ORI GIN AL PA PER

Education Secured? The School Performanceof Adolescents in Secure Residential Youth Care

Annemiek T. Harder • Anne-Marie N. Huyghen • Jana Knot-Dickscheit •

Margrite E. Kalverboer • Stefan Kongeter • Maren Zeller •

Erik J. Knorth

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

AbstractBackground Despite poor school performance by adolescents in secure residential care

and the potential importance of education during care, little is known about how to achieve

academic success with these adolescents.

Objective Therefore, the aim of the present study is to assess adolescents’ academic

achievement during secure residential care and to identify factors that are associated with

adolescents’ achievement.

Methods In the present study, we have included a sample of 53 adolescents in secure

residential care using information from the individual care plans, the adolescents them-

selves, and their teachers.

Results Contrary to our expectations, teachers report an average-to-good school per-

formance for a majority of the adolescents (53.8 %). Partly consistent with our expecta-

tions, students with an average intelligence level, good academic motivation, and/or

relatively few externalizing behavioral problems show significantly better academic

achievement than students with a low intelligence level, poor academic motivation, and/or

many externalizing problems. The results also suggest that low intelligence and poor

motivation predict academic achievement, both directly and indirectly, through an

increased risk for externalizing problems. Unexpectedly, we did not find significant

associations between teachers’ interaction skills, student–teacher relationship quality, and

adolescents’ academic achievement.

Conclusions Considering our findings, future research should aim at interventions that

focus on improving teachers’ ability to handle poor academic motivation and externalizing

behavioral problems.

A. T. Harder (&) � A.-M. N. Huyghen � J. Knot-Dickscheit � M. E. Kalverboer � E. J. KnorthDepartment of Special Needs Education and Youth Care, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences,University of Groningen, Groote Rozenstraat 38, 9712 TJ Groningen, The Netherlandse-mail: A.T.Harder@rug.nl

S. Kongeter � M. ZellerUniversity of Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany

123

Child Youth Care ForumDOI 10.1007/s10566-013-9232-z

Keywords Secure residential youth care � Education � Adolescents � Academic

motivation � Student–teacher relationship � Academic achievement

Introduction

Young people in residential care often show serious emotional and behavioral problems,

more so than young people who use other types of care (Handwerk et al. 1998). There is

often little or low expectation with regard to the achievements of young people in resi-

dential youth care (Madge 1994), especially in terms of their educational performance

(Fletcher 1993; Lindsay and Foley 1999). Research has shown that the school performance

and educational level of young people in residential care are generally poor compared to

their peers who do not stay in (out-of-home) care (Franz 2004; Van der Ploeg and Scholte

2003). Before their admission, young people in residential care regularly received special

education (Jansen and Feltzer 2002; Van der Ploeg and Scholte 2003), which is education

specifically designed for children with learning and/or behavioral difficulties. There are

also indications that they were more often being taught a specially adapted, less demanding

school curriculum than young people living at home (Franz 2004). During care, and after

their departure from care, these young people often obtain little or no educational quali-

fications (Berridge 2012; Brodie 2001; Jackson 2001; Munro and Stein 2008).

Research on the educational experiences of young people in out-of-home care, which

includes young people in residential and foster care, provides several explanatory factors

for the frequent poor school performance (Berridge 2008; Jackson and Cameron 2012).

The division between care and education, and the failure of social services and educational

departments to work together adequately, is often mentioned as an important structural

problem (cf. Gharabaghi 2012). A second problem is the failure to prioritize education for

young people in out-of-home care. For example, this is expressed in terms of low

expectations and lack of interest in their education on the part of social workers and

caregivers, and the instability of care placements (Berridge 2008). Residential care insti-

tutions are often not focused on educational performance but rather on behavioral issues

(Gharabaghi 2012). On the other hand, school-related factors, such as a failure to recognize

attendance and learning problems faced by young people, and unsympathetic responses to

behavioral difficulties, are also mentioned as obstacles for good school performance

(Jackson and Cameron 2012).

Several facilitating factors for the educational achievement of young people in out-of-

home care that have been found in recent research are: a strong personal motivation,

having a close supportive adult, the experience of stability in care and school placements,

satisfactory accommodation, and financial support (Jackson and Cameron 2012). In

addition, being younger in age, being female, showing few externalizing behaviors, and

having caregivers who provide more home-based academic support and a more positive

literacy environment, and who have higher academic expectations are factors associated

with more academic success (Cheung et al. 2012).

