The categories used in the map were all created as part of this project. They are meant to be examples of certain types of placement patterns and not a complete list of all children in a group. All of the categories had uniform selection criteria that were written in SQL and run on the database. (See the Data Field Description page for details on the fields available in the database.) Those criteria are described below to assist in understanding each group.
10+ Baker Acts – The children in this group had 10 or more placements in a crisis mental health provider. The service categories for this group were: “Routine/Emergency Mental Health Service,” and “Hospitalization – Mental.” The service types were anything with the words “Baker Act” or “Crisis.” Over 7,700 children had at least one placement that matched these criteria. The cut-off of 10 placements was chosen to get the number of results under 1,000.
10+ Correctional Placements – The children in this group had 10 or more placements in a correctional facility. The service category for this group was: “Correctional Placement.” Over 9,000 children had at least one placement that matched these criteria. The cut-off of 10 placements was chosen to get the number of results under 1,000.
Adult Jail – The children in this group had at least one placement in an adult correctional program. The selected service category was “Correctional Placement,” and the service types were “Adult Facility” and “Adult Incarceration-Facility.”
Aged Out – No EFC – The children in this group aged out of an unlicensed placement after 2014 when the Extended Foster Care law went into effect. These children were therefore categorically ineligible for EFC. The query included all children with a placement that ended for reason “Child ages out (18 – 23 Years Old)” in which the placement setting was “Foster Family Home (Relative)” or the service category was “Non-relative.”
Aged Out – No PESS – The children in this group all aged out of licensed placements but spent less than 6 months in a licensed placement. The query first identified all children with a placement end reason of “Child ages out (18 – 23 Years Old)” in a placement that was neither a relative or non-relative (as defined above in Aged Out – No EFC). The query then summed all placement time that the child spent in placements other than those types and included the child if he or she had fewer than 180 days in those placements. Because “six months” can include up to 184 calendar days, this query is under-inclusive.
APD Kids – The children in this group all spent at least 30 days in a placement labeled as “APD.” These children all had service categories or service types with the acronym “APD” in them and spent at least 30 cumulative days in these placements.
Approximately 1,200 kids spent at least one day in an “APD” designated placement. The 30-day cutoff was chosen to limit the list to under 1,000 children and to focus the list on children who spent more than minimal time in one of these placements.
Deaths – The children in this group all had “Death of Child” listed as their final placement end reason.
Failed Adoptions – The children in this group all had at least two removals, where one of those removals happened after a discharge reason of “Adoption.”
Group Home Dwellers – The children in this group spent at least 6 months in out-of-home care and at least 75% of their total time in a placement setting of “Group Home.”
Hotel Kids – The children in this group spent at least one night with a provider with the following words in the name: hotel, motel, hostel, quality, inn, suite. This group is believed to be under-inclusive due to the possibility of other hotel chain names. The database had no specific tag for hotel placements, and these hotel placements were listed as every placement setting at some point, including licensed foster care. To prevent returning foster homes with similar names, any provider with a comma in the name was excluded. The database typically lists foster parents as “LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME”.
Incarcerated Over a Year – The children in this group spent at least one year cumulatively in placements with a service category marked “Correctional.”
Institution Dwellers – The children in this group spent at least 6 months in out-of-home care and at least 75% of their time in a placement setting of “Institution.”
Longest time in care – The children in this group spent the most cumulative days in care in the database. Many of these children were removed in the 1990s and early 2000s. The group was limited to 100 children.
Married Out – The children in this group had a placement end reason as “Marriage.”
Mom & Baby Placements – The children in this group had a placement where the service type included the words: mom, mother, or baby. It also includes children in a placement with the service type: “GROUP HOME-TEEN WITH CHILD”.
10+ Night-to-Night Placements – The children in this group had at least 10 placements that lasted 2 days or fewer. Runs and visits were not counted as additional placements.
Most Non-relative Placements – The 100 children in this group had the longest cumulative time in a placement with a service category of “Non-relative.” Over 52,220 kids (19% of children in the database) had at least one non-relative placement.
Most Roommates – The 100 children in this group had the most DCF roommates in the database. Roommates were calculated by finding overlapping dates with the same provider among all children in the database. This group counted each roommate only once, and did not consider the length of the overlapping time. Note that some providers may have multiple locations or units, even though the provider is listed only once for all of them, which could expand the number of roommates a child experiences. The term “roommate” does not mean the children actually lived in the same room. Approximately 89,460 children (32% of children in the database) had 5 or more roommates.
Out-of-State Dwellers – The children in this group had over two years of cumulative placement time, during which over 99% of the time was spent out of the state of Florida. Placement location was based on reported zip code of the provider. Blank zip codes were disregarded. Approximately 20,233 children (7% of the children in the database) were ever placed out of state.
Failed Reunifications (under 30 days) – The children in this group had a two or more removals and at least one was within 30 days after reunification with a parent or custodian or the case being dismissed by the court. Approximately 139,405 children (50% of the children in the database) had a discharge to reunification or dismissal of their case. Of those, only 35,484 (25% of the reunifications or dismissals, and 13% of the entire database) had a subsequent removal at any time.
Shelter Dwellers – The children in this group were placed for more than one year cumulatively with a provider with a service type of “Homeless Shelter” or with the word “shelter” in the provider name. An inspection of individual records is required to determine what types of shelters the children were placed in.
Substance Abuse Programs – The children in this group were placed over 30 days cumulatively with providers with service types containing the word “substance” or “drug.” The thirty day limit was chosen to limit the responses to children who would have received treatment in these programs.
Top Movers – The 100 children in this group had the most number of entries in the database. The group was created without removing entries for run, visitation, or other administrative entries.
Top Movers – No Admin – The 100 children in this group had the most number of entries in the database excluding runs, visitations, and other administrative entries.
Top Movers – Post Privatization – The 100 children in this group were all removed in 2007 or later and had the most number of entries in the database excluding run, visitations, and other administrative entries. The year 2007 was chosen as being after privatization was fully implemented in all regions.
Unlikely Adoptions – The children in this group were all in care for over 3 years cumulatively, all had over 20 placement entries, and all exited with a discharge reason of adoption. None of these children were subsequently removed.
Went to Camp – The children in this group were all placed with a provider that had the word “camp” in its name or a placement type with the word “camp” in it. To prevent returning foster homes with similar names, any provider with a comma in the name was excluded. The database typically lists foster parents as “LASTNAME,FIRSTNAME”.