The Relational Context of School Engagement and Associations With Youth Behaviors

Abstract

Youth in foster care face many academic risks, including diminished engagement in school and behavior problems that further threaten learning and academic achievement. However, school engagement is responsive to contextual change, leaving many opportunities to intervene upon school engagement and boost overall functioning. The present study examines the mediating and moderating potential of aspects within the relational context of school engagement and academically threatening behaviors, using a national sample of adolescent foster youth. Findings indicate that greater school engagement and more positive perceptions of relationships with both peers and foster parents were associated with lower self-reported internalizing, and lower self- and caregiver-reported externalizing behaviors. Peer relationships moderated the association between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing, and foster parent–youth relationships moderated the association between school engagement and youth-reported internalizing. Furthermore, peer relationships mediated the association between school engagement and internalizing, but not externalizing behaviors, while relationships with foster parents mediated associations between school engagement and both self- and caregiver reports of both internalizing and externalizing. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Keywords

foster youth foster parent school engagement child behaviors peer relationships parent–child relationship foster care

Introduction

There were nearly 687,645 youth served by the U.S. foster care system in the fiscal year 2018, with more than 437,000 in care at any given time (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2019). Due to youths’ experiences of abuse and/or neglect, subsequent removal from their primary caregiver, and propensity for adversity as they transition to adulthood (Berzin, 2008), close attention to their well-being is warranted as many exhibit mental or behavioral challenges that negatively influence or inhibit their ability to successfully navigate the demands of adolescence (e.g., school and home life; Greeson et al., 2011). School engagement has emerged as one imperative domain for the development and adjustment of all youth, including high-risk groups such as youth in foster care (e.g., Appleton et al., 2008). The ecological model of school engagement presented by Fredricks et al. (2004) proposes school engagement as a malleable concept inclusive of cognitive, affective or behavioral, and social elements. Thus, exploration into how individual and contextual or relational factors interact to promote or hinder school engagement is pertinent for the development of interventions to promote academic well-being.

In addition to reporting on aspects of their academic environment and efforts, youth who rate themselves highly on school engagement are also reporting on positive experiences in school and with peers, as these interactions are inherently and inextricably involved in the school experience (Simons-Morton & Chen, 2009). Despite developments in our understanding of school engagement, there are multiple unexplored areas related to the multidimensional context in which school engagement occurs—particularly with regard to youth with many and unique academic risk factors, such as youth in foster care. This article enhances previous research by examining the interrelated psychological, social, and academic contexts of adolescents in foster care, specifically: school engagement, relationships with peers and foster parents, and problem behaviors.

The Importance of School Engagement

School engagement has received attention as a potential area for targeted interventions for at-risk and maltreated youth, including those who have come into contact with the child protective system (Moses & Villodas, 2017). Broadly, school engagement is a concept that represents the degree of interest in and commitment to school activities and in-school relationships with teachers and peers (Roundfield et al., 2018). In prior studies, school engagement has been associated with reduced delinquent activity, lower rates of marijuana use, better overall mental health, and better academic outcomes, including grades, test performance, and overall attainment (Bender, 2012; Cheng & Lo, 2011; Leonard & Gudiño, 2016; Snyder & Smith, 2015). Among elementary-aged children in foster care, school engagement has been positively associated with academic outcomes (Pears et al., 2013), and similar patterns have been noted through early adolescence for at-risk youth (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011). School engagement also emerged as a significant mediator when examining the risks of mental health problems on school functioning in one study of adolescent girls in the child welfare system specifically (Threlfall et al., 2017). Importantly, school engagement is an attractive candidate for efforts to boost student achievement due to its malleability and responsiveness to contextual influence (Fredricks et al., 2004).

The Relationship Between Youth Problem Behaviors and School Experiences

On average, youth in foster care are prone to problematic patterns of behavior—both internalizing and externalizing—at higher rates than their nonfostered peers (e.g., Heflinger et al., 2000; Leslie et al., 2010 Ryan et al., 2007). Understandably, behavioral challenges are considered barriers to academic success (Sullivan et al., 2010), and indeed, behavioral problems among foster youth have been extensively documented in school settings in particular (Smithgall et al., 2005; Zima et al., 2000). Youth who display problematic behaviors in school—particularly externalizing behaviors—are much more likely to miss large chunks of the school year due to suspension or expulsion (McMillen et al., 2003). In addition, it has long been established that behavior problems can affect students’ abilities to meaningfully engage in building beneficial relationships with peers, teachers, and other adults in school settings (McIntyre et al., 1988; Stein, 1997). This may be particularly dangerous in light of evidence that experiences of social rejections feed the development of antisocial pathology (Coie et al., 1995).

While externalizing problems often garner more attention—by both teachers and researchers—due to their disruptive nature and greater associations with criminal involvement (Maschi et al., 2008), internalizing behaviors can also be problematic for students’ academic progress and overall adjustment (Hughes & Gullone, 2007). Internalizing behaviors (i.e., depressive, withdrawn, or anxious behaviors) can influence youths’ approaches to and persistence through academic challenges they encounter in class (Flook et al., 2005). This may be particularly relevant for adolescents, as they commonly experience intense self-evaluative pressures and compare themselves and their performance to that of other students (Cole et al., 2002; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Ruble & Dweck, 1995).