There are indications that it is especially difficult to achieve positive academic

achievements for young people in secure residential care (Bullock et al. 1998). Secure

residential care can be considered the most intensive or restrictive type of residential care.

Institutions that offer secure residential care include locked facilities such as juvenile

detention centers, correctional facilities, and secure residential care centers. Young people

in secure residential care have often been placed there under coercion, and receive care and

treatment in a secured environment (Harder 2011).

Child Youth Care Forum

123

Young people in these care settings often show serious emotional and behavioral

problems, with antisocial and oppositional behavioral problems being prominently

present (Bullock et al. 1998; Vreugdenhil et al. 2004). These young people also regularly

seem to experience problems in their school performance (Boendermaker 1995). Fur-

thermore, research shows that a large group of adolescents in these secure residential

settings function in the low-average to below-average range of intelligence and often

perform poorly academically (Foley 2001; Vreugdenhil et al. 2004). These young people

regularly have a history of academic failure and grade retention (Foley 2001), and often

were not attending school prior to their admission (Boendermaker 1995; Boendermaker

et al. 2004).

Despite the poor school performance of young people in secure care and the potential

importance of education for these young people during care, few studies have focused on

these topics (cf. Foley 2001; Jackson 2001; Trout et al. 2008). Very little is known about

how to provide good quality education for young people in secure residential care (Harder

et al. 2012a; Houchins et al. 2009). Recent research indicates that teachers experience

several barriers to providing good quality education for students in secure residential care,

such as problems in coping with the poor academic motivation and problem behavior of the

young people in class (Houchins et al. 2009). Research also suggests that the relationship

between teachers and students can be considered one of the key factors in successful

educational practice in secure residential care. More specifically, the interaction skills of

teachers in their contact with students seem to play an important role in achieving a

positive teacher–student relationship in secure residential care (Harder et al. 2012a).

Given that previous findings strongly suggest that there are difficulties in achieving

educational success with adolescents in secure residential care, it is important to clarify the

factors that are associated with successful outcomes. Although some studies have been

conducted on educating young people in secure residential care (Harder et al. 2012a;

Houchins et al. 2009), no previously conducted studies specifically focused on factors that

are associated with a good school performance of these young people during secure res-

idential care. Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to assess specific student and

educational characteristics that may be associated with successful school performance of

adolescents in secure residential youth care. The first objective of this study is to assess the

academic achievement and school performance of adolescents during secure residential

care. Second, we aim to measure education quality during secure residential care by

assessing the fit between the young people’s needs and characteristics of the educational

program. The third objective is to identify whether and how the adolescents’ level of

intelligence, behavioral problems in class and academic motivation, their teachers’ inter-

action skills, and the student–teacher relationship are associated with adolescents’ aca-

demic achievement.

Taking previous research findings into account, our hypothesis with regard to the first

objective is that most of these adolescents will show poor academic achievement and

school performance during secure residential care. Our second hypothesis is that there is

a poor fit between the young people’s needs and the educational program. With regard to

the third objective, we hypothesized that adolescents with higher intelligence, who are

academically motivated, who show relatively few behavioral problems, and/or who

experience a good relationship with teachers who show good interaction skills, have

more positive academic outcomes during their stay than adolescents who do not have, or

show one or more of these experiences or characteristics (cf. Meehan et al. 2003;

Orlando et al. 2003).

Child Youth Care Forum

123

Methods

Participants

Adolescents staying in Het Poortje, which is a secure residential center in the Netherlands,

participated in the study. These 12 to 23-year-old adolescents were often coercively placed

in the center as a result of either a civil or penal judgment. The principal reason for

admission was either both intolerably disruptive and antisocial behavior, or behavior

presenting a danger to the young person himself/herself, or to the general public. Both

adolescents from local regions and from regions further away from the center could be

placed there.

Adolescents were eligible for inclusion in the study if they entered the center between

September 1, 2007, and June 1, 2008; were able to understand the Dutch language; and had

left the center. Furthermore, only adolescents who had stayed for a minimum period of

8 weeks were included in the study, since the second measurement (T2) was 8 weeks after

admission. These criteria resulted in a group of 180 adolescents eligible for inclusion.

