Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

7. Children’s Relationships to Caregivers and Peers and Their Expectations for the Future

Children’s descriptions of their lives provide insight into how they perceive their experiences, which can help inform supportive and stress-reducing interventions. Children have reported that the experience of being removed from their families can be a very difficult time for them (Johnson, Yoken, & Voss, 1995). Although most children whose families undergo an investigation related to child abuse and neglect are not removed, understanding the experience of maltreated children has broad importance. Children’s perceptions of important people in their lives, experiences in placement, school engagement, and spirituality may provide important insights into the world of children involved with CWS. Advocates routinely recommend that we understand the child welfare world through the eyes of the child (e.g., Woodhouse, 1995). This chapter provides a child’s-eye view of caregivers, placement experiences, protective factors, and hopes for the future.

7.1 Children’s Relationships to Caregivers

Whether children are at home or in foster care, the quality of the relationship with the caregiver is important. Evidence from numerous studies indicates that the relationship a child has with his or her caregivers contributes to both prosocial and problematic behaviors, an important aspect of child well-being (Anderson et al., 1999; Canter, 1982; Carlo et al., 1999; Heimer & DeCoster, 1999; Kerr, 2000, Sanner & Ellickson, 1996). The NSCAW survey obtains children’s responses to questions about relatedness and closeness to their caregivers as well as specific activities children and caregivers did together. The relatedness and closeness constructs differ in the following way. Relatedness focuses on specific caregiver behaviors that demonstrate interest and engagement in the child’s life. Closeness refers to the child’s perception of the caregiver’s emotional attachment to the child. Comparisons by service setting and race are presented. Where possible, we have compared NSCAW children with representative samples of youths.

7.1.1 Relatedness to Caregiver

Items from the Rochester Assessment Package for Schools–Student (RAPS) Relatedness scale (Connell, 1991; Lynch & Cicchetti, 1991) were used to measure relatedness to the caregiver for children aged 11 to 15 years. Relatedness includes how the child feels with the caregiver, the quality of involvement with the caregiver, the extent to which the child feels controlled by the caregiver, and the child’s perception of clear caregiver expectations for behavior (Connell, 1991). A mean score was created to account for differences that resulted because not all respondents answered questions with regard to a secondary caregiver. Relatedness scores range from 1 (most negative view of caregivers) to 4 (most positive view of caregivers). The overall mean score of 3.3 suggests that children generally report a sense of relatedness to their caregivers. No significant differences in relatedness to the caregivers exist between placement types or by race/ethnicity of the child (Table 7-1).

Table 7-1. Relatedness to Caregiver

		TOTAL	Setting
			In Home			Out-of-Home
			No Services	Services	TOTAL In-Home	Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	TOTAL Out-of-Home ^
		Mean(SE)
Race/ Ethnicity	African American	3.3 (.1)	3.4 (.1)	3.3 (.1)	3.3 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.4 (.1)	2.8 (.1)	3.3 (.1)
	White	3.3 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.4 (.1)	3.3 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.3 (.1)	3.1 (.2)	3.3 (.1)
	Hispanic	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.2)	2.9 (.2)	3.1 (.1)	3.5 (.1)	3.5 (.2)	---	3.2 (.1)
	Other	3.2 (.1)	3.2 (.2)	3.2 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.3 (.1)	---	---	3.3 (.2)
TOTAL		3.3 (<.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.3 (<.1)	3.3 (<.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.4 (.1)	3.0 (.1)	3.3 (.1)

^ Includes “other” out-of-home placement. (back)

Multivariate analyses confirm these bivariate findings. When relatedness to the caregiver is examined, controlling for association of gender, race/ethnicity, and service setting, linear regression analysis indicates no significant differences.

7.1.2 Closeness to Caregiver

Four questions from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) (Carolina Population Center, 2001) ask children how close they feel to their primary and secondary caregivers and how much they think their caregiver cares about them. The questions were summed to create a closeness–to-caregiver score, ranging from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating a higher level of closeness. No significant differences in closeness to the caregiver were found between in-home or out-of-home setting, within in-home or out-of-home settings, or by race/ethnicity of the child (Table 7-2).

When closeness to the caregiver is examined, controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, and service setting, one significant difference emerges in the multivariate analysis. Children in foster care feel significantly less close to their caregiver compared with children living at home and not receiving services (Table 7-3).

7.1.3 Activities with Caregivers

Other questions taken from the Add Health survey concerned joint activities in which the child and caregiver participated within the past 4 weeks. Children could endorse 10 possible activities, such as shopping, discussing dating, working on a school project, attending a religious service, or playing sports together.

Table 7-2. Closeness to Caregiver

		TOTAL	Setting
			In Home			Out-of-Home
			No Services	Services	TOTAL In-Home	Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	TOTAL Out-of-Home ^
		Mean/ (SE)
Race/ Ethnicity	African American	4.4 (.1)	4.4 (.2)	4.5 (.1)	4.5 (.1)	3.9 (.4)	4.2 (.1)	2.8 (.5)	4.0 (.2)
	White	4.3 (.1)	4.3 (.1)	4.5 (.1)	4.3 (.1)	3.8 (.2)	4.0 (.1)	4.0 (.2)	4.0 (.1)
	Hispanic	4.2 (.2)	4.2 (.3)	4.1 (.1)	4.2 (.2)	4.4 (.2)	4.7 (.1)	---	4.4 (.2)
	Other	4.5 (.1)	4.6 (.1)	4.4 (.2)	4.5 (.1)	4.2 (.3)	---	---	4.4 (.2)
TOTAL		4.3 (.1)	4.3 (.1)	4.4 (.1)	4.3 (.1)	3.9 (.2)	4.2 (.1)	3.8 (.2)	4.1 (.1)

^ Includes “other” out-of-home placement. (back)

Table 7-3. Regression Modeling Closeness to Caregiver

		Beta Coefficient (SE)
Gender	Female	(reference group)
	Male	.23 (.10)
Child Setting/ Services	No Services	(reference group)
	Services	.07 (.11)
	Foster home	-.50 (.18)*
	Kinship care	-.16 (.16)
	Group home	-.58 (.26)
Race/Ethnicity	White	(reference group)
	African American	.10 (.12)
	Hispanic	-.08 (.23)
	Other	.24 (.13)

Multiple R2 is .05. * p<.01 (back)

Each of the 10 activity questions was examined individually. One significant difference exists between in-home and out-of-home children, with children living in the home reporting that they talk to their secondary caregiver significantly more frequently than children living out of the home. Comparison data were available from the 11- to 15-year-olds in the Wave 1 Add Health public use sample (unweighted n = 3,306) collected from September 1994 to December 1995. (For complete information on Add Health, see http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/Add Health.)

