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 5.

Sibling Placement and Permanency

Author, Year Location/Years Sample1 Analytical Approach2 Outcome Controls Used Results
Leathers, 2005 Cook County, Illinois; survey & administrative records: 1997/1998–2002 N=167 (adoption/guardianship), N=195 (reunification), ages 12/13 at time 1 of study Logistic regression, 5 year follow-up3 Reunification, adoption or guardianship Demographics, placement history, behavior problems at interview, foster home integration, no. of siblings, frequency of maternal visits If siblings consistently placed together:

  • higher odds of adoption/guardianship than if placed alone at interview* or placed alone in all placements*

  • lower odds of reunification than if placed alone at interview, or placed alone in all placements (ns).

  • No difference in adoption/guardianship or reunification compared to children with current sibling placement but prior separations
Webster et. al., 2005 California; administrative records: 2000–2001 N=15,517, ages 0 to 17 GEE and logistic regression; up to 12 months follow-up Reunification Demographics, removal reason, placement type, no. of moves, no. of siblings, initial sibling placement, region

  • If siblings placed completely or partially together (versus alone), higher odds of reunification*
Albert and King, 2008 Nevada; administrative records: not specified N=602, ages 0 to at least 16 Survival analysis; up to 19 months follow-up Remaining in care vs reunification None

  • If siblings placed together (versus alone), less likely to still be in foster care at end of observation period.

  • Similar likelihood of remaining in care if placed fully together versus partially together. (Did not specify statistical significance)
Akin, 2011 Unspecified Midwestern state; administrative records: 2006~2010 N=3,351, ages 0 to 17 Survival analysis; 30–42 month follow-up Reunification, adoption, guardianship Demographics, disability, mental health, removal reason, removal history, initial placement type, early placement stability, runaway

  • If placed with all siblings (versus alone), higher odds of reunification* and adoption+; no difference in guardianship

  • No difference in exits to reunification, guardianship or adoption if partially together versus completely separated

Fernandez and Lee, 2013 Temporary Family Care (TFC) programs in Barnardos, Australia: not specified N=145, ages 0 to 12 Logistic regression; measured at entry and at exit; tracked for 18 months4 Reunification Demographics, biological mother age/educ, reason in care, NCFAS-R scores at placement entry/exit5 If placed together (versus apart):

  • No difference in reunification rate

  • Higher scores on readiness for reunification at time of exit*
1.

Age is age at entry unless otherwise specified

2.

Sibling placement included sibling groups placed completely together, partially together, or completely split unless otherwise specified. All children had at least one sibling.

3

Sibling placement categorized as alone in all placements, currently alone with history of being together, currently together with history of being alone, always together. All children had at least one sibling.

4.

Sibling placement categorized as sibling in same placement (yes or no). Study sample included multiple siblings but did not distinguish between fully separated and partially intact sibling groups.

5.

NCFAS-R: North Carolina Family Assessment Scale-Reunification assessed by practitioners includes 6 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—child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, 5) child well-being—mental health, behavior/school performance, relationship with caregiver/siblings/peers, motivation/cooperation to maintain family, 6) readiness for reunification.

Ns= not statistically significant;

*

p<.05;

+

p<.1