Participants Year 7 data from the Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) project

1. Foster Family A Foster Family B Child 1 Child 2 Child 1 Child 2 Child 3 Child 3 Worker A Worker C Worker B Externalizing Behaviors in Children In-care: The Role of Child-welfare Workers and Foster Families Connie Cheung1,2, Deborah Goodman2, George Leckie3, Jennifer M. Jenkins1, Heather Prime1 and Mark Wade1 1Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, University of Toronto, 2Child Welfare Institute of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, and 3Centre for Multilevel Modeling, University of Bristol Abstract Results The current study examined the simultaneous influence of workers and foster families on children’s externalizing behaviors in children receiving out-of-home care. Results suggested that although individual differences in child externalizing are primarily attributable to child-specific effects (72%), 10% and 18% of the variance can be explained by worker and foster-family influences respectively. Worker education accounted for substantial differences seen between workers. More difficult children are monitored by workers with less educational attainment. Foster-family level predictors were also found to explain variance in children’s externalizing behaviors. Relative to children in regular foster care, those in kinship care displayed significantly lower levels of child externalizing while children in group care displayed significantly higher levels. Higher levels of ambient parental negativity and the experience of more differential parental negativity relative to siblings were significantly associated with more child externalizing. Lastly, children who were more satisfied with their placement displayed significantly lower levels of problematic behaviors. 10%, 18% and 72% of the variance in children’s externalizing scores was at the worker, foster-family and child level, respectively Worker-level Education: Workers with less formal education were more likely to work with children with higher levels of externalizing behaviors and explained 24% of the variance at the worker level Type of Foster-care Placement: Relative to those in regular foster care, children in kinship care displayed lower levels of externalizing behaviors whereas those in group care displayed higher levels. These variables explained 25% of the variance at the foster-family level. Foster Parent Negativity: Higher levels of externalizing behaviors was associated with children from more negative foster families and those who experienced more foster-parent negativity relative to their foster siblings. Quality of Foster-care Placement: Higher quality foster-care placements were associated with lower levels of externalizing behaviors. Figure 1: The multilevel, cross-classification of children in-care Methods • Participants • Year 7 data from the Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) project • 1,063 children between the ages of 10-17 years of age • 459 girls and 604 boys • Measures • Response Variable • Child externalizing behaviors • 10-15 year olds: self, foster parent and worker reports • 16-17 year olds: foster parent and worker reports • Predictor Variables • Worker Level • Worker Education: higher scores reflected more formal education • Family Level • Type of Foster-care Placement (regular foster care, kinship care and group care) • Ambient Parental Negativity (family average of parental negativity within a family) • Child Level • Differential Parental Negativity (child’s deviation from the family mean) • Placement Satisfaction • Child Age • Child Gender (boy=reference category) Background • Externalizing Behaviors in Children In-care • 42% of children fall within the clinical range for externalizing behaviors1. • Understanding Externalizing Behaviors in Children in-Care from a Multilevel Perspective • Differences between agencies and child-welfare workers explain, in part, why children in-care show different patterns of development2,3. • Missing link: influence of the foster family • 15-40% of variance in children’s problematic behaviors • can be explained by family membership4 • The environment in which children in-care grow up is very • complex: • Children in-care are nested within foster families • Children within the same foster family may be monitored by different workers • Workers tend to monitor children from difference families • To account for this data structure, a multilevel, cross-classified • model was used (see Figure 1) • The extent to which worker (e.g., education), foster-family • (e.g., type of foster-care placement, parental negativity), and child-specific factors (e.g., satisfaction with placement) can explain variance at these different levels was also examined. Discussion • Children’s externalizing behaviors are influenced by different contextual factors: • Combined, worker and foster-family effects explained 28% of the • variance in children’s externalizing behaviors • Workers with more formal education are more likely to work with less difficult children: • Selection Effect: some workers may be more more likely selected or • assigned to work with more difficult children • Causal Effect: some workers may be more resourceful at working the • interface between children and placement • Externalizing behaviors and type of foster-care placement • Children in group homes may experience higher levels of externalizing • behaviors because of increased exposure to delinquent acts through • their peers • Externalizing behaviors are associated with the emotional climate of foster family: • Children’s externalizing behaviors may be influenced by the • experience of being disfavoured by parents • Children who are more satisfied with their placement displayed lower • levels of externalizing behaviors, highlighting the importance of • security in children’s long-term adjustment References 1 Keil, V. & Price, J. (2006). Externalizing behavior disorder in child welfare settings: Definitions, prevalence, and implications for assessment and treatment. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 761-779. 2 Attar-Schwartz, S. (2008). Emotional, behavioral and social problems among Israeli children in residential care: A multi-level analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 229-248. 3Ryan, J., Garnier,P., Zyphur, M., & Zhai, F. (2006). Investigating the effects of caseworker characteristics in child welfare. Children and Youth Services, Review, 28, 993-1006. 4 Jenkins, J., Simpson, A., Dunn, J., Rasbash, J., & O’Connor, T.G. (2005). Mutual influence of marital conflict and children’s behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks. Child Development, 76, 24-39.