Compared with children in the Add Health sample, children involved in CWS appear to engage in some activities with their primary caregiver more frequently than youths in the general population; these activities include playing sports, attending an event, working on a school project, and talking about other school issues. Children involved with CWS also appear to be more likely to go shopping, talk about a personal problem, and work on a school project with their secondary caregiver. Because standard errors are not available for the Add Health public use sample, the responses of the NSCAW and Add Health samples could not be compared more precisely (Table 7-4).

“Yes” responses for the nine items that show positive involvement between youths and caregivers were summed to create a caregiver involvement index. (The question asking about having a serious argument was omitted from the score.) Children involved with CWS report engaging in an average of five of the nine activities with the primary caregiver and slightly fewer with the secondary caregiver (3.7). The number of activities engaged in by children living in the home and children placed out of the home did not differ significantly.

7.1.4 Discussion

Taken together, these findings suggest that children involved with CWS generally have close relationships with their caregivers and engage in a variety of positive activities with them. Furthermore, these youths do not appear to be greatly different than a general sample of American youths in terms of the activities they engage in with their caregivers. Children involved with CWS appear different from children in a general sample of youths in a few ways: they appear to talk more with both their primary and secondary caregivers about school-related problems; play sports or go shopping with their caregivers; and talk more with caregivers about personal problems. Because standard errors are unavailable, differences from the Add Health sample are discussed if there is a difference of 10 or more percentage points between the NSCAW sample and the comparison sample. Although this seems somewhat counterintuitive, it is possible that youngsters in CWS need or receive more guidance from their caregivers than a general population sample of adolescents. Youths without the difficult life circumstances that bring children into contact with CWS services may be more likely to seek support from friends or other adult mentors and not evoke as much parental involvement.

7.2 Peer Relations, School Engagement, and Protective Factors

This section presents information on risk and protective factors outside of the family, including peers, school, religious participation, and relationships with caring adults. A growing body of research documents the influence of each of these areas on development. For instance, peer relationships have been associated with antisocial behaviors ranging from substance abuse to criminal activity (Jessor et al., 1995). Deficits in peer relationships may place children at greater risk for interpersonal and intrapsychic distress and school failure (Lewin, Davis, & Hops, 1999). Accordingly, peer relationships are examined in this chapter.

School difficulties are well outlined in the child welfare literature, particularly for children placed outside of the home. Retrospective studies with adults who have grown up in CWS frequently report negative or inadequate educational experiences while in care (Barth, 1990; Festinger, 1983). Ample evidence exists of poor school performance (Cook, 1997; Courtney et al., 1998), frequent disruptions in school placements (Webster, Barth, & Needell, 2001), and high levels of participation in special education services (Goerge et al., 1992). Yet little is known about precursors of school achievement, such as school engagement (Catalano & Hawkins, 1987). School engagement refers to the sense of importance attached to participating in academic pursuits and the perception that such participation is welcome and will be rewarded. NSCAW data related to school engagement are presented here.

Table 7-4. Activities with Caregivers

Question		Percent(SE)
		Add Health^	NSCAW
			TOTAL	Total In Home	Total Out of Home
Primary Caregiver	Shopping	73	77.6 (2.4)	79.3 (2.4)	66.9 (5.5)
	Played sport	9	26.0 (2.7)	26.9 (2.9)	20.1 (4.0)
	Attended religious service	38	41.0 (3.3)	40.4 (3.6)	44.8 (6.0)
	Talked about dating	46	45.9 (3.0)	46.9 (3.5)	39.3 (5.2)
	Attended event	26	42.3 (2.5)	42.7 (2.8)	40.3 (5.7)
	Talked about personal problems	38	53.7 (3.4)	54.2 (3.9)	50.7 (5.1)
	Had serious argument about child's behavior	33	31.3 (3.0)	32.7 (3.4)	22.4 (4.2)
	Talked about school	62	70.7 (2.9)	71.2 (3.4)	67.7 (5.3)
	Worked on school project	13	34.9 (3.3)	35.9 (3.6)	28.2 (5.4)
	Talked about other school things	51	66.8 (4.0)	68.1 (4.3)	58.4 (6.0)
Secondary Caregiver	Shopping	27	50.0 (3.9)	51.0 (4.6)	44.0 (8.3)
	Played sport	32	31.8 (3.7)	33.3 (4.3)	22.5 (5.9)
	Attended religious service	31	26.7 (3.3)	25.6 (3.7)	33.5 (8.2)
	Talked about dating	27	33.3 (4.4)	35.4 (5.0)	19.8 (4.9)
	Attended event	24	32.2 (3.1)	30.6 (3.5)	41.5 (8.9)
	Talked about personal problems	19	33.3 (4.6)	33.8 (5.0)	30.0 (6.7)
	Had serious argument about child’s behavior	25	28.0 (4.2)	30.0 (4.7)	15.5 (5.2)
	Talked about school	51	57.5 (3.6)	57.9 (4.0)	55.0 (7.5)
	Worked on school project	11	25.0 (3.0)	24.7 (3.2)	26.9 (7.7)
	Talked about other school things	44	47.7 (4.0)	47.3 (4.3)	50.5 (7.6)

^ Add Health standard errors could not be obtained. (back)

A variety of protective factors have been associated with positive outcomes for children growing up in high-risk situations. Two such factors are the presence of caring adults and religious participation (Rutter, 1987; Seidman, Mosher, & Aral, 1994: Werner & Smith, 1982). Findings about caring adults and religious participation are also presented in this section.

7.2.1 Peer Relations at School

Peer relationships at school for children 5 and older were measured using a modification of the Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction scale (Asher & Wheeler, 1985). Items ask how true various statements are, such as “It’s easy for me to make new friends at school,” “It’s hard for me to get kids in school to like me,” and “I don’t have anyone to play with at school.” Answer categories for children from 5 to 7 years old were yes, sometimes, and no. Answer categories for children over 8 years old were never, hardly ever, sometimes, most of the time, and always. A mean score was calculated, after recoding, so that higher scores reflect more loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Possible scores range from 1 to 3 for 5- to 7-year-olds and 1 to 5 for children aged 8 years and older.

Children aged 5 to 7 years report a mean score of 1.5, which indicates some dissatisfaction with peer relationships. Only one difference was found in the bivariate analysis. African American children living in out-of-home care report more loneliness and social dissatisfaction than Hispanic children living in out-of-home care (Table 7-5). However, no significant differences were found in the multivariate models.

