:,, ,y ,,,,, , ,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, m,

Gil-4")

 

 

 

 

 

‘1
‘,.-fx3‘:.- 7 I, ,

—
r. .3} - .
.r .
r
.
n. ¢
.. ...
. o.
x . m
-. 40
a .
C I
l u I
. u \ o
v . I, . .
V .
. . . 3.;
. S ,. u
I NJ
. -i
3‘ \H «A. 9 .
. ' . .
.. . v vim,
‘ .r. N .c
. n 3...
Rae.»
. ‘HM
o.. .3 .
'wul . s ‘
. .
8. ...w
.

E a... $1.... u, . an;

o A.”
- pm;

 

r ‘L’Aue- h?.‘.. .v 1‘ ,.

~:~-;-“
, .

b:

SHORT TfiRM CARE IN CHILDfiER'S INJTITUTIOfiS

by
Seth Cullen Marshall

A PROJECT REPORT

Submitted to the Departmsnt or Soelal Mark
Michigan fluete University
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
of
MAE?SR OF fiOGIAL wsfix

July 1960

A“ .1‘0 VOd / . :f .
Y? 3 (lbw i 4""

Chairman. Research Eafimittae

       

Department

TABLE OF GORTEHTS

LIST OF TABLES. o oooooo o o o o o o o 0

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
CHAPTER

I HISTORI; . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 CURRENT PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . .

III CASE EXAMPLE .. 0' o o o o o o o o o o 0

Method. and Prooodnro . . . . . .
Proaentntion and Analysis of But:

1' 8mm o O 0 O O O 0 O O O '0 O O O O O O

Implication. of This Study. . . .
APPENDIX. 0 o o O o o o o o c o o o o o o o

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..... . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

'.17

. 26

. 37
. k1

TAELE

LIST 0? TABLfifi

Agenciea' Beriniticna of fihor: Term Care. .

Total First aémiealons to fit. Vinocn

June 1, 1953-Juna l, 1953 by Data of

Admission and Langth or Stay. .

O O O O

Elatributzon ar.Boyn and Girls by Year.

Compariaon of Boy. to Girl. staying

Ovar Nina Eontha. . . . . . . .
Referral Raafiona. . . . . . . .

Casework Plan at Intake . . . .

O O O O

flew or Unrcrameen Prablama Arlalng

szer Placament . . . . . . . .

Plgcsmantl Upon Leaving the fioma

111

O C O O

O O O I

O

3 Home,

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGE; ”1‘ 3

Thin reeeeroh report would not here been poeeible
without the kind help and encouragement of many people. I
would particularly like to thank the Right Reverend Noneignor
JOhn D. Blowey for allowing me the nee of hie agenoyle time
and materials. I would else like to thenk the etert o!
Cetholio fiooiel Servioee for their cooperation in helping me
gather information for the etudy. The etet! of the School
or Social work at Michigen State University have been eepe.
oielly encouraging and neerul in aiding no in a: eeeroh for
literature on the study topio. I would particularly like
to thank Mr. Arnold Gurin of the Bohool or Social work for
the time and patience he gave to reeding the ennueoript end
his invaluable oommente on it.

I would further like to expreee my gretitnde to the
agenciee that reeponded to the questioneire. Their replie-
not only provided date important to thie etudy but eleo
valueble ineighte into the field of child welfare. Oloeing
acknowledgment goon to the person whose inspiration, toreo
beerenee end encouragement have been beyond measure, ex

wife, Dorie nerehell.

l?

IfiTRDDUCTIQN

In the hietcricnl development or progrooe for the
care or children. the place or the institution declined
in favor of family eettinge. Ae e reeult, the cherector
or institutional cere hee undergone many changes, partic-
ulerly in regard to the care or neglected and dependent
children.

Modern concepte of inetitutlonel oere ere based on
the principle that the etc: in the inetitution ie not en
ecceptnble permenent plen, but e temporary expedient, nec-
essary for Varioue reeoone in certein epecitio type. of
situations. There in, however, no single meaning to the
term 'temporery' or 'ehort term“ care. The purpoee of thie
paper ie to explore the etandcrde end criteria which dif—
ferent inetitutione employ in defining the duration of care
which they will provide. thet do they mean by short tern
core? whet ie ite ueuel duration? How done the definition
vary with different kinda of situations? that rectcre ec-
count for exteneion or inetitutional care beyond tho point
considered deeireble by the agency? These ere some of the

questions to be examined.

Bince ehort tern oere of neglected and dependent
children ie e product of the hietcry of children'e inetitu-
tione, the first chepter of thie etudy deele briefly with
the hietory of children'e inetituticne. Some materiel re-
garding the early care of neglected and dependent children
ie preeented.

The historical notee eleo indicate how concepte of
short term care developed, end the philosophy behind thlee
concepte.

The eecond chapter of thin study ie devoted to e
diecueeion of the current practice of ehort tern cere, beeed
on materiel gathered from eeverel children'e inetituticne
in Miohigen. It reflecte the divereity of thought on the
topic. Some of the reeeone for thie divereity ere eleo
considered.

A case etudy of one egoncy'e application of ehort
term care ie presented in the third chapter. Thie ie e
detailed etudy eimed at developing e beeie for etenderdn
iseticn of the meaning of ehort tern oere.

The meterinle cbteined from the verioue inetituticne
ere compared in the fourth chepter. in order to formulate
conclueione regarding the criteria for e etenderdized teen-
ing of dhort tern cert.

Chapter IV oloeee with e discussion of the implioe-
tione of thie etudy. Generel preotice end practice in tho 13p

etitution given perticuler notice in Chapter III ere ocneidered.

CHAPTER I
HIBTQR!

Ehe care or neglected end dependent children has
been a social problem from earliest times. The foundations
of current American foster care practices may be round in
European history. Included here are but a few brief glimpses
of that European background. They are not intended to be
an exhaustive accounting of ell thet happened. They are
presented merely to illustrate the humanitarien thought
and accomplishment tram which this country was able to draw.

