       .06 .06Staff support - affection       .11 .12

F(df) 9.89(2,202)***   5.52(9,195)***R2 .09   .20

Δ R2 ---   .11***

Discussion and Implications

Is it necessary to establish services and policy for care leavers?

Who is prone to hardships?What are the protective factor?The importance of the relationship

with birth parents during care and after

Thank you!Dinisman, T., & Zeira, A. (2011). The

contribution of individual, social support and institutional characteristics to perceived readiness to leave care in Israel: An ecological perspective. British Journal of Social Work.

[email protected]