Table 7-5. Peer Relations, Children Aged 5 to 7 Years

		TOTAL	Setting
			In-Home			Out-of-Home
			No Services	Services	TOTAL In-Home	Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	TOTAL^ Out-of-Home
		Mean/ (SE)
Race/ Ethnicity	African American	1.5 (0.03)	1.5 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	1.5 (0.04)	1.8 (0.2)	1.7 (0.1)	---	1.7 a (0.1)
	White	1.5 (0.04)	1.4 (0.03)	1.7 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	1.3 (0.1)	---	1.4 (0.1)
	Hispanic	1.5 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	1.6 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	---	1.3 (0.1)	---	1.2 (0.1)
	Other	1.6 (0.1)	1.6 (0.1)	1.5 (0.1)	1.6 (0.1)	---	---	---	---
TOTAL		1.5 (0.02)	1.4 (0.02)	1.6 (0.06)	1.5 (0.03)	1.6 (0.1)	1.4 (0.1)	---	1.5 (0.03)

^ Note: Includes children living in “other” types of out-of-home care. (back) a African American children living out of the home have higher scores than Hispanic children living out of the home (t = -3.1, p<.01). (back)

Children aged 8 to 15 years had a mean score of 2.0, indicating that they are rarely lonely or dissatisfied with their peer relationships. But 8- to 10-year-olds are significantly less satisfied with their peer relationships than children aged 11 and older. This difference in peer satisfaction by age also exists for children remaining in the home, with 8- to 10-year-olds reporting less peer relationship satisfaction than older children (Table 7-6).

Table 7-6. Peer Relations, Children Aged 8 to 15 Years

		TOTAL	Setting
			In-Home			Out-of-Home
			No Services	Services	TOTAL In-Home	Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	TOTAL^ Out-of-Home
		Mean/ (SE)
Age	8-10	2.1 a (0.04)	2.1 (0.1)	2.2 (0.1)	2.1 b (0.1)	2.0 (0.1)	2.3 (0.2)	2.2 (0.6)	2.2 (0.1)
	11+	1.9 (0.04)	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	2.4 (0.3)	2.0 (0.1)
Race/ Ethnicity	African American	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	2.0 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	1.9 (0.1)	2.1 (0.3)	2.3 (0.2)	2.0 (0.1)
	White	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.2)	2.4 (0.4)	2.1 (0.1)
	Hispanic	2.1 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	2.0 (0.1)	2.1 (0.1)	1.7 (0.2)	2.0 (0.1)	---	1.9 (0.2)
	Other	2.1 (0.1)	2.2 (0.1)	1.7 (0.2)	2.1 (0.1)	1.8 (0.1)	2.0 (0.2)	2.2 (0.1)	2.2 (0.2)
TOTAL		2.0 (0.03)	2.0 (0.1)	2.0 (0.04)	2.0 (0.04)	2.0 (0.1)	2.1 (0.2)	2.4 (0.3)	2.1 (0.1)

^ Includes “other” types of out-of-home care. (back) a Scores of 8- to 10-year-olds are higher than for children aged 11 and over (t = 3.6, p<.001). (back) b Scores of 8- to 10-year-olds who live at home are higher than for children 11 and older who live at home (t = 3.3, p<.01). (back)

Regression analysis confirmed the bivariate findings. When controlling for gender, race/ethnicity, CWS setting, and age, 8- to 10-year-olds report significantly less satisfaction with peer relationships. No other significant differences were present in the multivariate models.

In sum, children in CWS do not report high levels of loneliness or dissatisfaction with their peers, at least at baseline. The ability to interact positively with peers is a strength that may possibly be used to combat the many difficulties that children involved with CWS face. Interventions that encourage peer support networks, help children in placement maintain contact with friends, and promote prosocial peer involvement may be particularly important to this population. Younger children reporting less satisfaction with their peers may need assistance in creating and maintaining supportive peer networks.

7.2.2 School Engagement and Problem Behavior

NSCAW asked all children over the age of 6 a series of questions about their involvement in school. Children were asked how often they enjoyed being in school, completed their homework, tried to do their best work, found classes interesting, listened carefully in class, and got along with teachers and other students. Other items asked about indicators of problems in school, like being sent to the office and having to stay after school. Following factor analysis, seven items were used to create the school engagement scale. The items retained in the scale included how often the child enjoys being in school, tried to do his or her best, finds classes interesting, gets along with teachers, gets along with other students, listens carefully, and completes homework. The scale ranges from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating higher school engagement. The mean score for the whole sample was 3.13. Table 7-7 presents a comparison of mean school engagement scores by age, race/ethnicity, and service setting and demonstrates that there are few differences in children’s levels of reported school engagement. The mean score is 3 or higher for all categories of children considered. The only bivariate difference is by gender; boys had slightly lower school engagement scores than girls, which is generally found in such comparisons.

Table 7-7. School Engagement

		TOTAL	Setting
			In-Home			Out-of-Home
			No Services	Services	TOTAL In-Home	Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	TOTAL Out-of-Home
		Mean/ (SE)
Age	6-10	3.2 (<.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.2 (<.1)	3.0 (.1)	3.1 (.2)	2.9 (.1)	3.0 (.1)
	11+	3.0 (<.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (<.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.0 (.2)	3.0 (.1)
Race/ Ethnicity	African American	3.1 (<.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.0 (.1)	3.2 (<.1)	3.0 (.1)	2.9 (.2)	2.8 (.1)	2.9 (.1)
	White	3.1 (<.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.3 (.2)	3.0 (.2)	3.1 (.1)
	Hispanic	3.2 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	2.8 (.2)	3.2 (.1)	2.8 (.1)	2.9 (.1)
	Other	3.1 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.2 (.1)	3.1 (.1)	3.3 (.2)	2.9 (.2)	2.9 (.3)	3.0 (.1)
TOTAL		3.1 (<.1)	3.2 (<.1)	3.1 (<.1)	3.1 (<.1)	3.0 (.07)	3.1 (.1)	3.0 (.1)	3.0 (.1)

Multivariate analyses were performed to test the robustness of the bivariate findings. Table 7-8 presents the results of multiple regression analyses predicting the level of school engagement by age, race/ethnicity, gender, and placement type. Two models are contained in this table. The first considers all possible placement types; the second divides children into in-home and out-of-home settings. As seen in Table 7-8, gender remains the only variable significantly associated with school engagement in both models.

Additional items that did not load on the school engagement factor or cluster together as a scale, but that appear important at face value, were also compared for differences in placement type. Questions asking how often children found schoolwork difficult, how often they were sent to the principal’s office or had to stay after school because of behavior problems, and how often they failed to complete school assignments were examined. Table 7-9 presents percentages of children in each comparison group reporting that they “sometimes or often” have difficulty in these areas.