The Relational Context of School Engagement and Youth Behaviors: Relationships With Peers and Foster Parents

Researchers have found peer relationships to be highly important for youth (Ruini et al., 2009), as peers often supersede parents as the most important social influences among adolescents (Albert et al., 2013; Knoll et al., 2015). With specific regard to academic outcomes, Moses and Villodas (2017) identified that positive peer relationships were associated with likelihood of high school graduation. School engagement is frequently associated with other positive conditions that may be influenced by malleable social factors, such as social support from peers and teachers, as well as the classroom or school context (Fawley-King et al., 2017; Lynch et al., 2013; Wang & Eccles, 2012). For example, positive peer relationships have been found to predict higher levels of school engagement among youth in the general population (Li et al., 2011). Wang and Eccles (2012) similarly found peer relations to influence various aspects of school engagement among adolescents. Despite a growing body of research examining the associations between peers and school engagement among youth in the general population, less is known about the peer context of school engagement for youth in foster care. Among available research on social supports for foster youth, Tilbury and colleagues (2012) found that youth with supportive caseworkers were more likely to feel connected to school. Another study identified that youth in foster care reported higher school engagement than maltreated youth who remained in their parents’ home (Font & Maguire-Jack, 2013). Furthermore, Merritt and Snyder (2015) found that youth who perceive better connections with friends at school are more likely to demonstrate better behavior. However, previous research has not fully explored the associations between school engagement and peer relations for youth in care, nor possible associations with problematic behaviors.

Research examining links between foster youth–parent relationships and foster youth behavior is also relatively underdeveloped (De Robertis & Litrownik, 2004). However, existing work has identified that positive relationships between foster parents and youth are associated with lower intensity of problem behaviors (Cooley et al., 2015). Similarly, positive relationships between youth and their foster parents have been found to buffer the negative effects of trauma symptoms on negative behaviors (Wojciak et al., 2017). Thus, there is some evidence that positive youth–caregiver relationships may be important for adjustment among youth in care; however, less work has examined foster parents’ influences on youths’ school engagement. Goemans and colleagues (2018) found that foster caregivers’ positive parenting was predictive of increases in school engagement for foster youth (ages 5–18) over time. While this study is encouraging, more research is needed to understand the effects of foster youth’s relationships with their foster parents on factors that promote academic well-being.

Theoretical Framework

Fredricks and colleagues’ (2004) ecological model of school engagement stems from Bronfenbrenner ecological systems theory, which posits that an individual’s development is inextricably affected by the content and contexts of their surrounding environments (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986). For adolescent foster youth, their home and school contexts, which include relationships with peers and foster parents, are categorized as proximal influences, thus having direct impacts on individual development. Furthermore, adolescence is a time of rampant developmental transitions, such as an increasing importance of peer influence on youth preferences and behavior (Knoll et al., 2015). Youth in foster care may also experience other external/contextual transitions, including those related to foster placement(s), caregivers, schools, and peer groups. A sense of connectedness to prosocial influences, including to school, teachers, caregivers, and peers, has been associated with positive outcomes such as better mental health, stronger academic achievement, and lower risk of delinquent behavior (Bender, 2012; Goemans et al., 2018; Roundfield et al., 2018; Threlfall et al., 2017). Considering how multiple interrelated systems interact and influence school engagement may expand understanding of or provide support for future interventions aimed at promoting positive outcomes for youth in foster care, during adolescence and beyond.

Purpose

The overarching purpose of this study was to examine the nature of the relationships between school engagement, relationships with peers and foster caregivers, and problematic internalizing and externalizing behaviors—as perceived by both youth and caregivers. First, authors examined whether school engagement, peer relationships, and foster youth–caregiver relationship predicted internalizing and externalizing behaviors (i.e., both youth and caregiver reports of behavior). Based on previous research, authors hypothesized that school engagement would be associated with more positive perceptions of peer and caregiver relationships, and negatively associated with behavior problems. Second, authors examined whether peer and caregiver relationships significantly moderated the relationship between school engagement and youth behaviors. Authors hypothesized that peer and caregiver relationships would serve as respective moderators of the associations between school engagement and problem behaviors. Third, to provide initial support for how or why the relationship between school engagement and youth behavior exists, authors examined whether youth perceptions of their peer relationships and youth–caregiver relationships significantly mediated the respective relationships between school engagement and youth behaviors. Authors hypothesized that peer and caregiver relationships would be underlying mechanisms in explaining relationships between school engagement and problem behaviors.

Method

Sample and Procedure

This cross-sectional secondary data analysis included data from 234 adolescent foster youth in the United States, ages 11–17 (M = 14.23; SD = 1.774) with substantiated investigations of abuse or neglect. There was a slightly larger number of females (n = 127, 54.3%) compared with males (n = 107, 45.7%). In this sample, 32.9% (n = 77) of youth were identified by their caseworkers as being Black, 28.6% (n = 67) White, 25.6% (n = 60) Hispanic, and 12% (n = 28) were of another race/ethnicity or biracial. The majority of these youth were in traditional nonrelative foster homes (n = 131, 56%), followed by group/residential care (n = 51, 21.8%), kinship care (n = 45, 19.2%), or another planned living arrangement (n = 7, 3%). Neglect (n = 60, 25.6%) was the most commonly reported type of maltreatment, in addition to physical abuse (n = 36, 15.4%), sexual abuse (n = 28, 12%), other forms of maltreatment (n = 17, 7.3%), and other uncategorized types of abuse (n = 40, 17.1%). Please see Appendix Table A1 for more information on the sample demographics.

Data from this study were drawn from Wave II of the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW) II. NSCAW II was a longitudinal study of 5,872 children of all ages, with unsubstantiated and substantiated reports of abuse or neglect, conducted by the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE, 2012), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Of the 5,872 children in the original sample, our study examined adolescents with substantiated abuse or neglect reports, hence the large difference from the original sample. The three-wave NSCAW II study intended to examine the functioning, needs, and services obtained by youth and families involved in the public child welfare system (OPRE, 2012). Wave II was selected because, although the sample size may be slightly smaller than Wave I, the sample contains more youth who had been in foster care for a longer time.

Measures

School engagement

Youth self-reported school engagement using 11 items from the Drug Free Schools Outcome Study Questions (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.). A 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “never” to “almost always,” was utilized, and youth responded to questions such as “How often do you enjoy(hate) being in school?” and “How often do you try your best at your work?” Items were administered in a school setting using an interview format. Items were reverse-scored where necessary. Internal consistency of this measure was adequate (α = .77).

