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

Farmer, Elizabeth M. Z.; Wagner, H. Ryan; Burns, Barbara J.; Murray, Maureen

doi:10.1177/1063426615585082

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 53 publications

(60 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scores on the SDQ showed a mean in the clinical range (18.9), but considerable variation (SD = 5.7; Seifert et al, 2015). As described previously (Farmer, et al, 2016), youth in Teaching Family and non-Teaching Family homes were similar demographically. However, youth in TFM homes showed slightly lower levels of mental health problems (e.g., SDQ of 18.3 [SD = 5.8] vs. 20.1 [SD = 5.5], p < .01).…”

Section: Sample Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 73%

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

Farmer

Seifert

Wagner

et al. 2016

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group homes are a frequently used but controversial treatment setting for youth with mental health problems. Within the relatively sparse literature on group homes, there is some evidence that some models of treatment may be associated with more positive outcomes for youth. This article explores this possibility by examining differences across time for youth served in group homes utilizing the Teaching Family Model (TFM) and geographically proximate homes using more eclectic approaches. Data come from a longitudinal quasi-experimental study that included 554 youth. Results suggest that youth showed, on average, significant and rapid improvement during initial months in a group home. Improvement did not differ for TFM and non-TFM homes during this initial period. Post-discharge results, though, show that TFM was associated with continued improvement after discharge and significantly better outcomes by 8 months post-discharge. Results also discuss youth-level factors that may influence outcomes as well as need for additional work to more fully understand processes and practices that are key for maximizing and maintaining youths’ positive outcomes during and after group home placements.

show abstract

Section: Sample Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 73%

Does Model Matter? Examining Change Across Time for Youth in Group Homes

Farmer

Seifert

Wagner

et al. 2016

Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Data used in the current study were collected as part of a quasi-experimental study of group homes in the same geographic catchment areas within a southeastern state (Farmer, Wagner, Burns, & Murray, 2015). Sampling frame for the study included homes that implemented the Teaching Family Model (Kirigin, 2001; Wolf et al, 1976) as well as homes that utilized a variety of other treatment approaches and models (Farmer, et al, 2015).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sampling frame for the study included homes that implemented the Teaching Family Model (Kirigin, 2001; Wolf et al, 1976) as well as homes that utilized a variety of other treatment approaches and models (Farmer, et al, 2015). Homes were distributed across the state in urban, suburban, and rural areas, included both campus-based and community-based homes, and were all part of agencies that operated multiple homes and provided some continuum of other types of services (Farmer, Murray, Ballentine, Morris, & Burns, 2011).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Seifert

Farmer

Wagner

et al. 2015

Child Abuse & Neglect

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patterns of Axis I psychiatric diagnosis and maltreatment history were explored among youth in group homes, including match of clinical need to level or restrictiveness of care. Data on demographics, diagnoses, maltreatment, and group home level of care (Level I, II, or III homes, representing lower to higher intensity of supervision and treatment) were obtained from 523 youth who participated in a quasi-experimental study of group homes. Three quarters of youth had a diagnosis and two thirds of youth had a maltreatment history. Youth in higher level homes had more diagnoses and higher rates of all disorders except adjustment disorders. Youth in Level I homes had a history of more maltreatment types, particularly high rates of neglect. Sexual abuse, physical abuse, and emotional abuse were most common among youth in higher level homes. Regardless of diagnosis history, comparable proportions of youth had a maltreatment history, and similar patterns were found across levels of care. Together, findings indicate that group homes with varying degrees of restrictiveness serve youth with different psychiatric diagnosis and maltreatment histories. Youth triaged to higher level homes had more diagnoses, while youth placed in the least restrictive homes had a history of more maltreatment subtypes. Further, distinct patterns of diagnosis types and maltreatment subtypes were seen across homes. Implications include the importance of assessing unique clinical needs of youth to promote an appropriate match to level of care and treatment plan.

show abstract

“…Data come from a quasi-experimental study in a southeastern state (see Farmer, Wagner, et al, 2016, for details). The sample included TFM group homes as well as group homes in the same geographic catchment areas that were not using the TFM (non-TFM).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2008). Despite these concerns, such settings continue to serve large numbers of youth (Farmer, Wagner, Burns, & Murray, 2016; U.S. GAO, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%