Table 7-8. Regression Models Predicting School Engagement by Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Placement Type

		Model 1 Beta Coefficient (SE)	Model 2 Beta Coefficient (SE)
Age	6-10	.71 (.40)	.71 (.40)
	11 years and older	Reference group	Reference group
Gender	Female	Reference group	Reference group
	Malea	-1.13 (.30)	-1.18 (.30)
Race/ Ethnicity	White	Reference group	Reference group
	African American	.10 (.42)	.15 (.40)
	Hispanic	.31 (.73)	.34 (.70)
	Other	.06 (.73)	.04 (.70)
Child Setting/ Services	No Services	Reference group	Reference group
	Services	-.57 (.38)	-.50 (.60)
	Foster home	-.90 (.50)	N/A
	Kin Care	-.64 (.93)	N/A
	Group Home	-1.07 (.97)	N/A

Model 1: Multiple R2 is .03. Model 2: Multiple R2 is .03. a Boys appear to have lower school engagement than girls (p<.01). (back)

In bivariate comparisons, differences were found between age groups for each of these variables. Children who are 11 years of age and older report more difficulties in each area than younger children. One significant gender difference was noted with males reporting that they are sent to the office or stay after school because of disciplinary problems more often than females. Males also tend (p < .05) to have more difficulty with homework completion. Contrary to our expectations—and the previous findings on school engagement—males tend (p < .05) to be less likely than females to report trouble doing schoolwork.

These variables were coded into two categories, never and sometimes or often, to allow for logistic regression analysis. Two models were considered: one including all possible placement types and the second comparing children by in-home and out-of-home placement. Table 7-10 presents these results.

Age is significantly associated with each of the three school difficulties in both models. Older children report not completing assignments, having disciplinary problems, and finding schoolwork too hard. In addition, males report having discipline problems and not completing assignments more often than females. Finally, Hispanic children reported finding work too hard less often than White children. Service setting has no pattern of covariation with these school problem indicators.

Table 7-9. Indicators of School Problems, by Age, Gender, Race/Ethnicity, and Setting

		Finds Work Difficult Sometimes/Often	To the Office or After School Discipline Sometimes/Often	Failed Homework Completion Sometimes/Often
		Percent / (SE)
Total		79.3 (1.8)	28.9 (1.9)	67.8 (2.5)
Age	6–10	73.1 (2.3)	22.6 (2.2)	60.5 (3.7)
	11 years and older	86.5 (2.1) a	36.9 (2.9) b	76.2 (3.2) c
Gender	Female	82.6 (2.8)	19.6 (2.0) d	64.5 (3.1)
	Male	75.8 (1.9)	39.4 (2.9)	71.5 (2.9)
Race/Ethnicity	White	81.8 (2.6)	30.3 (2.7)	66.9 (3.5)
	African American	80.6 (3.6)	31.5 (4.4)	69.4 (4.0)
	Hispanic	68.0 (4.5)	21.6 (4.1)	66.5 (6.9)
	Other	82.7 (6.5)	28.7 (7.2)	68.5 (7.2)
Child Setting/Services	No CWS	79.2 (2.8)	27.4(3.8)	67.2 (3.1)
	CWS	79.7 (3.2)	33.0 (4.1)	69.7 (3.7)
	Foster home	74.5 (5.5)	21.1 (3.8)	69.3 (5.6)
	Kinship Care	87.4 (3.8)	27.5 (5.2)	70.7 (6.2)
	Group Home	75.0 (14.4)	45.4 (12.4)	60.1 (13.8)
	Total In-Home	79.4 (1.5)	28.9 (2.1)	67.9 (2.7)
	Total Out of Home	78.7 (3.7)	29.3 (3.2)	67.7 (4.8)

aOlder children are significantly more likely to have reported finding schoolwork difficult (X2 = 21.3, df = 1, p<.001). (back) bOlder children are significantly more likely to have reported that they often or sometimes had to go to the office or stay after school for disciplinary problems (X2 = 16.9, df = 1, p<.001). (back) cOlder children are significantly more likely to have reported that they sometimes or often failed to complete homework assignments (X2 = 8.52, df = 1, p<.01). (back) dMales were more likely than females to report staying after school or going to the office for discipline problems than were females (X2 = 20.2, df = 1, p<.001). (back)

These findings represent a baseline measurement of school engagement. The differences between males and females suggest that males should be targeted early with supportive educational interventions and that older children in CWS may be especially vulnerable to school difficulties. Future data collection will enable investigators to examine changes in levels of school engagement over time and, perhaps, as associated with services received.

7.2.3 Protective Factors: Caring Adults and Religious Participation

In the NSCAW survey, all children aged 11 and older were asked seven questions about protective influences in their lives. Five of these questions focused on caring adults and two on religious salience and participation. Table 7-11 compares percentages, by race/ethnicity and child setting, of children saying “yes” to the presence of the particular type of person mentioned. (These items were analyzed separately because they did not coalesce into a reliable scale.)

Table 7-10. Odds Ratios and Confidence Intervals: Respondent Answering “Sometimes or Often”

		Finds Work Difficult Model 1	Finds Work Difficult Model 2	To the Office or After–School Discipline Model 1	To the Office or After–School Discipline Model 2	Homework Completion Model 1	Homework Completion Model 2
		Odd Ratio/ (95% CI)
Age a	6-10	.43 (.28-.65)	.44 (.29-.67)	.44 (.31-.62)	.42 (.30-.60)	.45 (.28-.72)	.46 (.29-.74)
	11-15	(reference group)
Gender b	Female	(reference group)
	Male	.72 (.46-1.13)	.69 (.43-1.08)	2.85 (2.0-4.0)	2.94 (2.08-4.16)	1.48 (1.09-2.00)	1.52 (1.13-2.06)
Race/Ethnicity	White	(reference group)
	African American	.85 (.46-1.56)	.91 (.48-1.69)	1.19 (.77 –1.84)	1.15 (.73-1.82)	1.22 (.74-2.01)	1.18 (.74-1.87)
	Hispanic c	.43 (.28-.68)	.45 (.29-.71)	.79 (.46-1.35)	.77 (.45-1.31)	1.12 (.57-2.19)	1.10 (.57-2.15)
	Other	1.17 (.38-3.61)	1.2 (.4-3.80)	1.12 (.51-2.46)	1.10 (.51-2.39)	1.29 (.59-2.82)	1.23 (.57-2.64)
Child Service Setting	No Services	(reference group)	N/A	(reference group)	N/A	(reference group)	N/A
	Services	.98 (.59-1.64)	N/A	1.18 (.74 –1.89)	N/A	1.02 (.70-1.48)	N/A
	Foster Home	.72 (.39-1.30)	N/A	.65 (.37 –1.13)	N/A	1.11 (.64-1.95)	N/A
	Kinship Care	1.54 (.75-3.19)	N/A	1.01 (.57-1.76)	N/A	1.20 (.59-2.42)	N/A
	Group Home	.60 (.14-2.50)	N/A	1.57 (.61-4.03)	N/A	.56 (.19-1.64)	N/A
	Total In-home	N/A	(reference group)	N/A	(reference group)	N/A	(reference group)
	Total Out-of-Home	N/A	.83 (.52-1.30)	N/A	.93 (.65-1.35)	N/A	.96 (.57-1.6)
R2 for each model		R2=.05	R2=.05	R2=.08	R2=.08	R2=.04	R2=.04

