Risk Profiles of Children Entering Residential Care: A Cluster Analysis

Abstract

Children in residential care are a heterogeneous population, presenting various combinations of risks. Existing studies on these children suggest high variability across multiple domains (e.g., academics, behavior). Given this heterogeneity, it is important to begin to identify the combinations and patterns of multiple risks, or risk profiles, these children present. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the academic and behavioral risk profiles of children entering residential care. Cluster analysis procedures using academic and behavior variables revealed three distinct profiles of children: Group 1: Average Janes, characterized by average academic skills, no behavior problems, and some demographic risks; Group 2: Academic Risks, characterized by low academics and increased rule-breaking behavior; and finally Group 3: Behavioral Risks, characterized by average academics and elevated behaviors. These preliminary finding are discussed along with limitations, directions for future research, and implications.

Social images of residential care: How children, youth and residential care institutions are portrayed?

“…gender, age, education, earnings, having children). In summary, the image of children and youth in care as victims is generalised across participants, despite this population has different risks, characteristics, protective factors and needs (Calheiros & Patrício, 2014;Hagaman et al, 2010). The lack of differences between the participants that work in the field and the lay persons may be related to the small number of professionals in this sample, and to the characteristics of these professionals.…”

“…Some research in Portugal clearly identifies different need profiles with distinct risk levels: low risk, without emerging needs; intermediate risk, with needs in terms of the economic and living situation; and high risk, with needs in terms of relationships, behavioural, psychological and emotional skills, and education and employment (Calheiros & Patrício, 2014). Studies developed in other countries have also identified profiles with different risk configurations in this population (Hagaman, Trout, Chmelka, Thompson, & Reid, 2010), and emphasized the importance of adapting residential care intervention and services in face of this heterogeneity (Axford, 2009).…”

Patterns of maltreatment and diagnosis across levels of care in group homes

“…Although much is known about patterns of maltreatment and psychiatric diagnoses among youth in residential programs, in general, less is known about these patterns among youth in group homes, specifically (e.g., Brack, Huefner, & Handwerk, 2012; Chow et al, 2012; Hagaman, Trout, Chmelka, Thompson, & Reid, 2009). A number of studies with youth in group homes have examined emotional and behavioral problems (externalizing and internalizing symptoms) and academic problems (reading, math, academic knowledge), and improvement in these difficulties over time (e.g., Hagaman et al, 2009; Larzelere, Daly, Davis, Chmelka, & Handwerk, 2004).…”

Who Goes Where? Exploring Factors Related to Placement Among Group Homes

“…Much of the current literature on group residential care is from one of two types of studies: large national studies of group care (e.g., Aarons et al, 2010; James et al, 2011) or regional programs (e.g., Chamberlain et al, 1996; Hagaman, Trout, Chmelka, Thompson, & Reid, 2010). In both types of studies, the focus has been on factors related to youth characteristics, placement trajectories, and/or outcomes with little attention to the potential variation among/between group residential facilities and, consequently, lack of information about whether the broad category of group residential facilities is serving a common set of youth or whether there are distinct niches and settings that are differentially serving specific subgroups of youth.…”