The Departure Status of Youth from Residential Group Care: Implications for Aftercare

Abstract

Youth departing from out-of-home care settings face numerous challenges as they adapt to new settings or return to placements that have been unsuccessful in the past. Although several thousand youth face this transition annually, little is known about their specific needs and risks at departure. To better identify needs and risks, we evaluated the discharge data of 640 youth served in a residential group care setting by addressing the following questions: (a) to what settings do youth depart following a stay in residential group care, (b) what are the demographic, family, educational, behavioral, and departure characteristics of youth at departure, and (c) do these characteristics differ for youth departing to different levels of restrictiveness? Results indicate significant differences on youth characteristics based on levels of restrictiveness at departure placement. As one might expect, youth departing to more restrictive placements presented a broad host of challenges across domains, while those departing to less restrictive settings demonstrated fewer needs and departed with greater educational and behavioral gains. Results provide support for the development and planning of targeted aftercare programs designed to promote the short and long term functioning of youth served in out-of-home care.

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

“…Third, this initial examination of distinctions among homes focuses only on characteristics of youth at the time of placement. Additional work is needed to examine patterns of outcomes among these homes and models (Griffith et al, 2009; Robst, Rohrer, Dollard, & Armstrong, 2014; Trout et al, 2010). Fourth, there is no information about how or why the included youth were placed in their respective homes.…”

Improving Transition Support for Juvenile Offenders With Disabilities Through a Collaborative Approach

“…The most challenging aspect of rehabilitation is providing transition support once the juvenile is released from correctional confinement (Trout et al, 2010). Baltodano et al (2005) asserted that post-release support was the most neglected aspect of rehabilitative programming.…”

Relationship Between Time in Residential Treatment and Youth Outcomes: Results from a Cross-Site 5-Year Analysis

“…Examples of other settings include: residential treatment center (ROLES = 6.5), regular foster care (ROLES = 4.0), and home of a relative (ROLES = 2.5) (Hawkins et al 1992). Other researchers examining outcomes of residential treatment centers have used the ROLES as a way to quantify placement restrictiveness (Casey et al 2010;Hodges et al 2000;Trout et al 2010). Therefore, the placement location of youth at any point in time can be quantified to measure any change in level of restrictiveness.…”

“…Therefore, there is a focus on identifying possible points at which youth begin to demonstrate change in their symptom trajectory in order to guide policy decisions and programming efforts (Noftle et al 2011). For example, longer residential stays have been associated with more significant behavioral and emotional improvements, and youth more likely discharging to independent living (Green et al 2007;Trout et al 2010). However, other sources found evidence indicating a shorter length of stay in residential treatment is associated with successful outcomes (Hair 2005).…”