The Role of Placement History and Current Family Environment in Children’s Aggression in Foster Care

Abstract

Predictors of the physical and relational aggressive behavior of children in foster care were examined (N = 160, 50.9% male, M age = 7.57, SD = 2.39). First, predictors representative of children’s placement histories were examined in relation to the children’s aggression at T1. Next, predictors representing characteristics of the current family environment were examined in relation to the children’s aggression at T2 (four months later). Results revealed that a greater number of prior group home placements and being in a non-kinship home were associated with higher physical aggression at T1. A greater number of prior group home placements, a fewer number of regular home placements, being in a non-kinship home, and prior removal from the home due to neglect were associated with higher relational aggression at T1. The results also revealed that higher foster sibling relational aggression at T1 predicted lower child physical aggression at T2. If foster siblings were biological children of the foster parent, higher levels of a foster sibling’s physical aggression at T1 predicted reduced child physical aggression at T2. The opposite pattern was observed if foster siblings were not biological children of the foster parent. Lastly, longer time in the current placement, more children in the home, and the presence of a sibling that was a biological child of the parent predicted higher child relational aggression at T2. These findings provide initial insights into how placement history and current family environment are associated with the physical and relational aggressive behavior of children in foster care.

Bullying and Psychological Distress in a Vulnerable Group: Youth in Residential Child Care

“…This study is based only on the residential care context and does not take other types of institutionalization and/or adoption into account. Prior research has also demonstrated a link between frequent changes in foster placements and increased behavior problems (Perry & Price, 2017), and considering this information in subsequent studies would be very interesting.…”

Thought Problems and Aggression Over Time Among Youth in Foster Care

“…Aggression, which is often defined as hostile, destructive, or injurious behavior, has the potential to cause serious harm to others (Hamama and Arazi 2012 ; Ho et al 2010 ; Tonnaer et al 2019 ). Youth in foster care tend to have higher levels of behavior problems, including aggression, compared to their peers in the general community (Keller et al 2001 ; Perry and Price 2017 ; Tarren-Sweeney 2008 ). One study focused on determining the clinical status of children in state custody found that 34 % of youth were rated as having significant behavior problems, with the greatest numbers meeting the clinical range for aggressive, delinquent, and withdrawn behaviors (Heflinger et al 2000 ).…”

“…One study focused on determining the clinical status of children in state custody found that 34 % of youth were rated as having significant behavior problems, with the greatest numbers meeting the clinical range for aggressive, delinquent, and withdrawn behaviors (Heflinger et al 2000 ). Aggressive behaviors may result in youths’ social challenges and inform long-term consequences, such as psychopathology and incarceration (Henggeler and Sheidow 2003 ; Perry and Price 2017 ).…”

Adolescent males in out-of- home care: Past adversity and current functioning

“…Predictor variables included the presence of various maltreatment types, total maltreatment score, and the number of adverse individual- and family-level experiences. We considered controls among sociodemographics (e.g., current age, services received in the last year) and placement variables (e.g., age when first placed in out-of-home care, number of caregiver changes, current placement type, length of time living with current caregiver) that have been linked with some of the outcomes examined (Chow, Mettrick, Stephan, & Von Waldner, 2014; Farmer et al, 2010; O’Higgins et al, 2017; Perry & Price, 2017; Rock, Michelson, Thomson, & Day, 2015) and/or that would seem reasonable to include because of their potential impact on youth well-being and functioning (e.g., number of placement changes and youth–caregiver relationship). In the end, we included current age, age at child welfare entry, and number of caregiver changes in analyses because they were significantly correlated with predictor and outcome variables.…”