Since there often was no information about the exact moment of departure, and the

moment of departure in most cases only became clear after the young person had already

left the center, it was quite frequently problematic to contact the teachers to ask them to

complete questionnaires about their student upon departure, or to receive a response from

them. Due to this fact, we only managed to collect information about the school perfor-

mance of 53 adolescents (29 %). The characteristics of these 53 adolescents at the moment

of admission to the center, originating from information in the center’s administration

department and the adolescent’s care plans, are shown in Table 1.

Since we experienced attrition with regard to the information from teachers, we

examined a possible attrition bias. Therefore, we looked at differences between the

response (n = 53) and non-response (n = 127) groups in terms of background charac-

teristics (see Table 1) that were known for most of the adolescents. Results of these

analyses showed that there were no significant differences between these groups, although

there was a trend for adolescents in the response group to be 1.96 times less likely than the

non-response group to live close to the center, v2(1) = 3.9, p = .064, and to be 2.08 times

more likely than the non-response group to have a below average intelligence level,

v2(1) = 3.7, p = .061. These results indicate that there seems to be no attrition bias,

although the response group might be somewhat less intelligent than the non-response

group.

Procedure

The present study was part of a research project that focuses on adolescents staying in Het

Poortje. The total research project had a longitudinal research design with four mea-

surements: at admission (T1), 8 weeks after admission (T2), at departure (T3), and 1 year

after departure (T4). Because there was only information about the school performance of

the young people during their stay in secure care, the present study was based on data

collected at T1, T2, and T3. Both adolescents and teachers were involved and they were

treated in accordance with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

(American Psychological Association 2002).

The adolescents were informed about the study both orally and on paper by the project

leader shortly after their admission. Once the adolescent agreed to participate, the project

leader informed one of the interviewers (i.e., students of the University of Groningen) to

Child Youth Care Forum

123

contact the adolescent for the interviews. During these interviews, no other persons were

present. To guarantee a correct administration, these students received training before

conducting the interviews. Besides interviews, the adolescents completed the question-

naires in their own time during their stay in the center.

Teachers, or more specifically the so-called mentors of the adolescent, were approached

by e-mail with a short explication about the purpose of the study and the questionnaires in

an attachment, which they could fill in digitally or manually and reply by (e-)mail. These

mentors were teachers at the internal school whom the adolescents could turn to when they

were in need of help and advice. Before approaching them individually, the teachers were

also informed about the research project by the project leader during several group

meetings at the center.

Nature of the Residential Program

Secure residential care center Het Poortje is a private care center located at two locations

in the north of the Netherlands. The center functions within the context of both child

welfare and juvenile justice. During the research project, it consisted of a department with

eight residential groups and a department with twelve residential groups. The secure

residential center offered care and treatment for adolescents in a secured or locked envi-

ronment for 24 h a day. Most of the adolescents only had permission to exit the center

under supervision.

Table 1 Characteristics of the students upon admission to secure residential care

Characteristic M SD (range)

Age at admission 16.3 1.3 (12.8–20.0)

Length of stay (months) 8.2 5.9 (2.1–25.9)

N %

Male (vs. female) 37 69.8

Dutch origin (vs. non-Dutch origin) 31 58.5

Civil placement measure (vs. penal) 38 71.7

Living close by the center (vs. further away)a 18 36.0

Living arrangement before admissiona

At home with (one of the) parents 25 50.0

Residential setting (incl. secure) 16 32.0

Living with (foster) family 6 12.0

Living independently 2 4.0

Unstable/homeless 1 2.0

Care history before admissionb 46 88.5

Intelligence level below average (vs. average)c 25 56.8

Externalizing behavioral problems 46 86.8

Internalizing behavioral problems 15 28.3

Delinquent behaviora 32 64.0

Care history before admission refers to whether the adolescents received other types of care before theiradmission to the centera n = 50. b n = 52. c n = 44

Child Youth Care Forum

123

The center admitted both young people that were awaiting trial or had been convicted

for offences (i.e., penal placements), and young people that were at risk for deteriorating in

their behavioral and/or emotional problems (i.e., civil placements). The primary target

group for admission was that of young people from proximal home communities. The

central goal of the care offered in the center was that the young people would leave the

center in a better condition (i.e., with fewer behavioral problems) than upon entry.

The main component of care and treatment in the center consisted of activities at the

(mostly secured) residential groups. At the moment of data collection, many adolescents

were staying in residential groups with a maximum of twelve adolescents, supported by

two group-care workers on a daily basis. For each group there was a team of ten to twelve

care workers who worked in morning and evening shifts of 8 h.

