Inically significant levels of externalizing behaviors, with aggression and delinquency most commonly identified (Dubowitz et al., 1994), and African American and white males in kinship care have been found to be at greatest risk for juvenile delinquency (Ryan, Hong, Herz, Hernandez, 2010). In regards to internalizing problems kinship foster youth reported experiencing greater internalizing problems than nonkinship foster youth (Hegar Rosenthal, 2009). Thus, some have concluded that it is unclear whether kinship foster care has any advantage over nonkinship foster care due to the significant prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems in these youth. This conclusion is supported by research showing no significant differences between behavioral problems in kinship and nonkinship foster youth (Shore, Sim, Le Prohn, Keller, 2002). There is evidence that children in kinship foster care may fare similarly to youth in nonkinship foster homes, and that both groups show poorer mental health outcomes than youth in the general population. Mixed Vesnarinone cancer findings across studies may relate to the limitations of research on youth placed in out of home settings. Heterogeneity exists in the samples under investigation; some studies examine families placed into foster homes through government policy, while others include informal kinship foster placements. In addition, the reason for placement may confound findings, in that there may be a selection bias due to differences that exist between kinshipAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageand nonkinship foster youth and the prevailing reasons for their removal from the home. Research suggests caseworkers may have reservations about use kinship care due to complicated implications based in policy and family relationships (Peters, 2005). For example, youth may be less likely to be placed with relatives or other kin in instances of more serious or pervasive forms of abuse. These reasons for removal and placement may contribute to mental health outcomes, and may be related to the mixed results found when studying kinship foster youth. A recent study attempted to address the confounding role of selection bias by statistically adjusting for differential reasons for placement into out-of-home placement settings (Barth, Guo, Green, McCrae, 2007a). Findings suggested that children placed in kinship care presented significantly better mental health outcomes after accounting for the selective processes that contributed to placement decisions and could influence child outcomes, including child and caregiver characteristics and investigation findings. Specifically, kinship care promoted better outcomes for youth placed out of the home, especially in externalizing behavioral outcomes. Internalizing behavioral Oxaliplatin web scores improved for children placed in both kinship and nonkinship care, but there was a greater improvement in children placed in kinship care. These findings are promising for the use of kinship settings; however, they represent average effects across all youth. Differential use and characteristics of kinship homes among African American youth warrant additional investigation.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptKinship Care and African American FamiliesWhile research has suggested that kinship care may be beneficial for out-of-home placement, it is unclear.Inically significant levels of externalizing behaviors, with aggression and delinquency most commonly identified (Dubowitz et al., 1994), and African American and white males in kinship care have been found to be at greatest risk for juvenile delinquency (Ryan, Hong, Herz, Hernandez, 2010). In regards to internalizing problems kinship foster youth reported experiencing greater internalizing problems than nonkinship foster youth (Hegar Rosenthal, 2009). Thus, some have concluded that it is unclear whether kinship foster care has any advantage over nonkinship foster care due to the significant prevalence of emotional and behavioral problems in these youth. This conclusion is supported by research showing no significant differences between behavioral problems in kinship and nonkinship foster youth (Shore, Sim, Le Prohn, Keller, 2002). There is evidence that children in kinship foster care may fare similarly to youth in nonkinship foster homes, and that both groups show poorer mental health outcomes than youth in the general population. Mixed findings across studies may relate to the limitations of research on youth placed in out of home settings. Heterogeneity exists in the samples under investigation; some studies examine families placed into foster homes through government policy, while others include informal kinship foster placements. In addition, the reason for placement may confound findings, in that there may be a selection bias due to differences that exist between kinshipAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageand nonkinship foster youth and the prevailing reasons for their removal from the home. Research suggests caseworkers may have reservations about use kinship care due to complicated implications based in policy and family relationships (Peters, 2005). For example, youth may be less likely to be placed with relatives or other kin in instances of more serious or pervasive forms of abuse. These reasons for removal and placement may contribute to mental health outcomes, and may be related to the mixed results found when studying kinship foster youth. A recent study attempted to address the confounding role of selection bias by statistically adjusting for differential reasons for placement into out-of-home placement settings (Barth, Guo, Green, McCrae, 2007a). Findings suggested that children placed in kinship care presented significantly better mental health outcomes after accounting for the selective processes that contributed to placement decisions and could influence child outcomes, including child and caregiver characteristics and investigation findings. Specifically, kinship care promoted better outcomes for youth placed out of the home, especially in externalizing behavioral outcomes. Internalizing behavioral scores improved for children placed in both kinship and nonkinship care, but there was a greater improvement in children placed in kinship care. These findings are promising for the use of kinship settings; however, they represent average effects across all youth. Differential use and characteristics of kinship homes among African American youth warrant additional investigation.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptKinship Care and African American FamiliesWhile research has suggested that kinship care may be beneficial for out-of-home placement, it is unclear.
Related Posts
Any youth provided data at all of the pubertal staging assessments (n = 155 for
Any youth provided data at all of the pubertal staging assessments (n = 155 for boys’ genital improvement, 162 for boys’ pubic hair development, 191 for girls’ breast improvement, and 186 for girls’ pubic hair improvement), there have been many youth who missed or declined to take part in one particular or much more assessments. […]
Attenuates tumor growth in vivo [9800]. A few of these studies, even so, have to
Attenuates tumor growth in vivo [9800]. A few of these studies, even so, have to be interpreted with caution. In earlier research promiscuous inhibitors including cerulenin or TOFA have been utilised, siRNAs have been administered at higher concentrations resulting in substantial off-target and nonspecific antiproliferative effects, and in quite a few cases, cells were cultured […]
In vitro methylation of the CHD5 promoter directly repressed promoter activity
lizing Fab from the same affinity matured series differing in only 4 positions in the CDR-H2 loop, complexed to two mimetics of the pre-haipin intermediate revealed only subtle structural differences between complexes with the neutralizing and nonneutralizing Fabs. Moreover, despite differences in neutralizing activity of three or more orders of magnitude in Env-pseudotyped virus neutralization […]