Child behaviors

Foster parent report

Foster parents’ reports of adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors were assessed using the Child Behavior Checklist for ages 6–18 (CBCL 6–18; Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1993). The internalizing subscale consists of 31 items related to anxious and depressed behaviors, social withdrawal, and somatic complaints. The externalizing subscale includes 33 items related to rule-breaking and aggressive behaviors; caregivers responded by indicating “not true,” “somewhat true,” or “very often true” for each. Reliability and validity of this instrument are well established (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001).

Youth report

Youths’ reports of their internalizing and externalizing behaviors were assessed using the Youth Self Report for ages 11–17 (YSR; Achenbach, 1991). Items and possible responses for the subscales closely resemble those in the CBCL and are slightly reworded to reflect self-reported items instead of observations. The internalizing subscale contains 37 items and the externalizing subscale contains 33 items. The reliability of these subscales has been reported at α = .85 and α = .84, respectively (Achenbach, 1991).

Youth–peer relationships

Youths’ perceptions of their peer relationships were measured using the 16-item Loneliness and Social Dissatisfaction Questionnaire for Young Children (Asher & Wheeler, 1985). The 5-point Likert-type items assess youths’ relationships with their peers (e.g., loneliness, relationship quality, status with friends), with higher scores indicating more dissatisfaction or loneliness within friendships. Adequate reliability and validity have been established for this measure (Cassidy & Asher, 1992).

Youth–caregiver relationships

Youth reported on their perception of relationship with their primary foster caregiver using a 14-item, 4-point Likert-type scale measure developed for NSCAW. Items tapping into perceived closeness to their foster parent, trust in their foster parent, and foster parents’ fairness were included. Internal consistency was adequate (α = .89). Please note that foster parent and foster caregiver are used interchangeably within this manuscript.

Data Analysis

Before data were analyzed, authors examined relationships (i.e., Pearson r correlations) between school engagement, internalizing and externalizing behaviors from both the youth and foster parent perspective, and the youths’ perception of their relationship with their peers and foster parents. This analysis revealed that there was a significant relationship between school engagement and all other study variables except for caregiver-reported internalizing behaviors (−.113, p > .05). Thus, caregiver-reported internalizing behaviors were not included in the final analysis. Next, researchers conducted a series of one-way ANOVAs with Tukey honestly significant difference, independent samples t-tests, and regression analyses to examine whether there were significant differences in school engagement based on youth and caregiver demographics to identify potential control variables (i.e., youth and caregiver age, youth and caregiver gender, youth and caregiver race/ethnicity, type of maltreatment, placement type, caregiver income, caregiver employment status, caregiver marital status, caregivers’ highest degree, number of biological children). Only youth gender was significant and thus was included as the sole control variable in all subsequent analyses.

To address the first research question, a series of simple linear regression models were tested to determine whether significant relationships existed between school engagement, peer relationships, foster youth–parent relations, and youth behaviors. Youth-reported internalizing and externalizing behaviors as well as foster parent-reported externalizing behaviors were included in the final analyses. To address the second research question, moderation analyses were run using hierarchical multiple regression and interaction effects in SPSS Version 24 (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Frazier et al., 2004; IBM Corporation, 2016). Prior to testing for moderation, independent and moderator variables were centered to reduce the potential for multicollinearity between interaction terms (Aiken & West, 1991). Interaction terms were calculated by multiplying the centered independent variable (school engagement) with the moderator variables (peer and caregiver relationships). Six separate hierarchical regression analyses were performed to test for moderating effects (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). Significant moderation analyses were plotted using the Dawson (n.d.) Excel worksheets, which substituted high levels of moderator variables at 1 standard deviation (SD) above the mean and low moderator variables at 1 SD below the mean. To address the third research question, mediation analyses were run using a bootstrapping procedure to examine whether peer relationships and youth–foster parent relationships explained respective associations between school engagement and problem behaviors. Bootstrapping provides higher power and constrains the Type I error rate (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The Hayes (2018) PROCESS macro was used to analyze the significant covariate on the mediation analysis (i.e., gender).

Results

School Engagement, Peer and Foster Caregiver Relationships, and Internalizing and Externalizing Behaviors

School engagement emerged as a significant predictor of each of the study variables in preliminary analyses. Contrary to authors’ hypothesis, greater school engagement was associated with more dissatisfaction and loneliness in peer relationships. However, all other variables performed as expected: Higher school engagement was associated with more positive perceptions of relationships with foster parents, lower self-reported internalizing behavior, and lower externalizing behavior from both youths’ and foster parents’ reports. Also interesting to note, higher dissatisfaction with peer relationships was associated with lower reports of internalizing behavior from the youths’ reports and lower externalizing behaviors from both youths’ and foster parents’ reports. Third, a more positive relationship with one’s foster caregiver was associated with lower reports of internalizing behavior from the youths’ reports and lower externalizing behaviors from both youths’ and caregivers’ reports. Please see Appendix Table B1 for specific values.

Peer and Youth–Caregiver Relationships as Moderators

Peer relationships as moderator

There was a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, youth-reported internalizing, and the control variable, youth gender; R² = .138, F(4, 217) = 8.675, p < .01, such that 13.8% of the variance in internalizing could be attributed to the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. Although the overall model was significant, neither school engagement nor the interaction term was found to be significant, thus, peer relationships were not a moderator of school engagement on youth-reported internalizing behaviors.

Authors also found a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, youth-reported externalizing, and the control variable, R² = .291, F(4, 217) = 22.309, p < .01, such that 29.1% of the variance in externalizing behavior can be attributed to the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. The terms associated with a significant slope were school engagement, youth gender, and the School Engagement × Peer Relationships interaction term. The negative relationship between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing behavior was stronger among those with more positive peer relationships. Specifically, it appears that those who perceive more positive peer relationships reported fewer externalizing behaviors. Peer relationships appear to buffer the negative relationship between school engagement and externalizing behaviors. See Figure 1 for more detail.