a Significant in both models for all variables. Older children reported more difficulties than younger children (p≤.001). (back) b Significant in both models for discipline and homework completion problems. Males reported more difficulties in these areas than females (p≤.001). (back) c Significant in both models. Hispanic children reported finding “work too difficult” less often than White children (p≤.001). (back)

Table 7-11. Percentage of Yes Responses to Presence of Adult Supports

		Has an Adult to Turn To	Can Go to Parent with Problems	Can Go to Relative with Problems	Adult Outside of Family Provided Encouragement	Adult Made a Difference in Child’s Life
		Percent/ (SE)
Total		94.5 (1.4)	94.0 (1.6)	82.9 (2.1)	90.6 (1.9)	82.3 (2.5)
Race/ Ethnicity	White	94.2 (2.5)	95.2 (1.1)	84.4 (2.7)	91.8 (2.5)	82.8 (3.4)
	African American	92.5 (2.5)	95.3 (2.5)	80.3 (4.8)	92.5 (2.3)	79.9 (3.5)
	Hispanic	98.4 (.66)	90.5 (4.5)	80.3 (4.6)	86.8 (5.1)	86.7 (5.6)
	Other	94.6 (2.9)	87.2 (7.7)	89.6 (4.4)	81.5 (7.0)	82.3 (9.6)
Child Setting/ Services	No Services	93.4 (2.2)	93.5 (2.5)	83.4 (2.7)	89.3 (2.8)	81.1 (3.6)
	Services	96.4 (1.1)	94.6 (1.4)	82.6 (3.6)	91.8 (2.4)	82.9 (4.3)
	Foster home	98.0 (1.4)	92.2 (4.4)	79.9 (5.7)	94.6 (2.8)	81.3 (5.9)
	Kinship Care	95.8 (2.2)	95.9 (2.4)	85.2 (5.8)	93.8 (3.5)	87.0 (6.3)
	Group Home	98.1 (1.3)	96.1 (2.3)	69.0 (9.9)	92.1 (5.0)	96.0 (2.2)
	Total In-Home	94.3 (1.6)	93.9 (1.9)	82.9 (2.1)	90.8 (2.1)	81.6 (2.8)
	Total Out-of-Home	95.8 (2.0)	94.8 (1.6)	81.1 (3.4)	93.7 (2.1)	89.4 (2.9)

Over 80% of children in the sample report that adults were available to help with problems—both inside and outside of the family. In addition, these children report that nonrelative adults are available to provide encouragement and to “make a difference in the child’s life.” When bivariate analyses were performed, no significant differences were found by race/ethnicity, gender, or child setting.

Two questions focused on religion. The first asked how important religion was to the child. Children could answer “not at all important,” “only a little bit important,” “somewhat important,” or “very important.” The second question asked how often children actually participated in religious observances. Children could answer “never,” “rarely or occasionally,” “once or twice a month,” or “once a week or more.” These variables were recoded into dichotomous variables for analysis. Children who considered religion “not at all important” or “only a little important” were combined, and those indicating that religion was “somewhat important” or “very important” were combined. Similarly, children who never, rarely, or occasionally participated in religious observances were categorized together, and those who participated at least once per month or more were put in the same category. Next, bivariate analyses were conducted to examine differences by race/ethnicity, gender, and the child’s setting. Table 7-12 compares the findings for these questions.

Table 7-12. Religious Participation–Percentage Reporting Yes

		Religion Important	Regular Religious Participation
		Percent/ (SE)
Total		82. 0 (2.2)	60.2 (3.1)
Race/ Ethnicity	White	79.6 (5.1)	56.1 (4.5)
	African American	84.4 (3.8)	65.3 (5.3)
	Hispanic	84.2 (4.1)	70.6 (7.2)
	Other	89.0 (1.5)	51.7 (9.6)
Child Setting/ Services	No Services	78.9 (3.2)	59.6 (4.5)
	Services	86.1 (2.7)	59.6 (3.8)
	Foster home	91.4 (2.7)	80.0 (6.0)
	Kinship Care	93.6 (3.3)	69.9 (6.3)
	Group Home	82.1 (6.8)	38.8 (10.4)
	Total In-Home	81.0 (2.4)	59.6 (3.4)
	Total Out-of-Home a	91.5 (1.8)	69.6 (4.7)

a Children living in out-of-home care reported that religion was more important than children remaining at home (X2 = 11.81 df = 1 p≤.001). (back)

In the bivariate analysis, children in out-of-home care report that religion was important more often than those in in-home care. A logistic analysis was performed to assess the robustness of this finding. Table 7-13 presents these findings.

Model 1 includes all possible child settings. When the analysis was conducted with all possible settings included, this variable approached statistical significance (p≤.03). Children living in family foster homes and children in kinship care appear to have higher odds of reporting that religion is important to them when compared with children living in the home without child welfare services and when compared with children in group care.

In model 2, children were compared on the basis of in-home versus out-of-home care. Child setting was again the only significant predictor (p≤.001). Children in out-of-home care have two and one-half times the odds of those in in-home care of indicating that religion is important to them.

These findings are intriguing. High percentages of these children are reporting that they have supportive adults in their lives, with no differences found by demographic characteristics or by child setting. Most of these youths are also reporting that religion is important to them, and over half report regular religious participation. The finding that children in family foster homes and kinship homes found religion more salient than those in other settings may indicate that these particular settings reinforce the importance of religion in ways other settings do not. Certainly, differences that predate placement could also explain these differences in religiosity.