Early Christian monasteries and convents are known
to have done e great deal for the homeless, the sick and
the poor. The Council or Nicee in 325 A.D. authorised.hoe~
pices for the purpose.1 These were perhaps the first West.
ern agencies to care for destitute children. This tradition
was carried to the New World when the nuns of the ursuline
convent in new Orleans undertook the care or orphaned child-

ren in 1729.2 The children came to them as e result of an

:n. T. Jamison, e nst t o for 0h 1d e (Colum-
bia, 8.0.: Baptist Book Depository, n.d. , p.7.

zHowerd W. Hopkirk, Institutions Serving ghilgzgn
(New Ibrk: Russell Sage Foundation, 9 , p. 3.

4

Indian massacre. The Ursulines were also the first to have
facilities exclusively for the care of children.

Legal recognition of the needs of destitute child-
ren dates fron.the Elisabethaanoor Laws of 1601.3 these
laws provided for parochial assistance for’homelees child-
ren in much.the sane aanner as they provided for the poor.
that is, they were indentured or placed in alnshouses.

.A further recognition by government of the needs of
children took place in Switserland in 1798. the village
of Stan: was raided and devastated in that year by soldiers.
Many children were orphaned as a result, and the government
established an institution forbtheir care. Johann Heinrich
Pestalosei was called upon to be the director. Pestelosei
kept a running record which shows that he was ahead of his
time. He demonstrated an interest in his werds as individ-
uals and carried their training beyond the standards of his
time.“

Pestalozzi taught as many of his charges as were
able to learn how to read, write, and do simple arithmetic.
The girls were instructed in domestic arts and the boys
were taught various trades. With this background the child»
ren were often able to earn their own way, not only while
in the institution but after discharge as well.

 

3Ibid., p. #.
“Hornet. 22.411... p. 11.

lo sheen

e \.
'0
’ C

O-

.O ‘
O

. l
.-

\-
e -'
a‘ .
0' t
9 ’ 1'

en': 10 ."°

egal‘i'lv erfl‘ .

.stedbloe 1d useg .- .

snenntevcg ed: An

dottniefl anedoh

zaaolsteeq

std to bands new
-btvthn£ on ebuav

lid to abdsbnade

u.
t
P
I '5‘.
J
'0
L

'e
I b
I' "
a ‘ e
' \
O

.103“ - J-

. 0 -
a e‘
I 5-

. a

‘ I
I
l
3
.0
a
l.’
a
s" l‘
.I u
D ‘
t 1.
‘-
‘ O
I e
‘ \-

O *0 fly..-

e
.7 ‘
C
e
‘
‘ o
'C
o
J an
.
$--

0 ‘-
c 9 I.
1- ‘
I a.
J .
. 'I ‘
e
-L o
If
.0 I
- - I I . .e c
e ' e e l
I
‘ . I h A
Q
0
I " O
. A u n l

’ I
0. . o
‘ I
c
I
o o
I I
' I
3 o r b O
. t
I
e
'v
C
I
|. ‘
0 e I
‘0 - .

L a L ‘
-.-.-----.--C 0..-
O .O

. l
o I

5

Grace Abbott in her boot. W5
recounts the history of foster child care in the united

States. The settlers in flew England brought with thea.the
view that poverty was the fault of the poor. They estab-
liched legislation similar to that of England. They allowed
homeless children to be sold at auction, indentured and
apprenticed out, or cared for then in alnshouses.

The care of children in almshouses was anything but
satisfactory, and by mid-nineteenth century many private
groups were trying to improve the situation. Public feel-
ing eventually grew to the point that state laws and local
appropriations were made to provide separate facilities
for county children's homes. The move began in Ohio in
1866 and spread to Connecticut and Indiana. The latter
state also authorised the boarding of county wards in pri-
vate institutions. In 187“ Michigan developed a different
type of program. The state established a large central
institution and used foster’feeily'hcmes extensively. Later
it reduced the size of its institution and extended its
family care program to keep the children closer to their
families. Other states have developed similar plans. With
the rising costs of construction and maintenance, the prac-
tice of paying for the support of oeunty wards in private
institutions has become quite widespread and accepted.

50rsce Abbott,

d e 8 a (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 93 .

Private charity recognized a special need of many
children at about the same time that Michigan established
its state home. children suffering fron cruelty or neglect
are the special concern of children's protective societies.
The first such society was founded in new tank in 187#.
Since that time a great nany sinilar agencies, with various
titles, have been established. They have given rise to
national organizations whose functions are to suggest stand-
ards of care. Early in their history the protective socie-
ties and many Juvenile courts established tenporary-cere
homes for their charges. Faaily foster hones were used,
to a large extent, in conjunction with the institutions from
the beginning of this movement.

Institutions for the temporary care of children have
a long history; Many lessons in the management of these
institutions had to be learned through experience. Stand-
ards were gradually evolved for personnel, physical plant,
and the kind and amount of care needed by children in such
settings.6

In the first two decades of this century two factors
arose which seriously affected the use of institutions for
foster placement. They were the expanded use of family
foster homes and the uae of public funds to maintain ohild~

ran in their own homes. Family foster homes were used so

A A A k

630nm”. will. pp. 22-23.

extensively in acne communities as to cause acne children's
institutions to close their doors. The white House Confer-
ence on the Care of Dependent Children in 1909 brought be-
fore the public the need for widows' pensions, to enable
children to remain with their own nothers. Hidews' pensions
were extended as nethers' allowances. Later, Aid to Depen-
dent Ohildren was developed by the federal governnent to
perform the task.

Both types of programs reflect what has becoae the
prevailing philosophy within the child welfare field. a
recent authoritative statement puts it as follows: 'With
increased understanding of children's requirenente, there
is growing recognition that every child needs and has a
right to live and be reared in a fanily hone, with parents
to whom he helongs.'7 Early proponents of this philosophy
took such a strong position that they ained at ecnpletely
eradicating children's institutions.8 As a result a con-
troversy arose between the adherents of family foster care
and adherents of institutional eare which lasted for nearly
twenty years after 1910. A.high point of the disagreement
was a conference held in New Iork City in 1923 by the Child

Welfare Committee of America, .Representatives from each

7Helen a. Hagan 'Foeter Care for Children,' 99??
Wop: gearbogk No. 13 (New Xork:.Amerioan Book - Strat or
Press, lnc., l957), p. 267.