Figure 1.

Regression line for relations between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing behavior as moderated by peer relationships (a two-way interaction).

There was a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, foster parent-reported externalizing behavior, and the control variable, R² = .113, F(4, 205) = 6.497, p < .01. After examining the value of R², it was determined that 11.3% of the variance in externalizing behavior could be attributed to the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. Although the overall model was significant, the moderator variable nor the interaction term was found to be significant, thus, peer relationships was not a moderator of school engagement on foster parent-reported externalizing behaviors.

Foster youth–caregiver relationships as a moderator

Authors found a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, youth-reported internalizing behavior, and the control variable, R² = .167, F(4, 205) = 10.265, p < .01, such that 16.7% of the variance in internalizing behavior could be attributed to the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. The terms associated with a significant slope were school engagement, youth gender, foster youth–parent relationship, and the School Engagement × Foster Youth–Parent Relationship interaction term. The negative relationship between school engagement and youth-reported internalizing behavior was stronger among those with more positive foster youth–parent relationships. Those who perceive more positive foster youth–parent relationships reported fewer internalizing behaviors. Foster parent–youth relationships appear to buffer the negative relationship between school engagement and internalizing behaviors. See Figure 2 for more detail.

Figure 2.

Regression line for relations between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing behavior as moderated by peer relationships (a two-way interaction).

There was a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, youth-reported externalizing behavior, and the control variable, R² = .350, F(4, 205) = 27.563, p < .01, such that 35% of the variance in externalizing behavior can be attributed to the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. Although the overall model was significant, the interaction term was not found to be significant, thus, foster youth–parent relationship was not a moderator of school engagement on youth-reported externalizing behaviors.

There was a significant relationship between school engagement, the interaction term, foster parent-reported externalizing behavior, and the control variable, R² = .115, F(4, 197) = 6.395, p < .01. After examining the value of R², it was determined that 11.5% of the variance in externalizing behavior was accounted for by the independent variable, control, moderator, and interaction term. Although the overall model was significant, neither gender nor the interaction term was found to be significant, thus, foster youth–parent relationship was not a moderator of school engagement on foster parent-reported externalizing behaviors.

Peer and Youth–Caregiver Relationships as Mediators

Peer relationships as a mediator

Peer relationships were examined as a mediator in the association between school engagement and problem behaviors, from both youth and foster parent reports. Because the effect of school engagement on foster parent-reported internalizing behaviors was not significant in our initial model, only externalizing behaviors were examined from caregivers’ reports. When examining youth-reported behaviors, authors found a significant indirect effect of school engagement on internalizing behaviors via peer relationships when controlling for gender, b = −.2860, 95% bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) [−.4860, −.0094] (see Figure 3). However, peer relationships did not significantly mediate the association between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing behaviors when controlling for gender, b = −.0131, 95% BCa [−.1720, .1545]. Similar to youth reports, peer relationships did not significantly mediate the association between school engagement on foster parent-reported externalizing behaviors when controlling for gender, b = −.0947, 95% BCa [−.2358, .0470].

Figure 3.

Model of school engagement as a predictor of youth-reported internalizing behaviors, mediated by peer relationships.

Foster youth–caregiver relationships as a mediator

The relationship between foster youth and their foster parent (youth-reported) was examined as a mediator in the respective associations between school engagement and problem behaviors, from both youth and foster parent reports. As indicated previously, the effect of school engagement on caregiver-reported internalizing behaviors was not significant in our initial model, thus only externalizing behaviors were examined from caregivers’ reports moving forward. When examining youth-reported behaviors, authors found a significant indirect effect of school engagement on internalizing behaviors via youth–caregiver relationships that held when controlling for gender, b = −.1285, 95% BCa [−.2606, −.0297] (see Figure 4). Peer relationships also significantly mediated the association between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing behaviors when controlling for gender, b = −.0795, 95% BCa [−.1775, −.0108] (see Figure 5). Similar to youth reports, there was a significant indirect effect on the association between school engagement and foster parent-reported externalizing behaviors through foster youth–parent relationship when controlling for gender, b = −.0751, 95% BCa [−.1792, −.0063] (see Figure 6).

Figure 4.

Model of school engagement as a predictor of youth-reported internalizing behaviors, mediated by foster youth–parent relationships.

Figure 5.

Model of school engagement as a predictor of youth-reported externalizing behaviors, mediated by foster youth–parent relationships.

Figure 6.

Model of school engagement as a predictor of caregiver-reported externalizing behaviors, mediated by foster youth–parent relationships.

Discussion

Results of this study indicate that higher school engagement and more positive relationships with foster parents were associated with reduced internalizing (youth report) and externalizing behaviors for youth in foster care (both youth and caregiver report). However, greater school engagement was also associated with more dissatisfaction or loneliness in peer relationships. Furthermore, satisfaction with peer relationships buffered against the negative impacts of lower school engagement on youth-reported externalizing behaviors, and more positive perceptions of relationships with foster parents buffered against consequences of poor school engagement for youth-reported internalizing behaviors. When examining these relational contexts as mechanisms rather than moderators, peer relationships were identified as significantly mediating the relationship between school engagement and internalizing behaviors, but this relationship was not present when examining externalizing behavior. Finally, youth perceptions of their relationships with foster parents significantly mediated all associations between school engagement and internalizing and externalizing behaviors.