Another main component of the adolescents’ stay in the center was education in special

education classes. According to the compulsory attendance law in the Netherlands, ado-

lescents are required by law to be enrolled in these classes until the age of 18 or until they

have obtained a basic qualification in secondary education. The classes consisted of eight

to ten adolescents at the internal school, where they received training by one teacher who

often had a teaching background in the context of special education. All adolescents

received individual teaching consisting of the use of their own course material, individual

assignments, and individual instruction from the teacher. Some of the adolescents mainly

received education within the theoretical sector of preparatory secondary vocational

education. A majority of the adolescents, however, also or mainly received education

related to job training, including being teaching on metalwork, construction, health and

welfare, and consumer technology.

During their stay in the center, each adolescent was assigned to a coach and a mentor.

The coach is one of the care workers of the residential group and the mentor is one of the

adolescent’s teachers at the internal school. All the group-care workers and teachers in the

center had to acquire a so-called ‘‘Certificate of good conduct’’ before they were hired to

work in the center. This Certificate is a declaration issued by the Ministry of Security and

Justice, which states workers and teachers do not have a criminal record which is relevant

to their work. The assignment to care workers and teachers as coach and mentor,

respectively, was unsystematic and mainly based on the order of placement. Both the coach

and mentor were responsible for observing the adolescents and were involved in the

adolescents’ individual treatment planning. For example, besides the activities at the

residential group and in the classes, some of the adolescents received additional, indi-

vidualized counseling. The treatment planning consisted of individualized care plans which

were developed collaboratively by the coach or mentor and clinicians at the center. These

care plans were evaluated on a 6-week basis.

Measurements

Care Plans

Information on adolescents’ level of intelligence was collected by using information from

the care plans of the adolescents. These care plans were written by a behavioral scientist

(i.e., a psychologist or educator) from the secure care center and contained background

information on the adolescents such as their level of intelligence. For most of the ado-

lescents in the present sample, the care plans reported an IQ score and/or a description of

the level of intelligence. This information was used to categorize the adolescents according

to the DSM-classification in terms of mild mental retardation (IQ scores from 50 to 69),

Child Youth Care Forum

123

level below average (IQ scores from 70 to 84), average (IQ scores from 85 to 120) and

higher than average (IQ scores of 121 and higher).

Teacher Report Form

The adolescent’s motivation and behavioral problems were measured with the Dutch

version of the Teacher Report Form (TRF, Achenbach 1991; de Groot et al. 1996), which

was completed by the teacher (i.e., mentor) at the moment of the adolescent’s departure

from the center. For the present study, we only used the problem behavior scales. The TRF

problem scale consists of 112 items which are scored on a 3-point severity scale ranging

from 0 (not at all a problem) to 2 (severe problem). The instrument comprises scores for

eight subcategories of problem behavior: (1) withdrawn behavior (seven items); (2)

physical symptoms (nine items); (3) anxious-depressive symptoms (sixteen items); 4)

social problems (eight items); (5) thought problems (seven items); (6) attention problems

(nine items); (7) delinquent behavior (eleven items); and (8) aggressive behavior (nineteen

items). The first three subscales can be summed into a score for internalizing problems (34

items) that could range from 0 to 68, and the final two subscales into a score for exter-

nalizing problems (38 items) that could range from 0 to 76, which were both calculated and

used for the present study. The scores on item 60 (e.g., ‘‘apathetic or unmotivated’’) were

used to assess the adolescent’s motivation. The Dutch version of the TRF shows sufficient

validity and reliability (Evers et al. 2000; Verhulst et al. 1997). Good reliability for the

internalizing (a = .87) and externalizing (a = .93) subscale was found for the present

sample.

Treatment Skills Questionnaire

Interaction skills of teachers were measured with the B-test questionnaire (Van Erve et al.

2007), which was completed by the adolescents 8 weeks after their admission. The

B-test—the B refers to the first letter of the Dutch word for treatment: ‘‘Bejegening’’—

consists of 24 items (e.g., ‘‘my mentor is honest’’) with a 6-point Likert scale ranging from

1 (very poor) to 6 (very good). The 24 items can be divided into the following eight

categories of professional interaction skills: (1) clarity (six items); (2) commitment (four

items); (3) standing alongside, instead of above the client (four items); (4) reliability (two

items); (5) fitting in with the client (two items); (6) being respectful to the client (two

items); (7) providing good contact (two items); and (8) giving positive feedback (two

items). In addition to these categories, a total score can be calculated on the basis of all the

items, which can range from 24 to 144 and for which a score of 96 or higher can be

perceived as sufficient (Van Erve et al. 2007). For the present sample, good reliability was

found for all scales (a = .70–.95).

