Asset-building and the Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) Project: Promoting resilient outcomes in young people in c

1. Asset-building and the Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) Project:Promoting resilient outcomes in young people in care Cynthia Vincent, Shaye Moffat, Marie-Pierre Paquet, Robert Flynn, & Robyn Marquis Centre de recherche sur les services éducatifs et communitaires Université d’Ottawa Centre for Research on Educational & Community Services University of Ottawa (cvincent@uottawa.ca)

2. OUTLINE • Background • Developmental Assets • OnLAC Project • The present OnLAC study • Method • Results • Implications for practice • Discussion with audience

3. DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS • Search Institute (www.search-institute.org) • 40 Developmental Assets • Developed from the best lessons from prevention, risk reduction, and resilience research (Scales, 1999)

4. 20 External Assets: Support Empowerment Boundaries and expectations Constructive use of time 20 Internal Assets: Commitment to learning Positive values Social competencies Positive identity DEVELOPMENTAL ASSETS • External Assets and Internal Assets: • Offer protection • Promote resilience

5. The Ontario Looking After Children Project (OnLAC) • Longitudinal study • Mandated in all 53 local CASs since 2006 • Goal: • to improve the quality of out-of-home care • to promote positive parenting to improve outcomes • Strengths-based • Supported by resilience research • Outcome focused • OnLAC + SAFE + PRIDE = Ontario Practice Model

6. OnLAC Project • LAC developed in the UK in 1987 • Uses the Second Canadian Adaptation of the Assessment and Action Record (AAR-C2) • Search Institute’s Developmental Assets were adapted when incorporated into AAR-C2

7. METHOD • Participants: (N = 713, in OnLAC yr 5) • 10 - 17 years old • 56% male, 44% female • Mean age 14 years • 85% in foster care (including kinship care) • 15% in group homes • 87% Crown Wards

8. METHOD (continued) • Measures from OnLAC AAR-C2 (and sources of data): • Assets profile (CWW) • Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire - SDQ – Prosocial and Total Difficulties Scales (caregiver) • Academic performance (caregiver) • Self-esteem (young person in care) • Relationship with female caregiver (young person) • Placement satisfaction (young person) • Adverse life experiences since birth (young person)

9. RESULTSPercentage of sample with varying levels of developmental assets (N = 713)

10. RESULTSMean number of developmental assets,by gender 28.6 26.0 GENDER

11. RESULTS Significant associations of developmental assets with the following outcomes: • Positive correlations: • Prosocial • Academic performance • Self-esteem • Relationship with female caregiver • Placement satisfaction • Negative correlations: • Psychological difficulties (SDQ Total Difficulties Score)

12. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with SDQ Prosocial Score (N = 636) * Statistically significant association

13. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with SDQ Total Difficulties Score (N = 636) * Statistically significant association

14. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with Academic Performance (N = 666) .34* * Statistically significant association

15. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with Self-esteem (N = 676) * Statistically significant association

16. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with Relationship with Female Caregiver (N = 674) * Statistically significant association

17. RESULTSNet association (Betas) of predictors with Placement Satisfaction (N = 693) * Statistically significant association

18. DISCUSSION • Present study consistent with research: • Females have more assets (mean of 29 assets) • Males (mean of 26 assets) • More assets = better mental health, more prosocial behaviour, better academic performance • Assets offset risks • 31 assets contribute to maximum protection • Asset-building, combined with risk reduction, is especially effective

19. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE • Intervention strategies to offset risk factors: • Resources to support academic achievement • Positive relationships and social networks • Opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities • Participation in community • Nurture positive self-esteem and self-identity

20. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE • Intervention strategies continued: • Risk reduction • Provide opportunities for young people to build on their strengths • Identify specific assets to build into plans of care • Nurture the acquisition of developmental assets • Effective communication between young people, their caregivers and child welfare workers • Collaboration between home, school and community

21. REFERENCES • Flynn, R. J., Ghazal, H., Legault, L. (2004). Looking After Children: Good Parenting, Good Outcomes, Assessment and Action Records. (Second Canadian adaptation, AAR-C2). Ottawa, ON, & London, UK: Centre for Research on community Services, University of Ottawa & Her Majesty’s Stationary Office (HMSO). • Masten, A. (2006). Promoting Resilience in development: A general framework for systems of care. In R. J. Flynn, P. M. Dudding & J. G. Barber (Eds.). Promoting resilience in child welfare (pp. 3-17). Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. • Scales, P. C. (1999). Reducing risks and building developmental assets: Essential actions for promoting adolescent health. Journal of School Health. 69, 113-119. • Scales, P. C., Benson, P. L., Leffert, N., & Blyth, D. A. (2000). Contribution of developmental assets to the prediction of thriving among adolescents. Applied Developmental Science. 4, (1), 27-46.