School Engagement, Peer and Caregiver Relationships, and Behaviors

The findings of this article are generally aligned with previous research, which has overwhelmingly found school engagement to be associated with enhanced outcomes for youth. Research has found that youth in foster care often see school as a means for achieving their goals in life; however, school connection may be facilitated by helpful relationships with caseworkers, as well as a supportive school environment (Tilbury et al., 2012). The only finding contrary to initial hypotheses indicated that foster youth who reported higher school engagement also reported more dissatisfaction in their relationships with peers. However, there may be explanations for this unexpected finding. Many foster youth face school instability due to out-of-home placement and moves between placements, which may affect their ability to maintain contact and build strong connections with peers (McMahon & Curtin, 2013). Another possibility is that youth in this sample with fewer or less satisfying peer relationships may seek alternative means of support and satisfaction in school settings, perhaps via school engagement.

Authors also found an association between school engagement and positive relationships with foster parents. Researchers were unable to find another study of foster youth with similar outcomes; however, among urban youth in the general population, parent involvement has been associated with higher school engagement (Dotterer & Wherspann, 2015). The present findings also suggest greater influence of foster parents on educational adjustment than has been documented in other studies (e.g., Goemans et al., 2018). This study also identified lower reports of behavioral problems when foster youth are more engaged in school, which is echoed in other studies of children and adolescents involved in the child welfare or foster care system (Dotterer & Lowe, 2011; Pears et al., 2013; Threlfall et al., 2017).

Peer and Youth–Foster Parent Relationships as Moderators

As indicated by the ecological framework guiding this article, associations need to be examined using a contextual lens, such as examining school engagement within a lens of interpersonal relationships in multiple contexts. Previous studies among youth involved in the child welfare system have identified that school engagement is associated with enhanced academic outcomes (Bender, 2012; Cheng & Lo, 2011; Leonard & Gudiño, 2016; Snyder & Smith, 2015); however, less attention has been paid to how relationships among youth and important people in their life affect school engagement. This study found that youths’ reports of their dissatisfaction with peer relationships moderated the association between school engagement and youth-reported externalizing, such that lower school engagement had a more negative impact on externalizing behaviors for youth with more dissatisfaction with peers. This effect may have been driven, at least in part, by the social aspects of school engagement. In other words, youth who scored low on school engagement (and perhaps lowest on items tapping into social elements of school engagement) may exhibit the most negative behavioral consequences when they also report dissatisfaction with peers (Galanaki et al., 2008).

Results also indicated that youths’ perceptions of their relationship with their foster parent buffered against the association between low school engagement and youth-reported internalizing behaviors, such that youth with better relationships with foster parents appear to have been protected against experiencing more internalizing behaviors as school engagement decreased. This may indicate that strong home context is compensating for youth’s less positive experiences in school in a way that protects against depressive, withdrawn, and anxious symptomology. This finding is in line with prior work that has found supportive adults to be protective against overall maladjustment for fostered adolescence (Cooley et al., 2015; Wojciak et al., 2017). However, this finding is also important in that it suggests a possible point of intervention for promoting positive outcomes across contexts. Interestingly, neither relational context variable (i.e., peer or foster parent–youth relationships) was found to buffer against the impacts of school engagement on foster parents’ reports of youth problem behaviors—internalizing or externalizing. This may be due in part to measurement differences between foster parents’ and youth’s reports of youth behaviors, and relatedly, the foster parent-reported youth behavior variables being the only foster parent-reported variables in the models. Future work should examine foster parent reports of the foster parent–youth relationship, to determine whether similar patterns emerge, or whether those additional reports help illuminate these associations.

Peer and Youth–Foster Parent Relationships as Mediators

Authors found that peer and foster parent relationships explained significant proportions of the association between school engagement and child behavior, with peer relationships associating with internalizing behavior and caregiver relationships being associated with externalizing behavior. This has been echoed in previous research among youth in the general population that identified support from parents was associated with behavioral engagement in school, while peer relationships were associated with affective involvement (Estell & Perdue, 2013). With regard to peer relationships, interestingly, higher dissatisfaction with peers accounted for the relationship between school engagement and reduced internalizing behavior. Merritt and Snyder (2015) constructed a measure of relationships with peers at school, as opposed to looking at peer relationships overall, and found that better relationships with peers at school were associated with better behavior. Perhaps foster youth who are experiencing more loneliness in their general friendships (e.g., due to residential mobility or school instability) and who seek out school activities are more likely to find interpersonal fulfillment through these activities as well (i.e., school engagement provides the interaction). The present study also identified that more positive caregiver relationships were significant mediator associated with reduced externalizing behavior. This is echoed in previous studies where parental relationships have also been found to be associated with few problem behaviors in youth (Cooley et al., 2015) and to mediate the association between trauma symptoms and problem behaviors (Wojciak et al., 2017). When considering Estell and Perdue’s (2013) finding that parent relations were associated with higher behavioral engagement, this study lends support for the notion that foster caregivers play may play an important role in foster youths’ engagement in school.

Limitations

As is the case with any research, results of this study should be interpreted in light of a few limitations. First, while NSCAW II was a large, national sample of youth in the child welfare system, our study consisted of a relatively small subsample of adolescents in out-of-home care. Furthermore, youth were not sampled from all 50 states. Thus, these results may not be entirely generalizable to all adolescents in all states. This study is also restricted to measures that were selected by NSCAW developers, which may not capture all relevant domains of school engagement, or peer or caregiver relationships. Finally, because of the lack of research on foster youth school engagement and interpersonal relationships, authors chose a cross-sectional examination to verify the associations between study variables. However, this limits the ability to establish causal claims, and these results should only be examined as associations.

Implications

Research

Adolescents in foster care continue to show chronic academic and social deficits at alarming rates—a problem that rightfully remains at the forefront of many programs of research and policy initiatives. This work constitutes an important contribution to these efforts in that it adds to our overall understanding of how relational factors affect important school-related outcomes for adolescents in foster care. Future directions of this work may include exploring any differential effects of relationships with different types of foster caregivers (i.e., foster parents, kinship caregivers, relative caregivers, etc.), as well as exploring the protective potential of relationships with teachers, specifically, given their regular access to youth and high potential for influence. Because school engagement is connected to better grades and other indicators of academic achievement, future research should also consider a more complex research model that includes both interpersonal relationships of foster youth and their academic outcomes. Finally, research should examine school engagement and interpersonal relationships overtime to establish whether there may be causal associations between variables.