Student–Teacher Relationship Questionnaire

To assess the quality of the adolescent–teacher relationship, we used information from

Psychological Availability and Reliance on Adult (PARA, Schuengel and Zegers 2003)

interviews with the adolescents, and from questionnaires completed by the teachers

8 weeks after admission. By using the PARA, we assessed the adolescent’s experiences in

his/her relationship with their mentor and vice versa. The PARA contains 19 items with a

4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 4 (agree). For the present study, we

Child Youth Care Forum

123

calculated a total mean score for an overall indication of the quality of the relationship,

which could range from 19 to 64. In accordance with Schuengel and Zegers (2003), we

assume that scale scores lower than 2.5 indicate that the adolescent or staff do not sub-

scribe to the viewpoint regarding the relationship, and that where scores equal to and above

2.5 this indicates that they do. We found good reliability scores for both the adolescent

(a = .92) and teacher (a = .87) total PARA scale.

Educational Performance List

Adolescents’ academic achievement and performance at school during their stay in the

secure center was assessed with the Educational Performance List (EPL, Harder 2007) that

was completed by the teacher (i.e., mentor) at the moment of the adolescent’s departure

from the center. This questionnaire was developed for the present study and was based on a

questionnaire that is used in a Dutch longitudinal research study called ‘‘TRacking Ado-

lescents’ Individual Lives Survey’’ (TRAILS; Huisman et al. 2008). The questionnaire

measures the functioning of the adolescents during their attendance at school in the center

and was completed by the teachers. The questionnaire contains 18 items. The first six items

focus on the adolescent’s functioning in the classroom using a 5-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (disagree) to 5 (agree), for which a score equal to and above 4 indicates sufficient

functioning. Item number seven (i.e., ‘‘What do you generally think about the academic

achievement of this student?’’) measures the teacher’s opinion of the academic achieve-

ment of the student on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (very good). The

following four items assess absence from class or school ranging from 1 (1–5 times) to 5

(20 times or more). The other items are concerned with the types of certificates that the

students earned (1 item), the course grades that were achieved (1 item), the match between

the teaching activities and the student’s skills and needs (2 items), whether there was

clarity about what the student wanted with regard to education and work (2 items), and

what the teacher’s expectations were regarding the future academic or occupational

achievements of the student.

Data Analysis

We first used descriptive analyses to describe the academic achievement and student’s

functioning at school. After that, we checked whether the background characteristics of the

adolescents in Table 1 were associated with academic achievement. To determine whether

the adolescent’s level of intelligence, academic motivation, behavioral problems, teacher

skills, and the adolescent–teacher relationship quality were associated with outcomes in

terms of academic achievement, we conducted Chi square analysis with the dichotomized

variables and a Mann–Whitney U test to analyze associations between continuous pre-

dictors and academic achievement. To explore the strength of associations between sig-

nificant predictors for academic achievement, we also conducted Chi square and Mann–

Whitney U tests. In all these analyses, we applied a threshold for significance at a B .05.

Due to the small sample size and limited power, the data did not allow us to conduct

regression analysis.

The statistical program that we used to perform these analyses was SPSS, PASW

Statistics 18.0.3.

Child Youth Care Forum

123

Results

Student’s Academic Achievement and School Performance

Results about the teacher’s opinions concerning the academic achievement of the students

during secure residential care are shown in Table 2.

The teachers thought that somewhat more than half of the adolescents (53.8 %) gen-

erally showed an average to good level of academic achievement. In addition to the

information in Table 2, according to the teachers 21 students (39.6 %) performed below

their educational level.

With regard to a student’s future achievements, nine teachers (17 %) had negative

expectations and eight teachers (15.1 %) had positive expectations. Six teachers (11.3 %)

did not have any clear expectations, because their student was transferred to another

residential center (5.7 %), or they thought that this was dependent on the student’s support

and training after departure from the center (3.8 %), or the teacher was unable to form a

clear picture of the student (1.9 %). A majority of 30 teachers (56.6 %) were doubtful

about the student’s future achievements and 26 of these teachers gave additional infor-

mation about the reasons for their doubts. The most frequently mentioned reason was the

student’s lack of motivation or perseverance with regard to school or work (42.3 %), which

was also expressed in terms of ‘‘no or poor interest,’’ ‘‘a poor attitude towards work,’’ and

‘‘does not finish many things.’’ Five teachers (19.2 %) mentioned the quality of the support

available and the student’s need for structure as reasons for their doubts. The ‘‘changeable

behavior’’ of students (7.7 %), the ‘‘susceptibility to influences from others,’’ (7.7 %) and

the student’s behavioral problems (7.7 %) were also mentioned quite frequently.

