2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reentry of elementary aged children following reunification from foster care

Abstract: A recognized goal of family reunification programs is preventing the reentry of children into foster care. Using data from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, this study examined reentry for 273 children between the ages of 5 and 12 years. In multivariate models, reentry into foster care was associated with higher Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) scores and higher numbers of children in the household when the child is living at home. Although these are not the only risk factors that should b… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
28
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
(29 reference statements)
3
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These factors were caregiver age; caregiver race/ethnicity (Amaro et al, 2005; Chow, Jaffee, & Snowden, 2003); whether the caregiver had co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems (Watkins, Audrey Burnam, Fuan-Yue Kung, & Paddock, 2001); the most serious type of maltreatment experienced by the child (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993); a 3-point global measure of cumulative family risk, with values ranging from “1” = “low family risk” to “3” = “high family risk”, that was based upon investigative caseworkers’ assessment of the presence of 21 risks, e.g., previous child welfare service use history, child special needs, high family stress, or history of domestic violence (Barth et al, 2008; McCrae & Barth, 2008; Mersky et al, 2009); child age; whether the child was placed out-of-home; and whether the family had received any child welfare services after the close of the investigation/assessment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These factors were caregiver age; caregiver race/ethnicity (Amaro et al, 2005; Chow, Jaffee, & Snowden, 2003); whether the caregiver had co-occurring mental health and substance abuse problems (Watkins, Audrey Burnam, Fuan-Yue Kung, & Paddock, 2001); the most serious type of maltreatment experienced by the child (Barnett, Manly, & Cicchetti, 1993); a 3-point global measure of cumulative family risk, with values ranging from “1” = “low family risk” to “3” = “high family risk”, that was based upon investigative caseworkers’ assessment of the presence of 21 risks, e.g., previous child welfare service use history, child special needs, high family stress, or history of domestic violence (Barth et al, 2008; McCrae & Barth, 2008; Mersky et al, 2009); child age; whether the child was placed out-of-home; and whether the family had received any child welfare services after the close of the investigation/assessment.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rates of re-entry to care are difficult to compare, as samples vary in terms of age, reasons for admission to care, time in care and length of follow-up. Studies from the USA have reported rates of re-entry ranging from 13-28%, (Barth, Weigensberg, Fisher, Fetrow, & Green, 2008;Courtney, 1995;Festinger, 1996;Goodman, 1997;Shaw, 2006;Wells & Guo, 1999;Wulczyn, 1991Wulczyn, , 2004. In Scandinavia, a Danish study found a re-entry rate of 22% within two years of reunification and cited a rate of 25% in Sweden over the same period (Ubbesen, Petersen, Mortensen, & Kristensen, 2012;Vinnerlung, Oman, & Gunnarson, 2004).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Group supervision occurred weekly, with individual consultation as needed. Treatment fidelity for all MTFC-P components was monitored via progress notes and checklists completed by the clinical staff (for more detail see Fisher, Ellis, & Chamberlain1999; Fisher et al 2005). …”
Section: 0 Materials and Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This lack of stability and the associated stresses of disrupted relationships and entering new environments greatly increase a child’s risk of serious long-term emotional and behavioral problems. In addition, instability and its related stress can result in many negative health, psychosocial, and developmental outcomes (Barth et al, 2008; Rubin et al, 2007; Fisher et al, 2006); for example, there is emerging evidence that instability negatively impacts areas of brain development involved in executive functioning (Lewis et al, 2007; Pears et al, 2008). …”
Section: 0 Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%