Skip to main content
Log in

Going Home Again: Transitioning Youth to Families After Group Care Placement

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Child and Family Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents results from the transitioning youth to families intervention, which aimed to promote family care for youth served in group care programs in the child welfare system. The intervention was conducted in two counties in a Mid-Atlantic state. The effort encompassed administrative case review and family involvement meetings. We assessed the effect of the intervention in promoting placement in family settings within 12 months. We also explored other effects of the intervention identified by participants. Using propensity score matching with administrative data to compare one-year placement settings for the intervention counties and non-intervention counties, a higher rate of family reunification was identified for youth in the treatment counties. To provide a richer contextual understanding of the effects of the intervention, thematic analysis of open-ended comments from youth and caregiver participants was conducted. These resulting themes provided further understanding of the value of the intervention especially in the areas of planning for the transition, improving youth insight about placement options, and the importance of family involvement. Participants also made recommendations for how to enhance the intervention and promote the transition of youth from group care to family settings. Overall, the effect of the intervention in transitioning youth to family settings was nominal; however unanticipated benefits of engaging youth and family in the transition process were noted. From this evaluation, we provide suggestions for future research and the development of effort to transition youth from group care settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akin, B. A. (2011). Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship and adoption. Children & Youth Services Review, 33, 999–1011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, A. J. L., & Calderon, P. (2004). The role of group care homes in the child welfare continuum of care. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 21(4), 39–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. P. (2005). Foster home care is more cost-effective than shelter care: Serious questions continue to be raised about the utility of group care in child welfare services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 29, 623–625.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. P., Greeson, J. P., Guo, S., Green, R. L., Hurley, S., & Sisson, J. (2007). Outcome for youth receiving intensive in-home therapy or residential care: A comparing using propensity scores. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 498–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. P., Guo, S., & McCrae, J. S. (2008). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating the success of child and family service program. Research on Social Work Practice, 18, 212–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barth, R. P., Wildfire, J., & Green, R. L. (2006). Placement into foster care and the interplay of urbanicity, child behavior problems and poverty. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 358–366.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, M. A., Jordan, N., & Larsen, R. (2007). Predictors of successful permanency planning and length of stay in foster care: The role of race, diagnosis and place of residence. Children & Youth Services Review, 29, 1102–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belanger, K., & Stone, W. (2008). The social service divide: Service availability and accessibility in rural versus urban counties and impact on child welfare outcomes. Child Welfare, 87, 101–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Budde, S., Mayer, S., Zinn, A., Lippold, M., Avrushin, A., Bromberg, A., et al. (2004). Residential care in Illinois: Trends and alternatives. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, B. J., & Friedman, R. M. (1990). Examining the research base for child mental health services and policy. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 17, 87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell, C. M., Katz, K. H., Saunders, L., & Tebes, J. K. (2006). Leaving foster care—The influence of child and case characteristics on foster care exit rates. Children & Youth Services Review, 28, 780–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, M. E. (1994). Factors associated with the reunification of foster children and their families. Social Service Review, 68, 81–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, P. A., Alexander, G., & Lunghofer, L. A. (2001). A literature review comparing the outcomes of residential group care and therapeutic foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 18(5), 377–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Agostino, R. B. (1998). Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2265–2281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm. American Psychologist, 54, 755–764.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Farmer, E. Z., Wagner, H. R., Burns, B. J., & Richards, J. T. (2003). Treatment foster care in a system of care: Sequences and correlates of residential placements. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(1), 11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freundlich, M., & Avery, R. J. (2005). Planning for permanency for youth in congregate care. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(2), 115–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, S., Barth, R. P., & Gibbons, C. (2006). Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 357–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, H. J. (2005). Outcomes for children and adolescents after residential treatment: A review of research from 1993 to 2003. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 14, 551–575.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. S., & Courtney, M. E. (2003). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family structure with respect to the timing of family reunification. Children & Youth Services Review, 25, 409–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J. J., Ichimura, H., & Todd, P. E. (1997). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: Evidence from evaluating a job training programme. The Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyde, J., & Kammerer, N. (2009). Adolescents’ perspectives on placement moves and congregate settings: Complex and cumulative instabilities in out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, S. (2011). What works in group care?—A structured review of treatment models for group homes and residential care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 308–321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, S., Leslie, L. K., Hurlburt, M. S., Slymen, D. J., Landsverk, J., Davis, I., et al. (2006). Children in out-of-home care: Entry into intensive or restrictive mental health and residential care placements. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 14, 196–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landsman, M. J., Groza, V., Tyler, M., & Malone, K. (2001). Outcomes of family-centered residential treatment. Child Welfare, 80, 351–379.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. R., Bright, C. L., Svoboda, D., Fakunmoju, S., & Barth, R. P. (2011). Outcomes of group care for youth: A review of comparative studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 177–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. R., Shaw, T. V., Gove, B., & Hwang, J. (2010). Transitioning from group care to family care: Child welfare worker assessments. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1770–1777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). Psmatch2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html, version 3.0.0.

  • Lyons, J. S., Libman-Mintzer, L. N., Kisiel, C. L., & Shallcross, H. (1998). Understanding the mental health needs of children and adolescents in residential treatment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29(6), 582–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massinga, R., & Pecora, P. J. (2004). Providing better opportunities for older children in the child welfare system. The Future of Children, 14, 151–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munson, M. R., & Scott, L. D. (2008). Older youth nearing their exit from congregate care: Current innovative programs. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 24(1), 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, A. B., Colby, S. A., Brooks, J. L., Rickert, J. M., & Salamone, F. J. (2007). Transitioning youth from residential treatment to the community: A preliminary investigation. Child & Youth Care Forum, 36, 73–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preyde, M., Cameron, G., Frensch, K., & Adams, G. (2011). Parent-child relationships and family functioning of children and youth discharged from residential mental health treatment or a home-based alternative. Residential Treatment For Children & Youth, 28(1), 55–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. American Statistician, 39, 33–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, D. B. (1997). Estimating causal effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 757–763.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). The AFCARS (adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system) report. Washington DC: Author. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report18.pdf.

  • Wells, K., & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and reentry of foster children. Children & Youth Services Review, 21, 273–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge funding for this project from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the University of Maryland School of Social Work. Points of view and the opinions presented in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or policies of the funders. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 24th Annual Children’s Mental Health Research and Policy Conference in Tampa, FL (2011) and Quality in Alternative Care conference in Prague, Czech Republic (2011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bethany R. Lee.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lee, B.R., Hwang, J., Socha, K. et al. Going Home Again: Transitioning Youth to Families After Group Care Placement. J Child Fam Stud 22, 447–459 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9596-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9596-y

Keywords

Navigation