Table 7-13. Logistic Regression Models: Child Believes Religion Is Important

		Believes Religion Is Important Model 1 OR (95% CI)	Believes Religion Is Important Model 2 OR (95% CI)
Gender	Female	(reference group)	(reference group)
	Male	1.21 (.61 – 2.41)	1.22 (.61-2.41)
Race/ Ethnicity	White	(reference group)	(reference group)
	African American	1.39 (.56-2.96)	1.34 (.59-3.07)
	Hispanic	1.51 (.50-4.50)	1.49 (.50-4.48)
	Other	1.96 (.77-5.12)	2.07 (.81-5.32)
Child Setting/ Services	No Services	(reference group)	N/A
	Services	1.66 (.91-3.02)	N/A
	Foster Home	2.86 (1.34-6.08)	N/A
	Kinship Care	3.95 (1.23-12.75)	N/A
	Group Home	1.3 (.48-3.56)	N/A
	Total In-Home	N/A	(reference group)
	Total Out-of-Home	N/A	2.55 (1.53-4.24) a
R2 for each model		R2=.02	R2=.02

a Children in out-of-home care reported that religion was more important to them than those in in-home care (p≤.001). (back)

7.3 Children’s Perceptions and Expectations

This section presents an analysis of children’s perceptions of current placements and their hopes for their futures. In addition to providing an inside view into children’s placement experiences, children’s views of their future may be helpful in understanding their current choices and behavior (Dubow et al., 2001; Harris, Duncan, & Boisjoly, 2002). Positive expectations for the future have been associated with positive socioemotional adjustment and self-perceptions of competency (Wyman et al., 1993). Children living in out-of-home care were asked about their perceptions of their current living situation. Children in all types of service settings were also asked about their expectations for the future.

7.3.1 Perceptions and Expectations of Children in Out-of-Home Care

CWS planners and providers are increasingly attentive to the experiences of children in out-of-home care. Only a few studies (e.g., Berrick et al., 2001; Chapman, Wall, & Barth, 2002; Johnson, Yoken, & Voss, 1995) have asked children about their views of permanency. In this study, children aged 6 and older (n = 641) who were in out-of-home care were asked how they viewed their current living situation, their thoughts about where they would live in the future, and their views of their biological parents (Table 7-14). Over one-third (39%) of these children were in traditional foster homes, almost half (46%) were in kinship foster homes, and approximately 15% were in group care.

Table 7-14. Children’s Descriptions of Their Out-of-Home Care Experience

				%
Demographic Characteristic of Child	Age		6-10	56
			11-15	44
	Race/Ethnicity		African American/Non-Hispanic	34
			White/Non-Hispanic	50
			Hispanic	9
			Other	7
	Placement type		Foster Care	39
			Kinship Care	46
			Group Care	15
Placement History	How many have been in placement before?			50.3
	Reason for leaving placement?		Family Reunification	19.6
			Child Behavior	14.2
			Child Request/Ran away	23.4
			Child was not told reason	15.9
			Other	26.0
	Who made the decision?		Professional	65.4
			Nonkin Caregiver	11.5
			Relative	23.1
	Who told the child about the decision?		Professional	50.6
			Nonkin Caregiver	20.1
			Relative	29.3
	How involved was the child in the decision?		Little, if any	53.9
			Somewhat	5.8
			Very	40.3
Family Visits	Frequency of Visits—Mother		Never	32.9
			< 1 month	9.7
			Once or twice a month	19.1
			Once a week or more	38.4
	Frequency of Visits—Father		Never	4.9
			< 1 month	9.7
			Once or twice a month	12.1
			Once a week or more	23.3
	Frequency of Visits—Siblings		Never	37.4
			< 1 month	13.6
			Once or twice a month	29.8
			Once a week or more	19.2
	Feelings after visits ^		Happy/Relaxed	71.6/28.6
			Sad/Upset/Lonely	30.8/18.3/20.1
			Angry	15.8
			Worried/Afraid/Guilty	23.6/13.9/12.5
	Child avoids visits		Yes	6.1
			No	93.9
Hopes for the Future	Believe she/she will live with his/her siblings again		Yes	52.1
			No	47.9
	If child could live with anyone, who?		Mother	48.2
			Father	32.9
			Current Caregiver	4.0
			Aunt/Uncle	13.
			Grandmother	19.4
			Biological Sibling	5.4
			All others	≤ 10

Due to rounding, groupings may not total to 100%. ^ Note, children could indicate “all that apply;” similar categories are grouped together. (back)

On average, these children had entered their current placement 6.9 months before they were interviewed. For many of these children and youths, their current placement is not their first. Children were asked about their understanding of why they left the prior placement.

Children reported leaving those placements for a variety of reasons, including family reunification with parents or siblings (20%), child behavior or caregiver request (14%), child request or child ran away (24%). Sixteen percent report never being told why they left their last placement, and 31% left for other unspecified reasons.

Visiting between parents and children is expected in CWS, especially during the early months following placement. However, by the children’s report, nearly a third of these children (30%) have not seen their mother since placement. Many children (48%) have seen their biological mother less than, or equal to, twice per month. This percentage does not include those youths who reported not seeing their biological mother since placement. Nearly 9 of 10 children want more contact with their mother. Over half (55%) indicate that they never see their biological fathers. Approximately one-fifth (22%) of the children have seen their biological fathers less than or equal to twice a month. Over three-quarters (83%) desire more contact with their fathers. Visitation with siblings is also limited, with over one-third (37%) reporting that they have not seen their siblings since placement. Most children (77%) report wanting more contact with siblings and frequently missing their family (84%). Only 6% of children report avoiding family visits. The most frequently endorsed feeling after family visits is “happy,” with 72% of children reporting this feeling.

However, children clearly have mixed emotions following visits. Even though almost a third of the respondents report feeling relaxed (29%) following visits; a third (31%) also report feeling sad (children could endorse more than one feeling). Almost one quarter (24%) report feeling worried and 20% report feeling lonely following visits. Fewer than 20% report feeling angry (16%), upset (18%), guilty (12%), or afraid (14%)—note that children were able to choose more than one feeling; therefore percentages total to over 100%. Visits are frequently cancelled for 19% of children.

Being placed in out-of-home care does cause significant change in many aspects of children’s lives. Most children move to a new neighborhood (78%) and change schools (75%) as a result of this out-of-home placement. Overall, almost three-quarters (75%) of the children report that their new neighborhood is the same as or better than where they previously lived, and 68% report that their new school is better than their previous school.

Although children must adapt to a host of life changes when placed into out-of-home care, most appear to view their experiences in foster care positively. Over three-quarters (80%) of children like the people that they are living with and feel like they are part of their foster family (87%). In addition, almost one-third (31%) say they want to be adopted by their current caregiver, and two-fifths (40%) say that they want their current home to become their permanent home. Still, 15% of children have attempted to leave their current placement.

