Educational Achievement among Child Welfare Youth: The Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathways (MAP) Project

1. Educational AchievementEducational Achievement
among Child Welfare Youth:among Child Welfare Youth:
The Maltreatment andThe Maltreatment and
Adolescent Pathways (MAP)Adolescent Pathways (MAP)
ProjectProject
Presented at the August 22nd
, 2008
Meeting of the Child Welfare Outcomes Expert Reference Group
Ontario Ministry of Child and Youth Services
Toronto, Canada

2. 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, NatashaKong Chung, Lori Bell, Natasha
Budzarov, Darlaine Mathews, David Firang, Dan Cadman, Susan GainesBudzarov, Darlaine Mathews, David Firang, Dan Cadman, Susan Gaines
Cherry Chan, Mario Giancola, Judith Wharton, Bervin Garraway, CarlaCherry Chan, Mario Giancola, Judith Wharton, Bervin Garraway, Carla
Da Fonte, Jacqueline BittencourtDa Fonte, Jacqueline Bittencourt

3. MAP Project Funding AgenciesMAP Project Funding Agencies
The 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 KnowledgeMAP 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 ofInstitute of
Gender and HealthGender and Health
• The Ontario Ministry of Children & Youth ServicesThe Ontario Ministry of Children & Youth Services
• The Ontario Mental Health FoundationThe Ontario Mental Health Foundation
• The Provincial Centre of Excellence in ChildThe Provincial Centre of Excellence in Child && YouthYouth MentalMental
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 (toCIHR/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 WelfareThe Centre for Excellence in Research in Child Welfare

4. MAP- General MethodsMAP- General Methods
 Adolescents on active child welfare caseload in a large urbanAdolescents 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 activeYouth are randomly selected for participation from all active
participating Children’s Aid Society cases in 14.0 to 17.0 yearparticipating 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 testingRecruitment rate of eligible participants at the initial testing
point is approximately 70% (retention rate is 84%)point 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 diagnosticAlso includes brief intelligence testing, computerized diagnostic
interview, neuropsychological tests, and the Ontario Studentinterview, neuropsychological tests, and the Ontario Student
Drug Use & Health Survey (OSDUHS; given at Years 1,2,3Drug Use & Health Survey (OSDUHS; given at Years 1,2,3
testings) to compare child welfare youth to the Ontariotestings) to compare child welfare youth to the Ontario
population of youthpopulation of youth
 This presentation on education/achievement outcomesThis presentation on education/achievement outcomes
considers initial and Year 1 MAP testing pointsconsiders initial and Year 1 MAP testing points

5. Maltreatment and AdolescentMaltreatment and Adolescent
Pathways (MAP) Longitudinal Study –Pathways (MAP) Longitudinal Study –
Recruitment ProcedureRecruitment Procedure
Lists 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.

6. Initial TestingInitial Testing –– DemographicsDemographics
 N=453 child welfare-involved youth (52% female) participants atN=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 carecommunity 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% SouthBlack, 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 groupLiving arrangements: 44% with foster parents, 24% in a group
home, 8% with a single parent, 5% with one biological parenthome, 8% with a single parent, 5% with one biological parent
and one other parent, 5% living on own or with a friend, 4% withand one other parent, 5% living on own or with a friend, 4% with
two biological married or common-law parents, 4% with othertwo biological married or common-law parents, 4% with other
relatives, 6% otherrelatives, 6% other

7. 1-Year Testing1-Year Testing –– DemographicsDemographics
 N=241 child welfare youth (53% female) at the 1-year timeN=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% communityCAS: 66% crown ward, 14% society ward, 16% community
family, 4% temporary carefamily, 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%Black, 7% Other, 3% Latin American, 1% Chinese, 1%
Filipino, 1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1%Filipino, 1% Arab/West Asian, 1% South East Asian, 1%
NativeNative
 Living arrangements: 38% with foster parents, 14% in a groupLiving arrangements: 38% with foster parents, 14% in a group
home, 14% living on own or with a friend, 11% with a singlehome, 14% living on own or with a friend, 11% with a single
parent, 10% other, 4.5% with other relatives, 4% with oneparent, 10% other, 4.5% with other relatives, 4% with one
biological parent and one other parent, 2.5% with twobiological parent and one other parent, 2.5% with two
biological married or common-law parents, 2% with adoptivebiological married or common-law parents, 2% with adoptive
parentsparents

8. Selected MAP OutcomeSelected 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)

9. KBIT InformationKBIT Information
 The Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT) measures two distinctThe 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 familiarProvides 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) IQInternal Consistency: 1) Vocabulary = .93; 2) Matrices = .88; 3) IQ
Composite = .94Composite = .94
 Test-Retest Reliability: 1) Vocabulary = .86 to .97; 2) Matrices = .80Test-Retest Reliability: 1) Vocabulary = .86 to .97; 2) Matrices = .80
to .92; 3) IQ Composite = .92 to .95to .92; 3) IQ Composite = .92 to .95

10. CAS Care Status and KBITCAS Care Status and KBIT
 At 1-year, 178 (74%) of youth responded to question onAt 1-year, 178 (74%) of youth responded to question on
whether they still remain in the care of the CAS, and thewhether they still remain in the care of the CAS, and the
follow is the breakdown between youths’ CAS status atfollow 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 significantPreliminary analyses revealed no statistical significant
differences in terms of youth performance on K-BIT anddifferences in terms of youth performance on K-BIT and
school grades between youth who are in- and out-ofschool 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.

11. Access to ComputerAccess to Computer
 At 1-year testing, MAP youth on average have access toAt 1-year testing, MAP youth on average have access to
similar number of PC compared to age-matched youth insimilar number of PC compared to age-matched youth in
Ontario high school population (MAP mean=2.44Ontario 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 lived98% of non CAS involved Ontario high school youth lived
with at 1 parent or relatives (74% lived with bothwith at 1 parent or relatives (74% lived with both
biological parents), and the average number of siblingsbiological parents), and the average number of siblings
is 1.92 (SD=1.53)is 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

12. Age and school participationAge and school participation
 37 out of 224 youth reported that they were currently not37 out of 224 youth reported that they were currently not
in school, where 1-year ago 5 of these youth were in thein school, where 1-year ago 5 of these youth were in the
ninth grade, 8 were in the tenth grade, 11 were in theninth grade, 8 were in the tenth grade, 11 were in the
11th grade and 13 were in the twelfth grade11th 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:

13. K-BIT Scores & School GradesK-BIT Scores & School Grades
 187 of those who completed K-BIT were currently in187 of those who completed K-BIT were currently in
school. Higher percentage of MAP youth scored on theschool. Higher percentage of MAP youth scored on the
low range of K-BIT as compared to the normativelow range of K-BIT as compared to the normative
population:population:

14. 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 betweenthere is no statistical significant relationship between
school grades and K-BIT scores when the distribution ofschool 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).

15. K-BIT Scores & School GradesK-BIT Scores & School Grades
(Gender Differences)(Gender Differences)
 The relationship (or the lack thereof) between K-BIT andThe 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 ranWhen regression models on the Year 1 testing data were ran
separately in MAP males and MAP females, with age andseparately 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 MatricesIn 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-reportedNeither 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

16. What other factors may influence academicWhat other factors may influence academic
achievements beside intelligence?achievements beside intelligence?

17. What other factors may influence academicWhat 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.

18. What other factors may influence academicWhat 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.

19. 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