Youth Antisocial Behaviours Potentiated By Negative Peer Influence in Group Home Care: Lessons from Ontario, Canada Group Homes

Background: Research on negative peer influence and how it results in youth antisocial behaviours have been a major focus of scientific study for decades. Recent preliminary studies suggested that positive peer influence is possible, even in group homes. Negative peer influence increases among teenagers (youth) especially when they are put in group for any purpose, and seems to be pervasive among youth in group home care. Group homes are arguably an indispensable resource for child protection agencies in North America and seem to be the last resort where youth removed from their parental homes, by child protection agencies, due to abuse, neglect, child-parent conflict and or challenging teenage behaviours are placed. Scholars, child advocates and social work practitioners have raised different concerns, oppositions and criticisms against placing youth in group home care due to their antisocial behaviours, often severe, when placed in such homes. Evidence suggests that negative peer influence underscores youth antisocial behaviours. The negative peer influence hypothesis has been investigated in different settings including schools and youth recreational centers, mainly in the United States. However, it is yet to be tested in Canadian group homes. This study investigated negative peer influence on youth behaviour-relationship in group homes in Ontario.

Objectives: This study aimed at testing the hypothesis that negative peer influence will predict youth antisocial behaviors at baseline and will increase and perpetuate it when youth stay together in a group home for an extended period of time.

Method: The study examined how negative peer influence potentiates youth antisocial behaviours among 875 youth who stayed in group homes in Ontario from 2010 to 2015. They were followed for three years - 2012-2015, with a baseline established in 2010-2011. Participants were between ages 10 to 17 at baseline and 13 to 20 at 3-year follow up. I used the Ontario Looking after Children (OnLAC) database for analysis.

Result: Findings based on logistic regression analysis confirmed the hypothesis that negative peer influence predicts youths’ risk of antisocial behaviour (at baseline) and the estimated risk of youth antisocial behaviour increased in each successive year for three years. The risk associated with negative peer influence and youth antisocial behaviours at baseline was (OR = 1.57). In 1-year follow up it was (OR = 1.91 and 2.15) for the unadjusted and adjusted main predictor effects. The estimated risk in 2-year follow up was (OR = 2.22 and 2.39) and it increased to about five folds (OR = 3.54 and 4.90) in 3-year follow up for the respective unadjusted and adjusted main predictor effects.

Conclusion: Youth in group homes in Ontario seem to experience negative peer influence effects, which may potentially make their already challenging antisocial behaviours to get worse when they stay in such homes for an extended period of time. Child welfare agencies must be conscious of how long a youth stays in a group home care and ensure that youth do not stay in such homes for too long.