BHOPklrk..£2i_2l!-. P- 40.

state's child welfare program were invited to attend. The
intent of the conference was to promote the use of foster
families in preference to institutions.

A great deal of criticism was voiced on both sides
during the course of the controversy. In time the criti-
cism bore fruit and modifications in both forms of care
were made. The United States Children's Bureau, the Child
Welfare League of America and several state welfare depart-
ments began urging the same standards of care for both fos-
ter family and institutional care. Carl C. Carstens, as
Executive of the Child Welfare League of America, did a
great deal to resolve the dispute. He personally advocated
the use of the term 'fcster care“ for both family and in-
stitutional care. “His soundness as interpreter of the
needs of children and his intolerance of poor service in
their behalf wherever he found it gave great weight to his
Judgment.’9

The movement toward providing family care whenever
possible brought with it the corollary that institutional
care, if used at all, should be limited to as short a pe-
riod of time as possible. This is the current feeling in
the field of child welfare as will be shown in the following
chapter.

M

9M" p. 1+1.

CHAPTER II
CURRENT PRACTICE

In order to determine the trend of current practice
the writer sent letters to the directors of thirty-seven
Michigan agencies engaged in providing institutional care
for dependent children. The names and addresses were found

1“ “h”.2l2223221_21_QhLlS_QdELB8_IB£1l£3£1231_££§_211222231
Aggggigg_1g_fiighiggg.1° These thirty-seven agencies were

all those listed as being primarily engaged in providing
institutional care. Other agencies were listed as also pro-
viding this type of care, but not as a primary function.
They were not included since it was felt that a sufficient
cross-section of opinion could be obtained from those who
were primarily concerned with institutional service.

The letter sent to each agency asked two questions.11
The first asked for the directors. definitione of short
term care. The second question was, 'Hew, do you feel,

is the length of care related to the needa of the children

10Hichigan, Department of Social Welfare, 1 t.~.-o
O h (108 w L . ,tb1r, 1d 'ulacee ' 00"... mm.-
Lansing, September, 958 , pp. 50-5.

nSee appendix a.

 

10

you serve?“ These two questions were used in the hope that
they would provide quantitative data regarding current prac-
tice on the length of short term care. Qualitative data
regarding the relationship between length of service given
and the needs of the children were also sought.

Twentyarive responses to the thirty~seven inquiries
were received. Two agencies reported that they were no
longer operating. Three agencies replied to the inquiry
but did not report on the length of care which they provide.
This left twenty responses regarding the length of short
term care. Four other agencies had re~geared their programs
to provide residential treatment care for emotionally dis-
turbed children. They gave responses regarding the length
of care they felt was short term for neglected and depen-
dent children, and their responses were included. The table
below shows the distribution of the agencies' definitions

of short term care.

TABLE 1
AGENCIES. DEFINITIONS OF SHORT TERM GARE

a.‘

 

Total Number 6 months Between 6 Between 12
of Agencies or less and 12 mo. and 24 mo.
20 10 7 3

 

Where ranges were given rather than single figures
the agency was classified within the category containing

the maximum figure for short term care.

11

The group in the '6 months or less' category gave
responses ranging from three weeks to six months. There
were no responses whose maximum limits were less than three
weeks. In the group 'Bstween 6 and 12 months' the responses
fall between nine and twelve months. The third group, 'Be-
tween 12 and 2# months,’ included responses ranging from
eighteen to twenty-four months. It should be noted that the
groupings on the table were arranged as a continuum but that
there were gaps of time in the actual responses. Thue, there
was no agency defining short term care as falling within a
period of acre than six months but less than nine acnths.

The first group seems to be the most representative
one. Half of the responses fell within this range of six
months or less. All of the respondents within this group
offered their services to children and families on an sacr-
gency basil. They eaw placement in their institutions as
an interim period for further planning, after which the child-
ren are either returned to their own homes or to substitute
families. They all expressed the opinion that the duration
of institutional care should be as short as is practicable.
They cited several practical factors which could cause the
period of care to be lengthened or shortened. These were
the situation and the conditions which led to the placement
of the child, the amount of change seen in the family home
during the placement, the availability of further'placemente,

12

the ‘plsceability' of the child, and the child's age. The
opinion on the last factor was that the younger the child,
the shorter his period of institutional care should be.

The agencies that described short term care ae being
between six and twelve months had programs that differed
from the first group. Three of the four institutions that
had recently altered their programs to become treatment
facilities fall into this six to twelve month group. One
agency in this range gave no response to the second ques-
tion. The remaining three institutions mentioned school
as being part of their programs and considered changing
from school to school a sufficiently disruptive factor in
the child's ndJustmcnt to Justify placement for an entire
school year. The practicalities listed by the agencies in
the first group were also stated by agencies in this six
to twelve month group and also in the twelve to twenty-four
month group.

The agencies defining short term care no longer than
twelve months were the fourth treatment facility and two
cottageutype institutions.- Both of the latter agencies
offered long term care as well as what they considered to
be short term care.1 They expressed the Opinion that some
problems of neglected and dependent children create a need
for longer core. Examples were extended health problems

of the parents, and families that are difficult to reunite.

13

They felt that the cottage system offered a kind or foster
family situation.

A search or current literature did not disclose any
statement of a specific length of time for short term care

for children in institutions.

CHAPTER III
CASE EXAMPLE

The previous chapter of this study presented a sur-
vey or several institutions' varying concepts of short term
care. At this point attention is directed to the practice
within a single institution. Data gathered from a case ex-
ample of an agency's experience in attempting to implement
a short term care policy will be presented.

