Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 22.
Published in final edited form as: Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021 Jan 15;126:105943. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105943

Table 4.

Longitudinal Studies of Sibling Placement and Child Wellbeing

Author, Year Data type/Years Sample1 Analytical Approach Controls Used Results
Thorpe and Swart, 1992 Child’s Aid Society (CAS); administrative records: location/year not specified N=115, ages 0 to 15 at entry T-tests None If siblings placed together, greater number of negative symptoms while in foster care and at discharge including diagnoses of mental disorder, behavioral issues, or criminal behavior.*2
Leathers, 2005 Cook County, Illinois; survey & administrative records: 1997/1998–2002 N=196, ages 12/13 Hierarchical linear regression Demographics, placement history, behavior problems at interview, foster home integration, no. of siblings, placement type, frequency of maternal visits If siblings placed consistently together, child more likely to experience foster home integration than if alone in all placements (ns), alone at time of interview with history of placement together*, or together at time of interview with history of separation* (based on foster parent and caseworker answers)
Leathers, 2006 Cook County, Illinois; interviews and agency records: 1997/98–2003 N=179, ages 12 to 13 Logistic regression; tracked for 5 years Demographics, behavioral issues, placement history No differences by sibling placement in probability of negative placement outcome once leaving foster care (placement in residential treatment centers, juvenile detention centers, prison, or runaway)
Linares et. al., 2007 New York City survey (NYU Longitudinal Study): 2002/2005–2007 N=156, ages 3–14 Linear mixed effects regression; average 14.6 month follow-up3 Baseline value of dependent variable, sibling relationship quality, child age No significant differences by sibling placement in depressive symptoms/loneliness (child reports)

  • For children with few baseline behavior problems: sibling separation (after initially together) associated with worse Time 2 birth parent-reported behavior problems, compared with either consistently together or consistently separated*.

  • Associations between sibling placement and wellbeing did not differ by sibling relationship quality (though positive relationship quality was associated with better outcomes overall).

Hegar & Rosenthal, 2009 National survey (NSCAW I): 1999/2000–2003 N=1,415, ages 4–14 Linear, binary logistic, and ordinal logistic regression; 48–96 month follow-up4 Demographics, kinship care, sample type5, caregiver demographics, county poverty, wave 1 outcomes, CPS investigation If any sibling in same home as child (versus not, including children with no siblings in foster care):

  • Fewer child-reported internalizing behavior problems*

  • Fewer teacher-reported externalizing behavior problems for Hispanic* and Black youth+.

  • No statistically significant differences in: child-reported, externalizing behavior, teacher-reported internalizing behavior, foster parent-reported internalizing or externalizing behavior, feeling part of family, or parent involvement

  • Child more likely to report feelings of emotional support from caregiver*

  • Among those who recently entered care: child more likely to report feeling close to caregiver, liking those with whom they live*

  • Among white children in kinship care: lower school performance

Hegar & Rosenthal, 2011 National survey (NSCAW I): 1999/2000–2004/2008 N=1,113, ages 6–14 Linear and ordinal logistic regression; 48–96 month follow-up Demographics, kinship care, sample type5, caregiver demographics, county poverty, wave 1 outcomes, CPS investigation If siblings placed fully intact (versus fully separated):

  • No statistically significant differences in internalizing or externalizing behavior problems as reported by foster parents, youth, or teachers

  • Higher teacher-reported school performance*

  • No difference in child’s feelings of closeness or likes living with foster parents

If placed partially together (versus fully separated):

  • Children more likely to report feelings of closeness and enjoy living with foster parents *

  • More teacher-reported externalizing behavior problems* (specifically for non-kinship placements and recent foster care entries)

  • No differences in behavior or school performance

Fernandez and Lee, 2013 Temporary Family Care (TFC) programs in Barnardos, Australia: not specified N=145, ages 0 to 12 at entry OLS regression; measured at entry and at exit; tracked for 18 months3 Demographics, biological mother age/educ, reason in care, NCFAS-R scores at placement entry/exit6 If placed with at least one sibling:

  • No statistically significant differences in (reunification family) environment, parental capabilities, family interactions, family safety, and child/caregiver ambivalence

  • children had better wellbeing at intake*, but no statistically significant difference for child wellbeing at exit
Waid et. al., 2017 Unnamed U.S. North Pacific Region; survey and administrative data: 2010–2015 N=185, ages 7–15 Latent growth curve modeling, tracked for 18 months4 Demographics, age order, treatment group, child behavior, placement history, kinship care No statistically significant difference by sibling placement in feeling positively towards foster caregivers or feeling integrated into foster household
Kothari et. al., 2018 3 Oregon Metropolitan regions; survey and administrative education data: 2009–2015 N=315, age 7–15 Hierarchical linear or logistic regression; tracked for 18 to 24 months4 Demographics, learning disability, school mobility, kinship care, treatment (larger study was RCT) If siblings placed together (versus apart), children had fewer discipline events at school, including in-school suspension, truancy/attendance violation, out-of-school suspension, and expulsion*

ns=not statistically significant;

+

statistically significant at p<.01

*

statistically significant at p<.05

1.

Ages based on Time 1 of study observation period unless otherwise specified

2.

Information on academic functioning in this study not included due to conflict between tables and text of article. Study reports using logistic regression to predict sibling separation, but appears only bivariate comparisons made to identify differences in outcomes by sibling placement

3.

Study sample included multiple siblings but did not distinguish between fully separated and partially intact sibling groups.

4.

Study sample included multiple siblings but did not distinguish between fully intact and partially intact sibling groups.

5.

NSCAW includes a sample of children who recently entered care (CPS) and children who had been in care for 1 year at first observation (LTFC). The two samples had different lengths of follow up.

6.

NCFAS-R: North Carolina Family Assessment Scale-Reunification assessed by practitioners includes 7 domains: 1) environment—housing/financial/food stability, community safety, habitability of housing, personal hygiene, transportation, learning environment 2) parental capabilities—child supervision, disciplinary practice, parent/caregiver mental/physical health/drug or alcohol use, development/enrichment opportunities, 3) family interactions—bonding with child, expectation of child, family support/parent relationship with each other, 4)family safety—physical, emotional, sexual abuse, neglect, intimate partner violence, 5)child well-being—mental health, child behavior/school performance relationship with caregiver/siblings/peers, motivation/cooperation to maintain family, 6)care giver/child ambivalence, and 7)readiness for reunification—resolution of CPS risk factors, completion of case service plans, resolution of legal issues, parent/child understanding child’s treatment needs, established back-up support/service plan