The perspective of the teachers about the school performance of the students at school

during secure residential care is shown in Table 3.

The teachers also reported how many times the students were absent from class due to

illness or removed from class during their stay in the center (see Table 4).

A majority of students had at least once been absent from class due to illness (83.7 %)

or been removed from class (88.2 %) during their stay in the secure residential center. A

third of the students was removed from class for at least five times and 15.3 % was absent

due to illness for at least five times.

Student’s Needs and the Educational Program

Somewhat more than half of the group of teachers (50.9 %) thought that education in the

secure care center fitted in with the skills of the student that he or she was mentoring. A

small group of four teachers (7.5 %) thought that this education did not fit the student’s

skills and the other 22 teachers (41.5 %) thought that it fitted slightly.

Table 2 Academic achievementof the students in general

The information in this table isbased on 52 students, sinceinformation from one student wasmissing

Academic achievement N %

Poor 3 5.8

Moderate 21 40.4

Average 16 30.8

Good 12 23.1

Very good 0 0

Child Youth Care Forum

123

The teachers responded less positively to the question of whether education in the center

fitted in with what the students wanted. Somewhat less than a third of the teachers (32.1 %)

thought that there was a fit between education in secure care and the desires of the students.

Eleven teachers (20.8 %) did not think that there was a fit between the contents of the

education and the desires of the students, and 25 teachers (47.2 %) thought that there was a

slight fit.

Predictors of Academic Achievement

We did not find significant associations between the background characteristics of the

adolescents in Table 1 and academic achievement, except for the region of origin: ado-

lescents living further away from the center where more likely to show low academic

achievement than adolescents living close by the center prior to admission, U = 174.0,

z = -2.17, p = .03, r = -.31. Results of the descriptive analyses of the categorical

predictors of intelligence and motivation for the four groups with regard to academic

achievement are shown in Table 5.

The data in Table 5 indicate a trend for students with an average intelligence to be more

likely to show average or good (73.7 %) academic achievement than below average

(26.6 %) or mild mentally retarded (33.3 %) students. Students who were not academically

motivated also were less likely to show average or good (0 %) academic achievement than

those somewhat motivated (61.5 %) or motivated (85.7 %) students. Adolescents with an

average intelligence were 6.8 times more likely than adolescents with a lower intelligence

to show average or good academic achievement, v2(1) = 8.4, p = .004. Adolescents who

Table 3 Student’s functioning at school in secure residential care

Functioning at school M SD

Works at a good rate of speeda 2.7 1.2

Receives additional support due to learning difficulties 2.9 1.1

Effort shown is good 2.6 1.2

Feels at ease at schoolb 3.4 1.2

The information in this table is based on 52 students, since information from one student was missing. Ascore C 4 indicates sufficient functioninga n = 51. b n = 49

Table 4 Absence or removal of students from class

Frequency Non-attendance due to illnessa Removed from classb

N % N %

0 times 9 17.3 6 11.8

1–5 times 35 67.3 28 54.9

5–10 times 5 9.6 8 15.7

10–15 times 0 0 5 9.8

15–20 times 1 1.9 4 7.8

20 times or more 2 3.8 0 0

a n = 52. b n = 51

Child Youth Care Forum

123

were sometimes or often motivated were also more likely than adolescents with no

motivation to show average or good academic achievement, v2(1) = 14.7, p = .000.