St. Vincent Home for Children of Lansing, Michigan,
was selected for the case study. The Home provides tempo-
rary care for neglected and dependent children from the
Diocese of Lansing. At its inception this agency decided
upon nine months as a policy for maximum length of service.
The decision had to be made rather arbitrarily due to the
lack of a standard. This was done with the intention that
after a reasonable period had elapsed an evaluation could
be made and adjustments could follow. The Home has been
in operation for over five years at this writing. It has
become apparent in this time that the Home is having diffi-
culty in implementing its short term care policy. Approxi-
mately half of the children served have remained in the Home
over nine months. The major reason for this seems to be the
failure to resolve the home problem which caused institu-

tional placement.
1h

15

The director or the Bone felt that a sufficient length
or tile had passed to provide adequate data for study. Upon
his request the writer conducted a study or St. Viaeent Home's
practise in iapleaentiag its short tern ears peliey. the
study serves a dual purpose. It is a case ample er the
probleas involved in defining and iapleaeating a poliey or
short tern care. It alee provides the direeter with inter-
nation to aid him in evaluating the Hcae's short ter- eare
policy.

at. Vinee‘nt Home was established as a- result of a
survey ecndueted by Frederick Lennard, Catholic Welfare
Bureau, Grand Rapids. The heat Reverend Joseph I. Alters.
Bishop of the Lansing Diocese. requested this survey at the
Diocese in order to determine the needs or the children
within the fifteen county area. llr. Leonard's work indi-
cated a need for a hose fer dependent, neglected and lean--
les‘s ehildren. Bishop Alters had the Home built. He asked
the director or catholic Social Services. In. or Lenin ‘
to apply for a license free the liehigen Department or 80-
eial Welfare. The lieense was granted in Key e! 1952.
since that ties the Rose has been in nauseous aperatien,
serving children from the entire Diocese.

The St. Vincent Home for children is a twoastory
brick building which was construeted is 1951. It has a
total housing capacity or thirty-rive boys and thirty-rive

15A

girls. It is a temporary receiving hone tortchildren be-
tween the ages of five and fourteen. Its services are ex-
tended to the fifteen.counties that comprise the Lansing
Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. There are no restric-
tions of color, nationality or creed. The Home is super!
vised and conducted by a Sister Superior and four sisters

of St. Joseph. The children eat and sleep and spend most

of their recreationlhours at the Home. They attend the
public and parochial schools of Lansing.

' The director of the Rose is also the director of
catholic Social Services. a Lansing Community Chest casework
agency providing a full range of family and child care ser-
vices. rhe Home is supported by the Diocese of Lansinc.

Catholic Social Services accepts referrals for the
Home from other agencies and institutions, courts and par-
ents. the process of referral consists of the presentation
of specific information by the referring agency. regarding
the reason for the placement request,to the director of the
Home. Personal data about the child are submitted with this
information. The responsibility for casework and planning of
cases is divided between the referring agency and Catholic
Social flervices. Catholic social Services works with the
children in order*tc help them work through.the adjust-ant
to the Rome. The referring agency works with the families
or makes other plans as indicated by the individual case. In
all cases referred by other than family agencies Catholic

16
Social Services accepts the total ceee on transfer. Both
tasks then become the responsibility of the one agency.

In the thirty-eight cones examined later in this
chapter there was only one case in which the responsibility
was divided. This case left the Home within the agency‘s
short term policy of nine months.

The Home is thus designed to be used selectively
no one of the varioue resourcee available to the agency,
in a total program of service. The short term policy im-
plies that the Home is to he need only as a temporary re—
source, pending the development of a more permanent plan
for the child who has been placed in it. catholic Social
Services carries the responsibility for working with.the
child's family toward such a plan, in almost all cases.

17

Method n no

A five year period of St. Vincent Home operation
was selected for study. This period included the time be-
tween June 1, 1953 and June 1, 1958. The years studied
were the second through the sixth years of Operation. The
first year of operation was not included in the study be-
cause it was a time of establishment and organisation, and
cannot be considered typical. The five year period was
selected to provide an adequate time for trends in practice
to develop. The gathering of data was started on.April l,
1959 so an to allow the nine months stay defined by the chart
term policy to elapse after the cutoff date of June 1, 1958.
A total of one hundred eighty-six cases entered the Home
within this period. These cases comprise the universe for
this study.

The data gathered for this study were acquired frcs
several sources. The statistical data and ease records of
St. Vincent Home and of Catholic aoeisl Services sere ex-
amined. Interviews were held with agency personnel fasil-
iar with the cases. The universe was examined to deter-ins
the degree of departure from the agency‘s short tern policy.

Two groups of twenty caees each were drawn as see-
plea. The first group consisted of cases of children.who
remained in St. Vincent Hons longer than the policy tine

18

of nine months. The second group of cases were of children
discharged within the policy limit. The size of the samples
was limited to twenty cases per sample in order to provide
ease of handling. It is held that enough information can be
derived from the two groups to sufficiently meet the purposes
of this study.

the two samples were selected by the secretary of
Catholic Social Services. It is assumed that the use of
non-professional agency personnel for this task provided
objectivity for the selection of samples. The secretary
was not directly involved in the cases nor in this study.
The.use of agency personnel was indicated to protect the
right to confidentiality of agency clientele. The writer
took every third name from the list of original admissions
of one hundred eightyusix cases. This provided a list of
sixty-two names. The list was presented to the secretary
in date order of their placement at the Home. They were
each marked as to whether they stayed over or under nine
months. The secretary was asked to select twenty cases
'over' and twenty cases 'undsr' with the intent of provid-
ing two samples of equal number so that they might be com-
pared. Bhe was asked to select the samples on the basis
of the following criteria:

1. Either sufficient information for this study must
have been recorded or the worker had to be present in the

agency.

19

2. Each group of twenty names should be distributed
as evenly as possible, from first to last. from the list
of sixty-two. (The list of sixty-two was presented in date
order as the case occurred at intake.)

A schedule was constructed to guide the collection
of data from both samples (see Appendix 3). Case records
were relied upon in cases where the workers were not avail-
able. Otherwise the workers were interviewed. The schedule
was used in both situations and provided standardisation of
responses. The following questions were included in the
schedule and answers determined for each case:

1. What was the presenting problem?

2. was there a casework plan at intake?