Many children retain hope for reunification with their families. Most of the children (68%) believe that they will live with their biological parents again, and 66% believe that “things will be different this time.” In addition, when asked whom they would most like to live with, they very often indicated their wish to go home. The most frequently chosen answers were their biological mother (48%) and their biological father (33%).

Other frequently endorsed possibilities include a grandmother (19%) and an aunt or uncle (14%). Fewer than 10% endorse biological siblings or friends. Less than 5% endorse any of the following: current foster parents, former foster parents, a new unspecified foster home, a current group setting, step-parents, grandfathers, great grandmothers, great aunts or uncles, foster siblings, other relatives, neighbors, girlfriends or boyfriends, teachers or other adults, or living alone. None of the respondents report wanting to live with a great grandfather, in a previous group care setting, or in a juvenile justice/incarceration facility.

These findings can be interpreted in a variety of ways. First, the children may not have felt comfortable enough in the interview setting to share more negative thoughts about their current placement. Ideally, interviews were to be private and conducted in a separate space from the foster parent, but some living situations did not permit an optimal level of privacy. Another interpretation is that these findings represent ambivalence in the lives of children in out-of-home care. That is, while children are appreciative of their current living situations, the circumstances that brought them into CWS do not break their emotional ties to their biological parents and they maintain hope that those relationships can continue and be more positive in the future. These feelings may or may not mean that they want to live with their biological parents permanently. Rather, these youth appear to want to continue a relationship with them, even if from a distance. Further, the findings of generally positive responses to out-of-home care and the people they live with are not necessarily an endorsement of remaining in care. Children’s first choice of who to live with was most often a biological parent, and 15% of children reported that they had tried to leave care on their own. Although these findings appear to be contradictory, they may represent a complicated reality for children in care. Children may acknowledge that they would prefer living with their biological parents or another relative, but implicit in that desire may be that they would like to live with another, more idealized version of their parent. Further research is needed to understand these seemingly contradictory findings.

To further understand differences in children’s attitudes toward placement, a series of logistic regressions was performed. The primary intent of the modeling was to compare children’s perceptions in different types of placement. Models were calculated for each item; predictor variables routinely included race/ethnicity, gender, age, and placement type. Gender, race/ethnicity, and placement type were predictive of differences for some items. No differences emerged as a result of age (younger than 11 vs. older than 11) on any items. These comparisons are summarized in Table 7-15.

Children in foster care and children in kinship care had much higher odds than children in group care of liking those with whom they were living (OR = 7.68 and 24.11, respectively). Children in foster care and kinship care also had markedly higher odds of wanting their current placement as a permanent home than children in group care (OR = 12.15 and 52.55, respectively). Children in foster care were less likely than children in kinship care to want their current placement as a permanent home (OR = –1.47). Children in group care had much higher odds than children in kinship care or foster care of having tried to leave or run away from their current placement (OR = 7.6 and 21.28, respectively). Children in kinship care had four times the odds of those in group care and three times the odds of children in family foster care of saying that they avoid family visits. Finally, children in group care had nearly four times the odds of children in foster care of changing schools and nine times the odds of children in kinship care of changing schools (OR = 3.8 and 8.91, respectively).

Table 7-15. Summary of Logistic Regression Comparisons

		Placement Type			Race/Ethnicity				Gender
		Foster Care	Kinship Foster Care	Group Care	African American	White	Hispanic	Other	Male	Female
Placement Experience	Child likes people he/she is living with
	Child feels like a part of the family
	Child wants this as a permanent home	(vs. kinship care)
	Child wants caregiver to adopt
	Child has tried to leave or run away
	Child has moved to a new neighborhood
	Neighborhood is the same or better than previous
	Child has moved to a new school
	School is same or better than previous						(vs. White)
	Child avoids visits with biological family						(vs. White)
Hopes for the Future	Believes he/she will live with parents again
	Believes living with parents will be “different this time”
	Believes he/she will live with siblings again

Children of color appeared to experience out-of-home care in ways that are different from Whites in several ways. First, African American, Hispanic, and children of other races/ethnicities had much higher odds than White children of attempting to leave or run away from a placement (OR = 5.49. 7.97, and 5.57, respectively). Hispanic children had three times the odds of White children of saying they avoided family visits (OR = 3.45). Hispanic children had higher odds than White children of saying that the school they were attending as a result of placement is worse than the school they previously attended (OR = 5.73). African American children also tended to be different from White children in this regard (p<.02), with African American children having almost three times the odds of White children of saying that the school they were attending as a result of placement is worse than the school they previously attended (OR = 2.88).

Two differences were noted by gender. First, males had higher odds than females of saying that if they lived with their parents again “things would be different this time” (OR = 3.5). Males also had somewhat lower odds of feeling like part of the family (OR = .18). No significant differences were seen when comparing 6- to 10-year-old children with children aged 11 years and older.

Although some aspects of children’s experience appear to differ significantly by demographic characteristics and placement type, children generally appear to have similar reactions to placement. Children in kinship care appear to be somewhat more content than those in other types of placements. Children in group care appear to be the least happy with their current placements. Finally, the analyses indicate that children of color, particularly Hispanic children, may be less content in placement. Yet, on balance, most children appear to view their living situations positively even while desiring higher levels of contact with their families. Table 7-16 presents responses to individual items.

7.3.2 Children’s Expectations for the Future

Children aged 10 years and older were asked questions about their expectations for the future regarding educational attainment, childbearing, employment, and family formation. Questions were based on items from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth) (Carolina Population Center, 1998). Two questions used were identical to AddHealth questions, one regarding life expectancy and one regarding age at marriage. Children whose families have been investigated for maltreatment did not appear different from the AddHealth sample on those items. This is also the case when 10-year-olds are omitted to make comparisons with the 11- to 15-year-old AddHealth sample. However, because standard errors are not available for the AddHealth public use sample, these comparisons must be interpreted cautiously (Table 7-17).

Children’s expectations for the future were also examined to identify any significant differences by race/ethnicity, gender, or in-home versus out-of-home setting. No significant differences were found. However, these questions do highlight some significant areas of risk for children involved with CWS. Approximately 20% of these youths report that there is a 50% or worse chance that they will graduate from high school or have a good job by age 30. Fifteen percent also report that there is a 50% or better chance that they will have a child before they are age 18. Almost 40% indicate that there is less than a 50% chance that they will have a family and raise children when they are older.

7.4 Summary and Conclusions

Asking children about the realities of their lives has particular relevance for an investigation aimed at understanding how children involved with CWS fare over time. This chapter has provided a baseline for assessing how children perceive their relationships with adults and peers, important developmental contexts such as school, and their futures. The key findings of this chapter are summarized below.