Results of the descriptive analyses of the continuous predictors of behavioral problems,

teacher interaction skills, and student–teacher relationship quality for the four academic

achievement groups are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 indicates a trend for students with more internalizing or externalizing behav-

ioral problems to be more likely to show poor or moderate academic achievement than

students with less internalizing or externalizing behavioral problems. Students who showed

good academic achievement, according to their teacher, tended to report poorer interaction

skills on the part of their teacher than the other three groups who showed poorer academic

achievement. Students with poor academic achievement, on the other hand, tended to

report a higher quality for their relationship with the teacher than the other three groups

who showed better academic achievement. However, from the teacher’s perspective,

Table 5 Intelligence, motivation, and the student’s academic achievement

Predictor variables Academic achievement

(1) Poor (2) Moderate (3) Average (4) Good

N % N % N % N %

Intelligence level (n = 43)

Mild mental retardation 2 22.2 4 44.4 3 33.3 0 0

Below average 0 0 11 73.3 2 13.3 2 13.3

Average 1 5.3 4 21.1 8 42.1 6 31.6

Academically motivated (n = 44)

Not at all 2 18.2 9 81.8 0 0 0 0

Sometimes 0 0 10 38.5 9 34.6 7 26.9

Often 1 14.3 0 0 2 28.6 4 57.1

Numbers with the highest percentage for each row are marked in bold

Table 6 Behavioral problems, teacher interaction skills, relationship quality, and the student’s academicachievement

Predictor variables Academic achievement

(1) Poor (2) Moderate (3) Average (4) Good

M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N M (SD) N

Behavioral problems

Internalizing 15.3 (11.4) 3 9.9 (7.5) 20 5.5 (3.9) 11 9.9 (7.2) 11

Externalizing 21.7 (15.2) 3 28.7 (13.4) 20 14.0 (10.3) 11 17.6 (10.3) 11

Teacher interaction skills 114.0 (-) 1 107.4 (22.4) 5 119.3 (9.2) 6 83.4 (35.6) 5

Relationship quality

Student–teacher 2.8 (0.8) 2 2.3 (0.8) 13 2.3 (0.7) 15 2.2 (0.9) 11

Teacher–student 2.6 (1.0) 2 2.5 (0.4) 19 2.5 (0.5) 15 2.9 (0.4) 10

The highest scores for each row are marked in bold. The student–teacher row applies to the relationship asperceived by the adolescents, and the teacher–student relationship is the relationship as perceived by theteacher

Child Youth Care Forum

123

students who showed good academic achievement tended to show a better relationship

with the teacher than students who showed poorer academic achievement. The Mann–

Whitney test only showed a significant difference between poor/moderate and average/

good achievers with regard to student’s externalizing behavioral problems, U = 124.5,

z = -2.92, p = .003, r = -.44.

With regard to the three significant predictors for academic achievement, there was no

significant association between student’s intelligence and academic motivation, although

there was a trend for students with low intelligence to show no motivation (40 %) more

often than those students with an average intelligence (17 %). Students with low intelli-

gence showed significantly higher scores on externalizing behavioral problems than stu-

dents with average intelligence, U = 116.5, z = -2.04, p = .041, r = -.33. Students who

were not academically motivated also showed significantly higher scores on externalizing

behavioral problems than students who were academically motivated, U = 104.5, z =

-2.40, p = .015, r = -.36.

To give a clearer picture of the associations found among intelligence, motivation,

externalizing behavioral problems, and academic achievement, we also show them in

Fig. 1.

As can be seen in Table 6 above, there was only a small group for whom there was

information about the teacher’s interaction skills and academic achievement. To explore

whether there were specific types of interaction skills associated with academic achieve-

ment, we carried out additional, descriptive analyses using the data of these 17 young

people (see Table 7).

Overall, Table 7 shows that the groups demonstrate the greatest variety in scores with

regard to ‘‘maintains good contact’’ by the teacher, followed by ‘‘giving positive feedback’’

and ‘‘being respectful to the student.’’ The groups show the most similar scores with regard

to the perceived ‘‘clearness’’ and ‘‘reliability’’ of the teachers. Students who show good

academic achievement tend to report lower scores for all the interaction skills of their

teacher than the other three groups who show poorer academic achievement.

Discussion

According to the teachers in the present study, a majority of the adolescents in secure

residential care (53.8 %) show average to good school performance. We expected, how-

ever, that most of these adolescents would show poor academic achievement during secure

residential care, because that is what was mainly found in previous research on this topic

r = -.33*

r = -.36*

Academic achievement

Intelligence

Motivation

Externalizing behavior problems

r = -.44

χ2(1) = 8.4∗∗

χ2(1) = 14.7∗∗∗

**

Fig. 1 Significant associations between predictors and academic achievement. *p B .05. **p B .01.***p B .001