3. What was the casework plant

a. What new factors arose during the course of the
case that either did or might have kept the child in the
Home over the agency's policy of nine aonthst

A fifth question was asked only of the second sample:

5. If an unforeseen difficulty arose, as above,
how was it handled or resolved?

Many replies were possible to the first question,
asking for the presenting problem. The Home's policy lists
the following twelve referral reasons which are possible

bases for placement in the Home:

Death

Divorce

Desertion

Separation

Chronic or acute illness
Mental or emotional illness
Dcstitution

Alcoholism

9. Neglect

10. Emergency or temporary assistance
11 . Impri scams-3t

12. Accidents

0

GVO\U\«F’UNH

. For purposes of this study, the twelve categories
were reduced to the following three, and each response ob—
tained from the forty cases was then classified into one
of these: ‘

1. One or both.parents were absent from the home.

2. One or both parents were physically or section-
ally 111. '

3. The family was so economically depressed as to
need assistance in caring for their children.

The first category incorporates the referral reasons
death, divorce, assertion, separation and imprisonaent.
The second takes into account chronic or acute illness,
mental or emotional illness, alcoholism and accidents.
The third category, referring to the economic reasons for
dependency, includes destitution. neglect was also included
in this category. This was done because in all of the cases

which reported neglect as a referral reason depressed econoaic

 

12"Outlins for Tentative Policies, St. Vincent Eaae'
(St. Vincent Hone for children, Lansing, hichigan, 1952),
p. 1. (typewritten). (These referral reasons fall within the
description of neglected and.dependent children found in the
Compiled.sts of hichigan, (igee), 712a to (a)(6) through (8).)

 

21

status was also a factor, though not necessarily a reason
for placement.

Emergency or temporary assistance was among the agen-
cy's criteria for acceptance. Ho child in either of the
two samples was referred to the Home for this reason alone.
Therefore it was not included as a separate category. It
was, however, an accompanying reason in twenty cases spread
throughout both samples.

a fourth category was included to encompass children
who might have been placed in St. Vincent's for reasons
other than those included within agency policy. However,
there were no cases in this group. All of the children.
placed in the Home could be classified as falling into one
of the categories established by the agency policy as war-
ranting such placement.

In most cases, there was more than one reason for
referral. It was therefore necessary to determine a way
of categorizing the case into one of the three groups.
Nowhere, in the cases with multiple reasons, was there a
clear delineation as to which.specific problem was the cause
for placement. As far as the casework process is concerned
this raised no difficulties. The purposes of this study,
however, imposed the need for greater specificity. fro
criteria were used as a basis for classification:

1. which reason most clearly indicates a need for

placement?

22

2. Which reason is most extreme in the individual
case?

An example of the type of decision made is a young»
star whose father deserted the family. His nether was a«
cutsly ill and needed assistancs in caring for her child.
The clearer indication of need for placement is the Home
was the mother's illness and resultant inability to care
for the child. The most extreme reason for referral was
the mother's illness. It is assumed that if she had been
able she would have cared for her child in her hone.

The second question on the schedule, “Was there a
casework plan at intake1,' served solely to introduce the
next one. Responses were not recorded for it.

The third question was intended to bring out the
thinking of the caseworker regarding hou'he wished to use
the institution. Three responses were tabulated in answer
to 'What was the casework plan?‘

1. Provide casework services to the family aimed
at improvement of the home situation in order to return
the child.

2. Study and observe the child for foster or adop-
tive place-ant.

3. Ho casework plan was apparent.

It was anticipated that some of the cases within
the samples would have developed additional problems after

23

intake. The fourth queetion on the echedule vne included

to uncertain whet effect theee additional probleme had

upon the discharge of ceeee. Thie fourth queetion woe eeked
of both samplee to dieccver whether there wee any difference
between the typee or unforeseen problems that eroee in the
two complee.' The response: were tabulated ee followe:

l. The child exhibited unexpected edJuetnen: prebleme.

2. The bone problem necessitating the original re-
ferral had not been reeclved. '

3. There wee e lack of further referrel reeourcee
or teeter plecemente, or there were referral rejectione.

The unexpected edJuetment problene referred to in
the firet reeponee were categorized eccording to e lint which.
. the Leneing Child Guidance Clinic ucee an e guide for their
intake. The liet ie ee followe:

1. Conduct Disorder - enti-eocial behavior, includ»
ing truancy, etealing, derience, running away, tenper tan-
trune, overly aggreeeive end eex crreneee.

2. Habit Diecrder - enureeie; nail biting, thulb
eucking. masturbation and ticl.

3. Personality Problem - chronic unheppinnee, pr.-
peychotic eymptome, including withdrewel, daydreelin',
depreeeion, rears, anxiety, inferiority and poor eociel

edJuetment.

24

a. Learning end Development Problems - for eduee-
tional disorders (i.e. - slowneee in ecedemic learning or
epeciel subject disorder).

5. Functional - any physical complaint with an or-
ganic condition outside or illness, i.e. - blindnees or
anesthesia.13

The Child Guidance Clinic in the resource ueed when
psychological evaluation is indicated for children et the
Home. Therefore the uee of the ebove categories is held
to be Justified. .

The fifth.queeticn was naked only or the second ell-
ple in order to ascertain why those cases were succeeerul
within the policy time limit. Responses were cleeeiried
as follows:

1. The problem wee resolved through casework while
the child was at the Home.

2. The child wee referred to enother agency for enre.

3. The child was pieced with s roster tenily.

h. The parent or perente took the child from the
Home and the problen.remained.

5. The child was sent hone and the problem rennined.

Those cases wherein the parents removed the children

from the Home while the problem remained were not included

 

v—w—

13Interview with Olere Wileon casework Duperviecr,
Lancing Ohild Guidance cums, July 16, 1959.

25

in the sample. Since the decisions in these cases were
made by the families rather than the agency, they had no
bearing on the subject of the study, which is an examina-
tion of agency policy and its implementation. There were

two such cases, which reduced the second sample to eighteen.

 

A total of one hundred eighty-six children were
given service by 3:. Vincent Ease during the study period.
The table below shows the distribution of these children

by year. and length of stay.

