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 6:

Sibling Placement and Stability

Author, Year Locations/Years Sample1 Analytical Approach2 Controls Used Results
Trasler, 1960 3 Unspecified London location; agency records and interviews: not specified N=138, ages 0 to 11+ at entry Chi-Square test of significance; analysis based no. of placements4 None If placed with at least one sibling (versus alone), more likely to have satisfactory placement.*5
Parker, 1966 3 England; agency records: 1952/53–1957/58 N≈1446, ages 0 to 11+ at entry Bivariate analysis; tracked for 5 years; analysis based case records None Children who were always separated from siblings (versus consistently together or inconsistently together) were more likely to have a successful placement (ns)7
George, 1970 3 Two unspecified England towns and a county; questionnaires and agency records: 1961/63–1968 N=86, ages <13 at entry Bivariate analysis; tracked for 5 years; based on no. of placements None

  • If placed together: less likely have successful placement than if placed partially or completely separate. *,7

  • If placed together: more likely to have failed placement than if placed partially or completely separate*
Berridge and Cleaver, 1987 3 3 unspecified England agencies; survey: 1983 N=145 long-term care; N=112 short-term care, ages 0 to 18 Bivariate analysis; retrospective for 5 years None Child separated from all siblings were more likely to experience breakdown than children placed partially together or completely together (significance not specified).
Staff and Fein, 1992 Four New England States; staff interviews and agency records: 1976–1990 N=134, 0 to 13+ at entry Bivariate analysis8 None If placed initially together (versus initially separate):

  • more likely that neither sibling changes placements*

  • less likely one sibling changes placements and the other does not*

  • more likely that both siblings change placements.*
Thorpe and Swart, 1992 Child’s Aid Society (CAS); administrative records: location/year not specified N=115, ages 0 to 15 at entry T-tests3 None Fewer total placements if siblings placed together.*
Leathers, 2005 Cook County, Illinois; survey & administrative records: 1997/1998–2002 N=196, ages 12/13 at time 1 of study Logistic regression Demographics, placement history, behavior problems at interview, foster home integration9, no. of siblings, frequency of maternal visits In final model (all controls), lowest odds of disruption if consistently placed with all siblings (versus alone, or inconsistently placed with siblings; ns).
Leathers, 2006 Cook County, Illinois; interviews and agency records: 1997/98–2003 N=179, ages 12/13 Logistic regression; tracked for 5 years4 Demographics, behavioral issues, placement history, foster home integration9 In final model (with controls), higher odds of disruption post interview if placed with at least one sibling (versus alone)+
Barth et. al., 2007 National survey (NASCAW: CPS sample): 1999/2000–2004 N=362 with Emotional/Behavioral Disorder; N=363 without, ages 7 to 14 Poisson Regression; followed up at 48 months4 Demographics, initial placement, criminal court appearance, special needs, mental health, trauma, expects reunification, no. prior moves

  • Among those with behavioral issues, if placed together (versus alone): less likely to experience multiple moves.*

  • No difference in number of moves experienced when children have no behavioral issues (ns).
Holtan et. al., 2013 Norway; questionnaire: 2000–2008 N=136, ages 4 to 13 at entry Generalized linear mixed model; followed up 8 years later4 None If placed together (versus alone): lower odds of disruption experienced between time 1 to time 2 (ns).
Koh et. al., 2014 Illinois; agency records: 2006–2007 N=121, ages 0 to 12+ at entry Hierarchical linear logistic regression; propensity score matching; tracked for 18 months4 Time spent in kinship care, caregiver willingness to commit to permanence, DSM diagnosis No statistically significant difference in number of moves based on proportion of time spent in placement with at least one sibling (ns).
Vinnerljung, Sallnas, & Berlin, 2014 12 municipalities in southern Sweden; agency records: 1980/1992 birth cohort N=136, age 12+ Only bivariate analysis presented; tracked from age 12 to 184 None Placement with a sibling increased risk of disruption*
McDowall, 2015 3 Australia, CREATE’s Report Card, survey: 2013 N=1,160, ages 8 to 17 Univariate One-Way ANOVA; length of study not reported None Siblings placed with all siblings or with at least one sibling (versus alone) experienced fewer mean number of placements.*
van Rooij et. al., 2015 2 regional Dutch Foster Care Organizations agency records: not specified N=164, ages 0 to 18 at entry Bivariate; length varied4 None No bivariate differences between planned and unplanned termination of placement; sibling placement not included in multivariate logistic model
Waid et. al., 2016 Northwestern State, administrative data and SIBS-FC study: not specified N=328, age 7–15 Logistic regression; tracked for 18 months10 Sibling relationship quality, home integration, behavioral issues, no. of placements prior to study, treatment conditions, age If siblings placed together (versus apart), placement is less likely to disrupt* Placed together in kinship care least likely to disrupt.*
Font, Sattler, & Gershoff, 2018 Texas: administrative data: 2008/09–2016 N=23,760, ages 0 to 18 at entry Multilevel logistic regression; tracked until exit or mid-2016 (whichever later) Demographics, removal reason, CPS history, initial placement, no. prior moves If siblings placed together (versus separated from some or all siblings):

  • less likely to end in non-progress11 move if kinship placement*

  • for other placement settings, associations between sibling placement and non-progress move depended on outcome measure
Sattler, Font &, Gershoff, 2018 Texas; administrative data: 2008/09–2016 N=23,765, ages 0 to 13+ at entry Multilevel survival analysis; tracked until exit or mid-2016 (whichever later) Demographics, mental health, behavior issues, disability, CPS history, removal reason, time in care, placement type If siblings placed together (versus separated from some or all siblings):

  • less likely to experience child-initiated disruption* or mismatch disruption* within 2 years13

  • more likely to experience substandard care disruption within 2 years*13
Leathers et. al., 2019 Large Midwestern US state: interviews occurred in 2014–2015 N=139, ages 8 to 14 Not included in final models, initial model type not specified; follow-up 2 years post interview4 None No significant differences by sibling placement in initial regression; sibling placement not included in final models

ns=not statistically significant at p<.1

*

p<.05

1.

Age at time of study unless otherwise specified

2.

Analysis based on number of children (at lowest level if multilevel model) unless otherwise specified

3.

This study may not be peer reviewed

4.

Sibling placed alone may include children without siblings

5.

All children in the sample had experienced at least one removal. Satisfactory placements were judged by caseworkers based on four criteria given by the researcher. A placement was satisfactory if caseworkers rated it as “excellent” on a 5 point scale and unlikely to experience a disruption. Failed placements consisted of children in long-term care who were removed from the foster home at least once during a three year period.

6.

209 children were in the total sample. 69% had at least one sibling in care with them. The exact count of the number of children with siblings was not given; based on provided information, we estimate ~144 children had siblings in care. Only children with siblings were included in results

7.

A placement was successful if the child did not experience a removal during the study period. A placement failed if the child was removed from the foster home during the study period.

8.

Sibling pairs (dyads) examined exclusively

9.

Foster home integration was a measure to test foster family-child attachment and asked by caseworkers and foster parents.

10.

Sample focused on sibling pairs (dyads).

11.

Non-progress moves are when a child moves to a less-preferred setting (e.g., from kinship care to non-relative care; from non-relative care to a restrictive setting) or equally-preferred setting (i.e., to a new placement of the same setting type).

12.

Restrictive settings included examples such as group homes or residential facilities

13.

Child-initiated disruption = child refused to stay/ran-away from placement; mismatch-disruption = children needed more specialized care or request move due to behavior; substandard care disruption = foster caregivers did not follow state standards for care