The Relationship Between Foster Parent Training and Outcomes for Looked After Children in Canada Jordanna J. Nash & Robert J. Flynn School of Psychology University of Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Centre for Research on Educational and Community Services

Background Placement Stability Placement stability for children in care is important Placement breakdowns are an issue Child behaviour problems are associated with placement breakdowns  A cause  A consequence

Background Foster Parenting Foster parents need to be prepared to deal with children’s behaviour Foster parent training critical for preparation for the foster parenting role

Background Research on Foster Parent Training Foster parent training has been the focus of very little research Little empirical support for foster parent training programs

Purpose An exploratory study Research questions, no hypotheses Expected training to have a mild, positive effect on child outcomes

Research Questions (1)Any association between more types of training and positive child outcomes? (2)Any association between more LAC training and positive child outcomes? (3)Is LAC, PRIDE, College, Other training associated with more positive child outcomes than agency-specific training?

Sample Provincial database for Ontario Looking After Children (OnLAC) Project Analyzed 445 AAR-C2 Assessment and Action Records (Second Canadian Adaptation; AAR-C2)

Sample Foster children Ages 10 to 17 Mean age 13 Time in placement 0 to 15 years Mean length 4 years

Sample Foster parents Years of fostering 0 to 59 years Mean experience 9 years

Method Foster child outcomes examined included: –Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) emotional and behavioural difficulties 20 items foster parent report –Internal developmental assets children’s strengths 20-item scale child welfare worker report

Method Foster child outcomes examined included: –Relationship with female caregiver 4-item scale child report –Relationship with male caregiver 4-item scale child report –Satisfaction with current placement 9-item scale child report

Method Control variables entered into analysis included: –Foster placement variables: foster parent gender years fostering years child had lived in current placement –Foster child variables: foster child gender foster child age

Method Variables entered into analysis included: –Training variables:  3 models Number of types of foster parent training Amount of LAC foster parent training LAC, PRIDE, College, ‘Other’ training VS. Agency-specific training

Results Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Boys had higher total difficulties scores Older children had lower total difficulties scores

Results Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Foster parents more types of training  child more total difficulties

Results Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire Foster parents more LAC training  child more total difficulties

Results Internal Developmental Assets Boys had fewer internal assets Children who had resided in their current placement longer had more internal assets

Results Internal Developmental Assets Foster parents more types of training  child fewer internal assets

Results Internal Developmental Assets Foster parents with LAC training  child fewer internal assets

Results Relationship with female caregiver More positive relationships if: –Female foster parent present for AAR –Female child –Children in current placement longer Older children reported less positive relationships

Results Relationship with male caregiver Older children reported less positive relationships Children in placement longer reported more positive relationships

Results Placement satisfaction Children in their current placement longer reported higher placement satisfaction

Conclusions A consistent, mild effect of training was found However, the effect was in the opposite direction than expected

Interpretation Training may have a sensitizing effect on foster parents’ perceptions Training makes foster parents better detectors and reporters

Implications For practice: –Practitioners, program developers, and trainers should be aware of this sensitizing effect

Implications For research: –Formally trained foster parents’ reports of child difficulties may differ from other reports

Implications For policy: –Policy makers should be choosing to implement evidence-based training programs

References Dorsey, S., Farmer, E. M. Z., Barth, R. P., Greene, K., Reid, J., & Landsverk, J. (In press). Current status and evidence base of training for foster and treatment foster parents, Children and Youth Services Review. Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Landsverk, J. A. (2000). Children and youth in foster care: Disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24, Palmer, S. E. (1996). Placement stability and inclusive practice in foster care: An empirical study. Children and Youth Services Review, 18, Perkins-Mangulabnan, J., & Flynn, R. J. (2006). Foster parenting practices and foster youth outcomes. In R. J. Flynn, P. M. Dudding, & J. G. Barber (Eds.), Promoting resilience in child welfare. (pp ). Ottawa, ON: Ottawa University Press. Rodwell, M. K., & Biggerstaff, M. A. (1993). Strategies for recruitment and retention of foster families. Children and Youth Services Review, 15, Staff, I., & Fein, E. (1995). Stability and change: Initial findings in a study of treatment foster care placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, Turner, W., MacDonald, G.M., & Dennis, J.A. (2007). Behavioural and cognitive behavioural training interventions for assisting foster carers in the management of difficult behaviour. The Campbell Collaboration.

Thank you for your attention Questions and comments are welcomed