 

 

TABLE 2
ISTAL F133? ASEISSICSS :3 3?. 7233333 Bins,
JUNE 1, 1953-JUK3 1, 1958 52 DAIE C?
Assassins, LXI Hrs-€53 of cm

W

Totals Under 9 ac. Over 9 no.
Year of
Admission 186 9c 96_
1953-19513 63 36 27
195h-1955 35 21 13
1955-1955 39 13 17
1956-1957 35 15 23
1957-1958 23 5 18

 

These figures illustrate that the director's concern
about the implementation of the agency's short tern care
policy was realistic. The ratio of children who stayed un-
der nine nonths. as conpared to those who stayed over. in
1953-1954 was four to three. Four years later this ratio
was approximately one to four.

2?

The Home serves both boys and girls. The distribu—
tion of boys and girls for each year of the study appears
in Table 3.

TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF BOYS AND GIRLS B! IEAR

 

 

 

Totals Boys Girls
Year 186 106 80
1953-1954 63 31 32
195h-1955 35 21 14
1955-1956 30 19 11
1956-1957 35 19 16

1957-1958 23 16 7

Here boys than girls have been served over the five
year period. This difference is found consistently in.eaeh
of the years of the Home's operation except the first.

This may be accounted for by'a factor often mentioned by
the workers in the writer's interviews with then. They
stated that parents seen to place sons more readily than
daughters when the family is in a stress situation.

The table below shows that there was no significant
difference between the preporticn of boys to girls staying
over nine ecnths.

28

TABLE #
COMPARISON OF BOYS TO GIRLS STAYING OVER NINE MONTHS

*

Total Boys Girls

 

Over nine months 96 54 #2

Under nine months 90 52 33

 

The two samples which were selected through the method
described above (pp. 17-19) are compared below in terms of

reasons for referral:

TABLE 5
REFERRAL REASONS

 

 

Over Under
Totals 9 lo. 9 no.
Referral Reason ‘A * A 4:
A. g - 38 20 is
1. One or both parents were
absent from the home. 16 lo 6
2. One or both.psrente
were ill. 12 u 8
3. The family was
economically depressed. 10 6 b

7. —v v—

This table shows a decided difference between those
who stayed over and those who stayed under nine months.

Those children Who stayed longer than nine months were lost

29

frequently referred because of the absence of one or both
parents. Those children who left the Bose within nine loathe
were most frequently referred because of the illness of one
or both parents. The second most frequent referral reason
for those who stayed over was the economic depression of
the family, and for those who stayed under it was absence
of parents. The least frequent reason for those who ever-
stayed the policy time was illness of parents. The least
frequent referral reason for'those who left within policy
time was the economic depression of the family.

The two samples are compared, in the following table,
by the casework plan established at intake.

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 6
CASEWORK PLAN AT INTAKE
-— 1 i====;ivv j‘a===z========================s
Over Under
Totals 9 no. 9 no.
Casework Plan 38 20 18

A

r7

1. Provide casework services
to the family toward re-
turning the child to his
natural home. 31 13 18

2. Study and observe the
child for adoptive or
foster placement. 7 7 0

w—

 

The figures for the two groups of cases vary eonsid-
ersbly. The table indicates that most of the children

30

admitted were placed with a view toward return to their
homes after the policy maximum of nine months. This expec-
tation was actually realized in 58 per cent of the cases,
but 42 per cent stayed more than nine months. On the other
hand, all of the children who were placed with a view toward
ultimate placement in a foster home or adoptive home were
kept for more than nine months. This would seem to indi-
cate that the agency is unable to complete permanent place-
ment plans within the period specified by its policy.

or the thirteen children who were in the Home more
than nine months, although the casework plan had been to
return them to their own homes, six had been placed because
of absence of a parent, four because of illness and three
because of economic depression.

or the seven children for whom permanent placement
plans were being made, four had been referred because of
economic need and three because of absence of parents from
the home. In no case was illness of parents a basis for
planning permanent placement.

These data indicate that there is no single dimen-
sion relating problems, casework plans and length of stay,
except that the working out of further placement seems to
require a longer stay in the Home than the nine months pol-
icy. Economic depression or absence of a parent from the

home may be a basis for planning either temporary removal

31

from the hose or permanent placement. In either case, the
stay may extend to more than nine months.

We must therefore look, not to the nature of the
presenting problem, but to subsequent developments in the
case in order to define the reasons that placement in the
Home extends beyond the nine months set by agency policy.
Table 7 compares the two samples by the new or unforeseen

problems which arose after placement at St. Vincent Home.

TABLE 7

NEW OR UNFORESEEN EROBLEMS ARISING AFTER PLACEMENT
ass ‘ “ “ A * ‘ ~

Over Under
Total 9 mo. 9 no.

 

 

 

 

—v~ , W

New or Unforeseen Problem

 

*_ ‘ p.# 38 20 18
l. The child exhibited an.

expected adjustment problems. 10 6 h
2. The home problem necessi-

tating the original referral

continued. 1? 1“ 3
3. There was a lack of fur-

ther referral resources or

foster placements, or there

were referral rejections. 0 0 0
4. No unforeseen problems

areas. 11 0 ll

These figures indicate a number of facts. In all
of the cases of children staying longer than policy time

unforeseen problems areas. so unforeseen problems arose

32

in over half of the cases that complied with agency policy.
The majority of those cases that remained over nine months
did so because the referral problem continued. There were
fourteen such eaees. In twelve of the fourteen, the casework
plan had been to return the child to its own home. For
reasons of family breakdown, mental illness, or neglect this
did not prove possible and the children therefore remained
in the institution beyond the time specified by agency pol-
icy. In the other two cases. there was an attempt to work
out a further placement, but the natural parents did not
accept foster care.

For those cases in uhich.hcms problems were not re-
solved within nine months, hindsight would suggest that
planning toward foster care might have been more realistic
than counting on the possibility of a return to the natural
home within the expected period.

As Table 7 indicates, the other six children who
stayed over nine months developed special adjustment prob—
lems after placement. It took longer than nine months for
the caseworkers to help the children readjust.

The lack of further referral possibilities was not
a factor in any of the sample cases. (However, comments
were made by the workers about lack of referral possibili-
ties in general.)

In the sample of cases that left within the nine

months set by agency policy, there were seven in which

 

33

unforeseen problems arose. These cases were read to de-
termine how these problems were handled or resolved. The
results are explained below.

