Does Distance of Placement Setting Affect Adjustment?

Introduction: Female delinquency is increasing, with girls now comprising 30% of the juvenile justice population. However, evidence-based models have not been widely tested or implemented with girls in the juvenile justice system.  Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC) is one intervention that has been documented to reduce delinquency during adolescence for juvenile justice-involved girls. Compared to services-as-usual (Group Care; GC), girls randomly assigned to MTFC have lower rates of delinquency in one- and two-year outcome assessments.  An MTFC philosophical principle is to keep youth in their communities and close to their family of origin, so they can have access to their family and so that families can participate in the treatment and learn new skills. However, the distance between home of origin and placement setting has not been examined empirically.  The current study examines whether there is a significant difference between distance of MTFC placement setting and GC placement setting to home of origin, along with the impact that distance from home may have on youth adjustment outcomes.

 

Method: The sample included 166 females [mean (SD) age = 15.3 (1.2) years; 68% Caucasian] who participated in a randomized controlled trial of MTFC during adolescence. In the original study, girls who were referred for out-of-home care due to chronic delinquency were randomized into MTFC (n = 81) versus GC (n = 85). Home of origin addresses and placement setting addresses were collected during the initial assessments. A new variable, distance, was calculated using the distance in miles between home of origin address and placement setting address using google mapquest (mean (SD) distance = 84.5 (91.7) miles).  Adjustment outcomes (delinquency, drug use, depression, deviant peer affiliations) were assessed at 12 and 24-months post-baseline.    

 

Results:  A correlation was computed to assess the relationship between distance and group (GC; MTFC).  Analyses indicated that girls in the MTFC condition were placed significantly closer to home of origin than girls in the GC condition (r = -.23**, p = .004).   Further analyses will be conducted to test whether the distance variable also predicts youth adjustment outcomes, and the impact of the interaction between distance and intervention condition on youth adjustment.     

 

Conclusions: The results of the current study indicate that MTFC was successful in keeping youth in their communities and placing them significantly closer to their home of origin than other treatment-as-usual conditions.  Additional analysis will examine how the placement distance influences adjustment outcomes.