251P
Investigating the Role of Family Characteristics and Interactive Processes on the Frequency of Foster Care Placement Disruption
This study investigates how family characteristics and interactive processes in home settings influence the frequency of placement disruption for a sample of children in foster care. Evidence suggests that behavior problems are predictive of placement disruption (Chamberlain, et. al., 2006) and protective effects are noted for children who reside in kinship homes (Zinn, 2012). While helpful in illuminating some dimensions of stability, these indicators paint an incomplete picture of the dynamic, ongoing processes occurring in home settings. This study seeks to advance our understanding of family interactional processes using a multiple-method, multiple indicator measurement strategy (Chamberlain & Bank, 1989), to identify areas of intervention that promote permanency and well-being for children in substitute care.
Methods:
A total of 217 youth nested in 116 families were assessed to determine if certain family characteristics and interactional processes in the home setting influenced the frequency in which a youth experienced placement change over a 6 month period of time. The interactive processes hypothesized to influence placement disruption include Positive Home Integration (PHI) (alpha=.87), an 11-item construct measuring the child’s self-reported sense of integration into family activities (e.g., “to what extent do you feel included by your foster family?”), and Impact of Child Behavior (ICB) (alpha=.85), a 7-item construct measuring caregiver perception of the impact of the child’s behavior on family relationships and routines (e.g., “how frequently does this child’s behavior prevent you from taking him/her out into public?”). Family characteristics relevant to caregiver-child interactions that were tested in this model include child age, gender, and caregiver kinship status.
Results:
A substantial proportion of the sample experienced one or more placement changes during the six month period of time (mean=1.8, sd=1.2, range 1-8). A mixed effects model was tested using maximum likelihood estimation procedures. The model intercept was significant (tau=2.19, WaldZ=7.66, p<.00), and the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC=.31) suggest 31% of the variance in placement change was between families, with remaining variance accounted for within families. Examination of model predictors suggest that ICB (gamma=.068, WaldZ=3.91, p<.00) is significantly predictive of placement change, whereas child age, gender, kinship status, and PHI were not statistically significant in this particular sample.
Implications:
Investigating placement disruption through the lens of interactive family processes is an important evolutionary step in permanency and well-being research in child welfare. This study addresses methodological concerns specific to collection of data nested within family systems by employing multilevel modeling procedures. This study adds to the body of research on the role of child behavior and the potential for placement disruption in foster care settings by utilizing a unique, 7-item indicator of how disruptive a child’s behavior is for family routine. Study implications support the need for practitioners to continue to support caregivers who provide care to children in substitutecare settings, and for researchers to identify and investigate interactive processes within homes that may be amenable to interventions that promote well-being and permanency for these children.