Practice

Schools are crucial settings for behavioral and socioemotional interventions because of their universality (i.e., almost all kids go to school), and because practitioners have more control over those environments than children’s home environments. School-based interventions are particularly relevant to youth in foster care, as foster youth are more likely than their peers to experience frequent changes of residence (i.e., which do not always necessitate changing schools). This work provides support for placing greater emphasis on foster children’s involvement with peers in the school environment and supportive adults. Although there have been mixed findings in regard to extracurricular activities and foster youth outcomes (Conn et al., 2014; Farineau & McWey, 2011), promoting involvement in extracurricular and in school activities may be one way of enhancing school and peer engagement in the academic environment is through promoting foster youth involvement in extracurricular activities like sports or clubs.

In addition to foster parents, teachers or coaches may also be able to meet children’s needs for supportive, warm relationships with caring adults (Reynolds & Ou, 2004). Nonparental mentoring programs are generally regarded as being effective in boosting youth adjustment in general population samples (DuBois et al., 2002; DuBois & Silverthorn, 2005), as well as boosting school engagement among adolescents in contact with the child welfare system (Kwak et al., 2018). For foster youth in particular, one study found that mentoring programs enhanced social skills and general interpersonal trust (Rhodes et al., 1999). Mentoring programs can support socioemotional development, which can in turn increase the quality of peer and parental relationships (Rhodes, 2005; Rhodes et al., 2002, 2006), making those relationships even more effective at boosting other social and behavioral adjustments overall. However, there have been mixed conclusions about the effectiveness of formal mentoring programs among foster youth specifically (Spencer et al., 2010). Thus, research should further investigate differences in mentoring program effectiveness between fostered and nonfostered children (Ahrens et al., 2011) as well as between youth involved in mentoring programs of various forms (e.g., school-based vs. community-based).

Conclusion

Youth in foster care are at heightened risk for poor academic trajectories. The development of targeted interventions to correct those trajectories requires studies of the specific, contextual factors that affect or interact with important academic assets, such as school engagement. The current study found that relationships with foster parents may be particularly important for buffering against the emergence of academically threatening behaviors among foster youth at varying levels of school engagement. Further research is needed to examine longitudinal associations between school engagement, relationships with peers and foster caregivers, and behavioral outcomes. In addition, inclusion of other important adults and academic outcomes, such as achievement and graduation, will greatly enhance understanding of the relational context of school engagement.

Footnotes

Appendix A

Table A1.

Demographic Table.

Characteristic	f (%)	M (SD)
Youth age		14.24 (1.77)
11	19 (8.1)
12	28 (11.9)
13	37 (15.7)
14	36 (15.3)
15	45 (19.1)
16	49 (20.9)
17	21 (8.9)
Youth gender
Male	107 (45.5)
Female	128 (54.5)
Youth race/ethnicity
Black	78 (33.2)
Hispanic	60 (25.5)
White	67 (28.5)
Other	28 (11.9)
Missing	2 (.9)
Type of abuse
Physical	36 (15.3)
Sexual	28 (11.9)
Maltreatment	18 (7.7)
Neglect	60 (25.5)
Other	40 (17)
Missing	53 (22.6)
Placement type
Traditional foster home	131 (55.7)
Kinship home	45 (19.1)
Group or residential home	52 (22.1)
Other out-of-home arrangement	7 (3)
Caregiver age		33.92 (27.23)
24–30	6 (2.5)
31–40	36 (15.4)
41–50	52 (22.2)
51–60	49 (20.1)
61–70	16 (6.7)
71+	11 (4.5)
Missing	65 (27.7)
Caregiver gender
Male	17 (7.2)
Female	153 (65.1)
Missing	65 (27.7)

Appendix B

Table B1.

Simple Linear Regression Analyses of School Engagement, Peer Relationships, Foster Youth–Parent Relationships, and Behaviors.

Variable	Constant	B	SE	Beta	t-value	R	R ²
School engagement as predictor
Peer relationships	12.208	.204	.029	.430	7.096**	.430	.185
Foster youth–parent relationship	18.330	.156	.050	.213	3.142**	.213	.045
Youth report of internalizing behaviors	26.659	−.083	.029	−.185	−2.816**	.185	.034
Youth report of externalizing behaviors	37.707	−.171	.023	−.442	−7.359**	.442	.195
Foster parent report of externalizing behaviors	30.033	−.132	.029	−.299	−4.553**	.299	.089
Peer relationships as predictor
Youth report of internalizing behaviors	65.893	−.303	.060	−.324	−5.089**	.324	.105
Youth report of externalizing behaviors	60.914	−.185	.053	−.228	−3.479**	.228	.052
Foster parent report of externalizing behaviors	61.095	−.175	.061	−.195	−2.878**	.195	.038
Foster parent–youth relationships as predictor
Youth report of internalizing behaviors	37.534	−.189	.039	−.312	−4.808**	.312	.097
Youth report of externalizing behaviors	35.654	−.139	.035	−.262	−3.985**	.262	.069
Foster parent report of externalizing behaviors	34.530	−.110	.038	−.198	−2.900**	.198	.039

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Achenbach

T. M.

(1991). Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL/4–18, YSR, and TRF profiles. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Achenbach

T. M.

Edelbrock

C. S.

(1993). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist: And revised child behavior profile. Department of Psychiatry, University of Vermont.

Achenbach

T. M.

Rescorla

L. A.

(2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.

Ahrens

K. R.

DuBois

D. L.

Garrison

Spencer

Richardson

L. P.

Lozano

(2011). Qualitative exploration of relationships with important non-parental adults in the lives of youth in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1012–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.01.006

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.