Four children developed special adjustment problems
after placement in the Home, of which three were conduct
disorders and one was a learning problem. The workers on
these cases were able to help the children, through ease-
work. to adjust sufficiently to return.hone within nine
months.

The original referral problems continued in the re-
maining three cases. One was referred because of the ab-
senoe of a parent and was placed with a foster family.

Two children were placed in the Home due to the illness of
parents. The parents remained ill but had recovered suffi-
ciently to care for their children themselves within nine
months.

The same types of unforeseen problems arose in both
samples. However, there was a greater proportion of unfore-
seen problems in the sample of cases of children who stayed
longer than nine months. The problems also took longer to
resolve.

Finally, the two samples are compared below in

Table 8 by their placement upon leaving the Home.

TABLE 8
PLACEMENTS UPON LEAVING THE HOME

 

 

Over Under

Totals 9 mo. 9 mo.
Type of Placement
_. A 38 20 18
l. The child was returned
to one or both parents 24 7 l7
2. The child was placed in
a foster home. 5 4 1
3. The child was adopted. 1 l O
u. The child had not been dis-
charged from the Home at the
cutoff date for this study. 8 8 0

‘W_ —V 1 ____,_

These figures show that almost all of the cases that
stayed within policy time went home at discharge. There
was one exception. One child was referred due to the ab-
sence of a parent. The plan was to return this child to
her home. Before the expiration of policy time it became
apparent that this would not be possible because of the
parent's instability. The referral reasons and casework
plans for the seventeen others have been discussed pre-
viously. Only about one-third of those that stayed over
nine months were returned home. Three of them were referred
because of the absence of parents. Two of the three were

originally planned for return home. The third was expected

35

to go to a foster family. This child developed an adjust-
ment problem that had to be worked out. In the time it took
to do this the remaining parent was able to renestablish
herself and make a home for the child.

Three others were referred due to the illness of
parents. The plan in each case was to return the children
to their homes. The referral reasons in two of these cases
continued. The child. in the third case, developed an ad-
justment problem that took longer than the policy time to
work through.

The seventh case was referred to the Home due to
neglect. The plan was to return the child to his family.
The family took longer than nine months to readjust.

There were four children who stayed in the Home over
nine months who were placed with foster families. Three of
them were referred to the agency because of the absence of
parents. Two of these cases were planned for foster family
placement but developed adjustment problems while at St.
Vincent Home. One of the three cases was planned for return
to the natural home. The plan.had to be changed when the
family did not respond to casework attempts to strengthen
the home. Foster family care was not immediately accept-
able to the parent. The problem this presented took longer

than nine months to resolve.

36

The fourth child placed in foster family care was
referred to the Home as a neglect problem. The plan at
intake was for further placement. The child developed an
adjustment problem which had to be worked out.

One child who stayed longer than nine months was placed
for adoption. This case was referred because of the death
of a parent. The plan was to return the child to the remain-
ing parent. The parent was unable to make a home for the
child and.requested that adoption plans he made. The find-
ing of an appropriate home took longer than the policy time
of nine months.

The remaining eight cases were still in the Home at
the cutoff date of the study. The referral reasons, oase-
work plans and unforeaeen problems that arose in these cases

have been discussed earlier.

 

~-~i"_ _.. ——-—____.__ — . _.

CHAPTER_IV
SUMMARY

Institutions providing temporary care of children
are a product of the child welfare movement in this country.
They are a particular product of the concern for neglected
and dependent children. Both public and private agencies
are active in this field.

The survey of Michigan agencies in Chapter II de-
scribes current practice. The feeling that institutional
care should be used for as short a time as possible was
stated explicitly.

This paper was aimed at finding a meaning for short
term care. The majority of respondents to the survey felt
that 'short term“ should be a placement of six months er
less, while other plans were being made. Bome agencies
felt that it may mean a longer period of care.

Another product of the survey was a statement of
the relationship between length of service and the needs
of the children served. Despite varying opinions as to
the actual duration of 'short term care" certain factors
were agreed upon as affecting length of care. Those fac-
tors are age (i.e., the younger the child, the shorter

37

38

should be his period of institutionalization). the needs

of the individual child, the amount of change seen in.the
child during the placement, the amount of change seen in

the family during the placement, the availability of further
placements, and the 'placeability' of the child.

The programs of the separate agencies also affected
length of service. These agencies providing primarily
emergency care gave shorter service and tended to define
short term care as six months or less. Those agencies pro-
viding schooling within the agency program tended to define
it as nine months or longer. Nine months. of course, is
the usual length of the school year.

Length of service is seen, then. as a function of
the interplay between two factors. These are the needs
of the children and the program of the agency.

St. Vincent Home for children was able to implement
its short term care policy in only about half of the cases
studied. This is accounted for by the unforeseen problems
which arose after intake. The two samples of cases point
up this factor. Cases in both samples developed unforeseen
problems. However, there was a marked difference in the
two groups in the proportion of cases developing problems.
In all of the unsuccessful oases further difficulties arose.
Less than half of the successful cases developed unforeseen

problems.

39

The types of problems which arose were the same for
both samples. However there was, again, a marked difference
in proportion of problems in the two groups of cases. In
three-quarters of the unsuccessful cases the hone proble-
necessitating the original referral continued. This was a
factor in less than.one-quartsr of the successful cases.
The Home was usually able to send the children hone despite
the continuing problems in the successful group because .
casework efforts were able to alleviate the problem to a
reasonable extent.

There were two kinds of situations in the unsuccess-
ful cases. The first occurred in the seven eases ia.whieh
further placement was indicated.at intake. the aovenent of
the children from the Rose was impeded for several reasons.
The resistance of the natural parents to foster families
caused two of these children to remain at the institution
beyond nine months. the remaining five developed adjust-
ment problems after entering St. Vincent Home. This sug-
gests a need for treatment services within the institution
itself to meet the particular needs of this type of child.
However. the St. Vincent Home is at present constituted as
a temporary receiving home, and not as a residential treat-
ment center.

One sight speculate about the availability of foster

family placements. The workers on the unsuccessful eases

#0

did not feel this to be the prime reason why the children
remained in the Home over policy time, but they did feel
it was a general problem.

