Ements multiple times in that 18-month period. Furthermore, it is likely that the reason for the change in placement could affect a youth’s mental health functioning. For example, youth who changed placement due to the death of a caregiver would likely have greater difficulties than youth who change placement due to reunification with their biological parent. Future research should identify and control for not just a change in placement, but also the reason the youth had a change in living environment when assessing their functioning over time. A final consideration is in regard to comparisons of youth in kinship versus nonkinship foster care. First, in keeping with previous research on this population, those youth categorized as living in nonkinship foster care included various settings. Some youth may have been living in group homes while others may have lived with foster families. It is MG-132MedChemExpress MG-132 possible that there are between-group differences among those youth placed into nonkinship foster care; however, the small sample size limited these comparisons in this study. Additionally, exploratory analyses suggested that youth in this study placed into kinship foster homes were more likely to have caregivers with poorer physical health and less likely to change living situations between baseline and 18-month follow-up. This pattern is in keeping with hypotheses and prior research regarding kinship foster Pan-RAS-IN-1 molecular weight families (Barth et al., 2008a), but does indicate the need to exert caution when comparing these groups. Conclusion Child welfare services’ current practice is to attempt to identify kinship foster settings first when removing a child from their home, a practice used disproportionately for African American youth. This study suggests developmental and contextual factors predict changes in internalizing and externalizing problems among African American youth beyond the placement type. More specifically, contextual factors combine to determine child wellbeing, such that youth living with older caregivers in poorer health exhibit worsened outcomes over time. Results of this study illustrate the need for child welfare services to consider multiple factors when choosing appropriate settings for youth removed from their homes given the effects of contextual factors at many different levels. Future service provision may benefit from greater attention to within-home factors, such as a kinship caregiver’s health, as well as the neighborhoods into which youth are placed in efforts to provide a living environment with limited stressors to improve youth wellbeing.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAcknowledgementThe project described was supported by Award Number R03HD066066 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscriptJ Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Published in final edited form as: J Clin Psychol. 2016 April ; 72(4): 311?28. doi:10.1002/jclp.22273.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptTrauma-Informed Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Female Survivors of Interpersonal Violence: Results from a Stage I RCTAmber Kelly, PhD and Quinnipiac University Er.Ements multiple times in that 18-month period. Furthermore, it is likely that the reason for the change in placement could affect a youth’s mental health functioning. For example, youth who changed placement due to the death of a caregiver would likely have greater difficulties than youth who change placement due to reunification with their biological parent. Future research should identify and control for not just a change in placement, but also the reason the youth had a change in living environment when assessing their functioning over time. A final consideration is in regard to comparisons of youth in kinship versus nonkinship foster care. First, in keeping with previous research on this population, those youth categorized as living in nonkinship foster care included various settings. Some youth may have been living in group homes while others may have lived with foster families. It is possible that there are between-group differences among those youth placed into nonkinship foster care; however, the small sample size limited these comparisons in this study. Additionally, exploratory analyses suggested that youth in this study placed into kinship foster homes were more likely to have caregivers with poorer physical health and less likely to change living situations between baseline and 18-month follow-up. This pattern is in keeping with hypotheses and prior research regarding kinship foster families (Barth et al., 2008a), but does indicate the need to exert caution when comparing these groups. Conclusion Child welfare services’ current practice is to attempt to identify kinship foster settings first when removing a child from their home, a practice used disproportionately for African American youth. This study suggests developmental and contextual factors predict changes in internalizing and externalizing problems among African American youth beyond the placement type. More specifically, contextual factors combine to determine child wellbeing, such that youth living with older caregivers in poorer health exhibit worsened outcomes over time. Results of this study illustrate the need for child welfare services to consider multiple factors when choosing appropriate settings for youth removed from their homes given the effects of contextual factors at many different levels. Future service provision may benefit from greater attention to within-home factors, such as a kinship caregiver’s health, as well as the neighborhoods into which youth are placed in efforts to provide a living environment with limited stressors to improve youth wellbeing.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAcknowledgementThe project described was supported by Award Number R03HD066066 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.
HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscriptJ Clin Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 April 01.Published in final edited form as: J Clin Psychol. 2016 April ; 72(4): 311?28. doi:10.1002/jclp.22273.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptTrauma-Informed Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction for Female Survivors of Interpersonal Violence: Results from a Stage I RCTAmber Kelly, PhD and Quinnipiac University Er.