TY - JOUR
T1 - Measurement and correlates of foster care placement moves
AU - Font, Sarah A.
AU - Sattler, Kierra M.P.
AU - Gershoff, Elizabeth T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2018/8
Y1 - 2018/8
N2 - Placement stability is a major priority in the foster care system. The measurement of placement stability and the reasons children move are complex issues that warrant considerable attention. In this study, we used a two-year Texas foster care entry cohort to examine the extent to which children experience “progress moves”, such as moving to a sibling placement or to live with a relative, versus non-progress moves, such as moving due to risk of abuse. Our sample consisted of 23,760 children and 66,585 placements statewide. Using two methods of classifying moves as either progress or non-progress, we found, of placements that ended with a move to a new placement, 29–43% ended with a progress move, and 57–71% ended with a non-progress move. Classification of move types was consistent across methods overall, but far less consistent when the pre-move placement was in a shelter or restrictive setting. Additional analyses showed that the prevalence and risk factors for non-progress moves varied across placement setting. Implications for the measurement and improvement of placement stability are discussed.
AB - Placement stability is a major priority in the foster care system. The measurement of placement stability and the reasons children move are complex issues that warrant considerable attention. In this study, we used a two-year Texas foster care entry cohort to examine the extent to which children experience “progress moves”, such as moving to a sibling placement or to live with a relative, versus non-progress moves, such as moving due to risk of abuse. Our sample consisted of 23,760 children and 66,585 placements statewide. Using two methods of classifying moves as either progress or non-progress, we found, of placements that ended with a move to a new placement, 29–43% ended with a progress move, and 57–71% ended with a non-progress move. Classification of move types was consistent across methods overall, but far less consistent when the pre-move placement was in a shelter or restrictive setting. Additional analyses showed that the prevalence and risk factors for non-progress moves varied across placement setting. Implications for the measurement and improvement of placement stability are discussed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85048948944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85048948944&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.019
DO - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 30666069
AN - SCOPUS:85048948944
SN - 0190-7409
VL - 91
SP - 248
EP - 258
JO - Children and Youth Services Review
JF - Children and Youth Services Review
ER -