Table 7-16. Perceptions of Placement, by Service Setting

Question		Total	Foster	Kin	Group
		Percent/ (SE)
Placement Experience	Child likes people he/she is living with. a_i	80.5 (3.9)	79.4 (9.7)	92.7 (3.0)	51.1 (12.0)
	Child feels like a part of the family. c_i	86.9 (3.0)	79.3 (4.7)	94.1 (3.4)	---
	Child wants this as a permanent home. a_ii	37.9 (4.0)	26.7 (5.7)	61.2 (5.8)	2.1 (1.2)
	Child wants caregiver to adopt.	27.5 (4.1)	21.6 (5.5)	38.9 (8.5)	10.7 (5.2)
	Child has tried to leave or run away. a_iii b_i	14.8 (3.0)	16.2 (5.7)	5.8 (2.2)	34.6 (5.8)
	Child has moved to a new neighborhood.	78.4 (3.8)	79.9 (5.5)	71.3 (5.5)	93.2 (4.3)
	Neighborhood is the same or better than previous.	74.8 (5.2)	61.3 (10.0)	50.1 (12.7)	40.1 (16.3)
	Child has moved to a new school. a_iv	74.9 (4.8)	79.9 (5.0)	63.2 (7.4)	93.4 (4.3)
	School is same or better than previous. b_ii	32.9 (6.9)	67.6 (6.9)	75.9 (9.2)	53.3 (11.9)
	Child avoids visits with biological family.a_v b_iii	6.1 (1.4)	3.8 (1.4)	9.9 (2.7)	3.5 (1.8)
Hopes for the Future	Believes he/she will live with his/her parents again.	68.4 (4.2)	75.5 (5.3)	60.2 (7.4)	73.7 (11.2)
	Believes living with parents will be “different this time.” c_ii	66.3 (4.7)	66.7 (5.4)	57.8 (8.1)	86.8 (5.1)
	Believes he/she will live with his/her siblings again.	52.1 (5.8)	67.2 (7.3)	37.9 (9.5)	51.7 (13.1)

a Placement type is a significant predictor. (back: a_i, a_ii, a_iii, a_iv, a_v) b Race/ethnicity is a significant predictor. (back: b_i, b_ii, b_iii) c Gender is a significant predictor. (back: c_i, c_ii)

Caregivers and Placement

• Children generally report a positive sense of relatedness to caregivers, although children in foster care tend to feel less close to their caregivers than children remaining in the home and not receiving child welfare services.

• Children involved with CWS, whether remaining in the home or living in out-of-home care, report similar levels of activities with their caregivers.

• Most children in out-of-home care feel positive about the changes in their schools and neighborhoods since being placed into out-of-home care.

• Children also seem generally to like their caregivers and report that they feel like a part of the family.

• The frequency of parental visits is not particularly high, according to these children, and most of the children desire more contact than they have currently with their biological parents and siblings.

Table 7-17. Future Expectations

	Graduate from high school?	Have a good job by age 30?	Have children & raise a family when older?	Have a child before age 18?	Live to be at least 35?		Married by age 25?
	NSCAW	NSCAW	NSCAW	NSCAW	NSCAW	Add Health^_i	NSCAW	Add Health^_ii
	Percent/ (SE)
No chance	4 (1.1)	3 (1.1)	11 (1.5)	71 (2.8)	3 (1.3)	1	16 (1.9)	9
Some chance	5 (1.5)	6 (1.1)	13 (1.8)	15 (2.3)	10(.9)	2	18 (2.0)	12
About 50/50	10 (1.4)	11 (1.7)	15 (1.5)	7 (1.4)	9 (1.2)	10	24 (2.5)	33
Pretty likely	18 (2.0)	25 (2.3)	28 (2.4)	3 (0.8)	22 (2.3)	25	24 (2.1)	32
It will happen	63 (2.2)	53 (3.0)	34 (2.5)	5 (1.6)	61 (2.4)	62	19 (2.3)	14

^ Add Health standard errors could not be obtained; Add Health data are for 11- to 15-year-olds. (back: ^_i, ^_ii)

Peers and School

• Children in the different service settings report similar levels of satisfaction with peer relations and do not indicate much loneliness or social dissatisfaction.

• Boys tend to report lower school engagement as well as more problems with homework completion and discipline problems.

• Older children tend to report more school problems.

Religion

• Most children (82%) reported that religion is important to them. But only 60% reported regular religious participation.

• More children living in out-of-home care than children remaining in the home feel religion is important to them.

The Future

• Over three-quarters believe they will graduate from high school and have a good job.

• 62% believe they will have children and raise a family when they are older.

• 60% indicate that they firmly believe they will live until they are 35 years of age.

• 15% indicate that there is a 50% chance or better that they will have a child before they are 18 years of age.

At baseline, it appears that children are generally optimistic. They are positive about their relationships with caregivers, both in terms of feeling related and close and in terms of the actual activities in which they participate with their caregivers. Those who are in out-of-home care are generally positive about that experience. But feeling good about one’s current caregivers clearly does not translate into forgetting about one’s biological family. Those children in out-of-home care have high hopes for reunification and desire more contact with both their parents and siblings.

Although peer relationships do not seem to be troublesome for this group at baseline, school concerns are more prevalent. Older children and males in CWS appear to have greater school difficulties, indicating that educational interventions for these groups may be particularly vital.

Given that most children reported that religion is important to them and that those in out-of-home placement appeared to find religion more important than those in in-home care, the significance of religion for children is an interesting avenue for future investigation. Among adolescents in the general population, religiosity has been associated with a decreased likelihood to have premarital sex or to use unhealthy substances (NICHD, 1998). The role of religion and spirituality in the lives of these youngsters is an understudied phenomenon that may have unrealized implications for promoting resilience.

Finally, although children are generally positive about their future expectations, a significant minority express doubts about their future well-being. Youths’ perception that they will be confronting a variety of negative life outcomes are in accord with research indicating that these children do experience significant challenges for a considerable period (Felliti et al., 1998; Taussig et al., 2001; Courtney et al., 1998). Further analysis about the characteristics of youths who appear to be less hopeful about their futures might help identify those in greatest need of intervention services.

In sum, these data provide a starting point for understanding the experiences of children entering CWS. Understanding children’s own perceptions of their experiences is an important first step toward developing service components and practices that reduce children’s distress and increase their level of comfort and adaptation. Acknowledging and addressing children’s own concerns and desires could ultimately result in higher levels of child functioning and decreased levels of preventable problems during this sensitive transitional time.

 

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next