Albert

Chein

Steinburg

(2013). Peer influences on adolescent decision making. Current Directions in Psycho-logical Science, 22, 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412471347

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Furlong

M. J.

(2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303

Asher

S. R.

Wheeler

V. A.

(1985). Children’s loneliness: A comparison of rejected and neglected peer status. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 500–505.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

10.

Bender

(2012). The mediating effect of school engagement in the relationship between youth maltreatment and juvenile delinquency. Children and Schools, 34, 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdr001

11.

Berzin

S. C.

(2008). Difficulties in the transition to adulthood: Using propensity scoring to understand what makes foster youth vulnerable. Social Services Review, 82, 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1086/588417

12.

Bronfenbrenner

(1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.

13.

Bronfenbrenner

(1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723–742.

14.

Cassidy

Asher

S. R.

(1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Development, 63, 350–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01632.x

15.

Cheng

T. C.

C. C.

(2011). A longitudinal analysis of some risk and protective factors in marijuana use by adolescents receiving child welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 1667–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.030

16.

Cohen

(1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Coie

Terry

Lenox

Lochman

(1995). Childhood peer rejection and aggression and predictors of stable patterns of adolescent disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006799

18.

Cole

D. A.

Tram

J. M.

Martin

J. M.

Hoffman

K. B.

Ruiz

M. D.

Jacquez

F. M.

Maschman

T. L.

(2002). Individual differences in the emergence of depressive symptoms in children and adolescents: A longitudinal investigation of parent and child reports. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.111.1.156

19.

Conn

A. M.

Calais

Szilagyi

Baldwin

Jee

S. H.

(2014). Youth in out-of-home care: Relation of engagement in structured group activities with social and mental health measures. Children and Youth Services Review, 36, 201–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.11.014

20.

Cooley

M. E.

Farineau

H. M.

Mullis

A. K.

(2015). Child behaviors as a moderator: Examining the relationship between foster parent supports, satisfaction, and intent to continue fostering. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.007

21.

Dawson

J. F.

(n.d.). Interpreting interaction effects. http://www.jeremydawson.co.uk/slopes.htm

22.

De Robertis

M. T.

Litrownik

A. J

. (2004). The experience of foster care: Relationship between foster parent disciplinary approaches and aggression in a sample of young foster children. Child Maltreatment, 9, 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559503260402

23.

Dotterer

A. M.

Lowe

(2011). Classroom context, school engagement, and academic achievement in early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1649–1660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9647-5

24.

Dotterer

A. M.

Wherspann

(2015). Parent involvement and academic outcomes among urban adolescents: Examining the role of school engagement. Educational Psychology, 36, 812–830. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1099617

25.

DuBois

D. L.

Holloway

B. E.

Valentine

J. C.

Cooper

(2002). Effectiveness of mentoring programs for youth: A meta-analytic review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 157–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014628810714

26.

DuBois

D. L.

Silverthorn

(2005). Characteristics of natural mentoring relationships and adolescent adjustment: Evidence from a national study. Journal of Primary Prevention, 26, 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-005-1832-4

27.

Dweck

C. S.

Elliott

E. S.

(1983). Achievement motivation. In Mussen

P. H.

(Gen Ed.) & Hetherington

E. M.

(Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 643–691). Wiley.

28.

Estell

D. B.

Perdue

N. H.

(2013). Social support and behavioral and affective engagement: The effects of peers, parents, and teachers. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21681

29.

Farineau

H. M.

McWey

L. M.

(2011). The relationship between extracurricular activities and delinquency of adolescents in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 963–968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.01.002

30.

Fawley-King

Trask

E. V.

Zhang

Aarons

G. A.

(2017). The impact of changing neighborhoods, switching schools, and experiencing relationship disruption on children’s adjustment to a new placement in foster care. Child Abuse & Neglect, 63, 141–150.

31.

Flook

Repetti

R. L.

Ullman

J. B.

(2005). Classroom social experiences as predictors of academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 41, 319–327. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.319

32.

Font

Maguire-Jack

(2013). Academic engagement and performance: Estimating the impact of out-of-home care for maltreated children. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 856–864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.02.010

33.

Frazier

P. A.

Barron

K. E.

Tix

A. P.

(2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115–134.

34.

Fredericks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074001059

35.

Galanaki

E. P.

Polychronopoulou

S. A.

Babalis

T. K.

(2008). Loneliness and social dissatisfaction among behaviourally at-risk children. School Psychology International, 29, 214–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034308090061

36.

Goemans

van Geel

Wilderjans

T. F.

van Ginkel

J. R.

Vedder

(2018). Predictors of school engagement in foster children: A longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.029

37.

Greeson

J. K.

Briggs

E. C.

Kisiel

C. L.

Layne

C. M.

Ake

G. S.

III Ko

S. J.

Gerrity

E. T.

Fairback

J. A.

(2011). Complex trauma and mental health in children and adolescents placed in foster care: Findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network. Child Welfare, 90, 91–108.

38.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

39.

Heflinger

C. A.

Simpkins

C. G.

Combs-Orme

(2000). Using the CBCL to determine the clinical status of children in state custody. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00073-0

40.

Hughes

Gullone

(2007). Internalizing symptoms and disorders in families of adolescents: A review of family systems literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 92–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2007.04.002

41.

IBM Corporation. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for Windows (Version 24.0) [computer software].

42.

Knoll

L. J.

Magis-Weinberg

Speekenbrink

Blakemore

(2015). Social influence on risk perception during adolescence. Psychological Science, 26, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569578

43.

Kwak

Y. Y.

Mihalec-Adkins

B. P.

Mishra

A. A.

Christ

S. L.

(2018). Differential impacts of participation in organized activities and maltreatment types on socioemotional development. Child Abuse & Neglect, 78, 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.026

44.

Leonard

S. S.

Gudiño

O. G.

(2016). Academic and mental health outcomes of youth placed in out-of-home care: The role of school stability and engagement. Child & Youth Care Forum, 45, 807–827. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-016-9357-y

45.