The second, and more significant, situation in the
unsuccessful cases occurred in the group in Which the plan
at intake was to return the children to their own homes.'
This included thirteen cases in which unforeseen problems
‘ areas. One of the children in this category developed a
special adjustment problem. The remaining twelve cases
show the most important faetcr‘vhich kept the children in
the Home over nine months. This factor was the persistence
of the original referral problem beyond ndne months. This
eraises a question regarding the diagnoses of the cases
handled. If the referral problsa is of such a nature that
early resolution cannot be expected, should not foster fam-
ily placement be contemplated immediately?

Those agencies in the survey of hichigan institutions
which provide a similar kind of service as the case example:
felt. as did St. Vincent Boas, that short tern placement
is an emergency type of care. The data of this study eug-r~
gest that short term care is a time range of six to twelve
months for school age children, and less for-younger child-
ran, as a Illilwl.

Certain types of cases are more suitable for this
length of serviee.- They are cases of children from fairly

41

well adjusted families needing emergency service.

ggplieaticns of ghig gtgdz.
The survey of Hiehigan agencies disclosed a general .

agreement or that say be considered the role or the institu-
tion in the care or neglected and dependent children. this
role is one or emergency placement tor*eaergeney situations
while further plans are being node. Uith.this thought in
mind, terns suggesting various durations of service are not
meaningful.

The case example was intended to illustrate how a par-
ticular institution attempted to fill this role. It wee dis-
covered that this Hone did not practice'vithin its own policy
of nine months maxi-un.serviee. During the experimental pe-
riod the practice within this institution was not consistent
with the nature of current institutional practice. This is
attested to by the fact that half of the total population
served during the study tine remained beyond agency policy
tine. The workers stated that the lack of further placement
possibilities was not a factor in the cases studied. It fol—
lows, then, that the agency has not used the institution for
its stated purpose.

A etateaent by a recognised standardpeetting agency.
such as the Child welfare League of Aneriea, regarding the
duration or institutional service to neglected and dependent
children would be useful to new agencies. The iack or such

#2

a statement led the director to select a period of service
on a purely arbitrary basis.

On the basis of the data presented in the case study
a re-eseessment of agency procedure is indicated. The imp
plicaticn is that, from the point of view of services to
the children in care, further study of casework services
to families at point of intake may be more meaningful than
the length of time, per so, that a child may remain in the
institution.

43

APPEHDIX.A
SAMPLE OF LETTER SENT TO CHILDREN'S INSTITUTIONS

Director or Supervisor
Children's Institution
Street

City, Michigan

D08r_h__ .

—
v

I am a graduate student of hiehigan State University.

I am working on my Haster's thesis. Hy project con-
cerns short term placeaent of children in institutions.
I would be interested in knowing how you would define
‘short term care.

How, do you feel is the length of care related to the
needs of the children you serve?

Any assistance you can give me on these two questions
will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely yours.

Beth.0. Hsrehall

hh

APPENDIX 3
SCHEDULE OF QHEflTIOHB USED IE THIS STUDY

1. What was the presenting problem?
1. One or both parents removed from the home.
2. One or both parents physically or emotionally ill.
3. Economic depression of family indicated need for
assistance.
4. Temporary or emergency assistance.
5. Other.

2. Was there a casework plan at intake?

3. What was the casework plan?
1. Provide casework services to the family toward
improvement of the home situation in order to return
the child. ‘
2. Study and observe the child for foster or adop-
tive placement.
3. None apparent.

4. What new factors areas that either did or might have kept
the child in the Home over the agency policy of nine months?
1. The child exhibited unexpected adjustment problems:
a. Conduct disorder ,
b. Habit disorder
0. Personality problem
d. Learning and development problems
a. Functional disorder
2. The home problem necessitating the original refer—
ral had not been resolved.
3. There was a lack of further referral or foster
placements or there were referral rejections.

5. If an unforeseen factor arose, as in Item b above, how
was it handled or resolved?
1. The problem was resolved through casework while
the child was in the Hone.
2. The child was referred to another agency for care.
3. The child was placed with a foster family.
4. The parent took the child from the Home and the
problem continued.
5. The child was sent home and the problem continued.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
E002!

Abbott, Grace. £§e ghild andghe Btgte. Chicago: Univer—
sity of cage Press. 9 .
Hopkirh, Howard H. gggfiétnsiog. Sefiziag gailgzgn. new Iort:
~ Russell Sage onn ation. .

Jamison, A. T. a it t l e . Columbia, 3. 9.:
Baptist Book Depository, n.d.

Kcaovern. Cecelia.
Washington:

 

Hagan, Helen.R. 'Foster Care for children,'.§g§i§;_¥g§k
‘133g;§gg§, National Association of Boo a or ers, 1957.

W

Michigan Department of Social Welfare. .thlg_gggigfl
A stit t . i .n- Oo_-- P1:0-L: 3:9 7-0. ReuL4;tz -
c ensi . nd ec me 0 Stand . l“ .

Michigan Department of Social Welfare. fi--e.t-.- o_ ”a- s
. 5.3.11; ’.. 31- ' !. _-. ‘. .1-..‘- was 4.1”“ .- __ 3 .193 1' ' e
9“.

Weissman. Irving.
Lansing:

 

46

b s ed a

Eletsin, Ella. 'The Use of subsidized Foster Homes, An
Annotated Biblicgraphy,‘ New York: Child Welfare
League of America. 959.

Morris, albert. “A Study of the Change in Average Age and
Duration of Stay of Children at the V. P. w. National
Home, Eaton Rapids, Michigan.‘ Unpublished Research
Report for Heaters Degree, School of Social Work,
Michigan State University, 1957.

St. Vincent Home for Children of Lansing (Michigan). “Outline
for Tentative Policies, St. Vincent Home.“ 1952.

W

Michigan Department of Social Welfare. Personal interview
with Donald DeVinney, Area Child Welfare Consultant.
April 13. 1959.

Lansing (Michigan) Child Guidance Clinic. Personal interview
with Clara Wilson, Casework flupervisor. July 16, 1959.