Leslie

L. K.

James

Monn

Kauten

Zhang

Aarons

(2010). Health risk behaviors in young adolescents in the child welfare system. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.12.032

46.

Lynch

A. D.

Kalvin

Yiu

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). Peer relationships as a context for the development of school engagement during early adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35, 329–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411402578

47.

Lynch

A. D.

Lerner

R. M.

Leventhal

(2013). Adolescent academic achievement and school engagement: An examination of the role of school-wide peer culture. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9833-0

48.

Maschi

Morgen

Bradley

Hatcher

S. S.

(2008). Exploring gender differences on internalizing and externalizing behavior among maltreated youth: Implications for social work action. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 25, 531–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-008-0139-8

49.

McIntyre

Lounsbury

K. R.

Berntson

Steel

(1988). Psychosocial characteristics of foster children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 9, 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0193-3973(88)90018-4

50.

McMahon

Curtin

(2013). The social networks of young people in Ireland with experience of long-term foster care: Some lessons for policy and practice. Child and Family Social Work, 18, 329–340. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00849.x

51.

McMillen

Auslander

Elze

White

Thompson

(2003). Educational experiences and aspirations of older youth in foster care. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 82, 475–495.

52.

Merritt

D. H.

Snyder

S. M.

(2015). Correlates of optimal behavior among child welfare-involved children: Perceived school peer connectedness, activity participation, social skills, and peer affiliation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85, 483–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000091

53.

Moses

J. O.

Villodas

M. T.

(2017). The potential protective role of peer relationships on school engagement in at-risk adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46, 2255–2272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-017-0644-1

54.

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (2012). NSCAW II wave 2 report: Child well-being. Administration for Children & Families. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre/resource/nscaw-ii-wave-2-report-child-well-being

55.

Pears

K. C.

Kim

H. K.

Fisher

P. A.

Yoerger

(2013). Early school engagement and late elementary outcomes for maltreated children in foster care. Developmental Psychology, 49, 2201–2211. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032218

56.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

57.

Reynolds

A. J.

S. R.

(2004). Alterable predictors of child well-being in the Chicago longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2003.11.005

58.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2005). A model of youth mentoring. In DuBois

D. L.

Karcher

M. J.

(Eds.), The SAGE program on applied developmental science: Handbook of youth mentoring (pp. 30–43). Sage.

59.

Rhodes

J. E.

Bogat

G. A.

Roffman

Edelman

Galasso

(2002). Youth mentoring in perspective: Introduction to the special issue. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30, 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014676726644

60.

Rhodes

J. E.

Haight

W. L.

Briggs

E. C.

(1999). The influence of mentoring on the peer relationships of foster youth in relative and nonrelative care. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 9, 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327795jra0902_4

61.

Rhodes

J. E.

Spencer

Keller

T. E.

Liang

Noam

(2006). A model for the influence of mentoring relationships on youth development. Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20124

62.

Roundfield

K. D.

Sánchez

McMahon

S. D.

(2018). An ecological analysis of school engagement among urban, low-income Latino adolescents. Youth & Society, 50, 905–925. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16639986

63.

Ruble

D. N.

Dweck

C. S.

(1995). Self-perceptions, person conceptions, and their development. In Eisenberg

(Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology. Social development (Vol. 15, pp. 109–139). Sage.

64.

Ruini

Ottolini

Tomba

Belaise

Albieri

Visani

Offidani

Caffo

Fava

G. A.

(2009). School intervention for promoting psychological well-being in adolescence. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2009.07.002

65.

Ryan

J. P.

Herz

Hernandez

P. M.

Marshall

J. M.

(2007). Maltreatment and delinquency: Investigating child welfare bias in juvenile justice processing. Children and Youth Services Review, 29, 1035–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.04.002

66.

Simons-Morton

Chen

(2009). Peer and parent influences on school engagement among early adolescents. Youth & Society, 41, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09334861

67.

Smithgall

Gladden

R. M.

Yang

D. H.

Goerge

(2005). Behavior problems and educational disruptions among children in out-of-home care in Chicago. Chapin Hall Center for Children.

68.

Snyder

S. M.

Smith

R. E.

(2015). The influence of school engagement on counts of delinquent behaviors among maltreated youths. Children & Schools, 37, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdv015

69.

Spencer

Collins

M. E.

Ward

Smashnaya

(2010). Mentoring for young people leaving foster care: Promise and potential pitfalls. Social Work, 55, 225–234.

70.

Stein

(1997). Teachers’ assessments of children in foster care. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 25, 1–17.

71.

Sullivan

M. J.

Jones

Mathiesen

(2010). School change, academic progress, and behavior problems in a sample of foster youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 164–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.08.009

72.

Threlfall

J. M.

Auslander

Gerke

McGinnis

Tlapek

S. M.

(2017). Mental health and school functioning for girls in the child welfare system: The mediating role of future orientation and school engagement. School Mental Health, 9, 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-017-9207-6

73.

Tilbury

Creed

Buys

Osmond

Crawford

(2012). Making a connection: School engagement of young people in care. Child & Family Social Work, 19, 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12045

74.

U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Drug Free Schools (DFSCA) outcome study questions.

75.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2019). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY¹2018 Estimates as of August 22, 2019—No. 26. Children’s Bureau.

76.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83, 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x

77.

Wojciak

A. S.

Thompson

H. M.

Cooley

M. E.

(2017). The relationship between caregivers and youth in foster care: Examining the relationship for mediation and moderation effects on youth behaviors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 25, 96–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1063426616628816

78.

Zima

B. T.

Bussing

Freeman

Yang

Belin

T. R.

Forness

S. R.

(2000). Behavior problems, academic skill delays and school failure among school-aged children in foster care: Their relationship to placement characteristics. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 87–103. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009415800475