Child Youth Care Forum

123

(Foley 2001; Vreugdenhil et al. 2004); caregivers, social workers, and teachers regularly

have pessimistic expectations about the school performance of young people in out-of-

home care (Forsman and Vinnerljung 2012). On the other hand, we did find that the

teachers reported that quite a large group of adolescents (39.6 %) performed below their

level of education. Moreover, teachers reported that many adolescents (88.2 %) were

removed at least once from class during their attendance at school in secure residential

care. A majority of the teachers was doubtful about the students’ future achievements,

which was often attributed to a lack of motivation or perseverance on the part of the

adolescents with regard to school or work. The teachers also perceived the students’ efforts

at school as poor. These findings correspond with research findings that teachers experi-

ence problems in providing good quality education in secure residential care, specifically

with regard to coping with the poor academic motivation of the young people in class

(Houchins et al. 2009).

The results of the present study show that the teachers are quite critical with regard to

the quality of the educational program in the secure care center, because almost half of the

teachers think that there is a slight or no fit between the educational program and the

students’ needs and skills. This result partly corresponds with our second hypothesis and

with conclusions in several studies that young peoples’ needs often are insufficiently met

by (secure) residential care facilities (Connor et al. 2004; Kurtz et al. 1998; Lindsay and

Foley 1999; Lyons et al. 1998).

Partly consistent with our expectations, we found that students with an average intel-

ligence level, good academic motivation, and/or relatively few externalizing behavioral

problems show significantly better academic achievement during secure residential care

than students with a low intelligence level, poor academic motivation, and/or many

externalizing behavioral problems. These results correspond to findings in previous studies

(Cheung et al. 2012; Jackson and Cameron 2012; Orlando et al., 2003). For example,

Cheung et al. (2012) found that the main predictors of academic success for young people

in out-of-home care were their individual differences, that is, among other things, in terms

of showing few externalizing behavioral problems. In a study with adolescent school

students, Gilman and Anderman (2006) found that students with ‘‘high adaptive’’ moti-

vation (i.e., intrinsic motivation, self-adequacy, and an internal locus of control) not only

Table 7 Teacher interaction skills and the student’s academic achievement

Predictor variableTeacher interaction

skills

Academic achievement

(1) Poor(n = 1)

(2) Moderate(n = 5)

(3) Average(n = 6)

(4) Good(n = 5)

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Shows commitment 4.5 (–) 4.1 (1.2) 4.8 (0.5) 3.2 (1.5)

Is clear 4.5 (–) 4.7 (1.0) 5.1 (0.5) 3.7 (1.6)

Stands alongside client 4.5 (–) 3.8 (1.3) 4.8 (0.8) 3.3 (1.5)

Is reliable 4.5 (–) 5.0 (1.0) 5.2 (0.5) 3.8 (1.8)

Fits in with the client 5.0 (–) 4.8 (0.8) 4.9 (0.5) 3.4 (1.5)

Is respectful to client 5.5 (–) 4.9 (0.0) 5.0 (0.6) 3.8 (1.8)

Maintains good contact 5.5 (–) 4.5 (1.0) 5.0 (0.3) 3.1 (1.4)

Gives positive feedback 5.0 (–) 4.8 (1.0) 5.2 (0.4) 3.4 (1.5)

The highest scores for each row are marked in bold. Scores could range from 1 (very poor) to 6 (very good)

Child Youth Care Forum

123

reported significantly higher academic success in terms of grade-point average and school

belonging, but also higher global and family satisfaction, self-esteem, and interpersonal

relationships, and significantly lower depression, anxiety, and social stress. In secure

residential care, adolescents’ treatment motivation is found to be significantly associated

with higher treatment satisfaction (Harder et al. 2012b). This suggests that an adolescent’s

motivation might also be an important predictor of other types of performance of ado-

lescents in secure residential care.

Besides the association with academic achievement, we also found mutual associations

between low intelligence, poor academic motivation, and externalizing behavioral prob-

lems. Low intelligence and poor motivation were both significantly associated with

externalizing behavioral problems. However, we did not find a significant association

between intelligence level and motivation, although we did find a trend for students with

low intelligence to show less academic motivation than students with average intelligence.

Our findings suggest that low intelligence and poor academic motivation predict aca-

demic achievement not only directly, but also indirectly through an increased risk for

externalizing behavioral problems. However, since our data do not allow us to make causal

inferences, the exact directions of connections between intelligence, motivation, behavioral

problems, and academic achievement should be tested in future research. Nonetheless,

there are several other studies that have found support for these connections. For example,

high intelligence can be considered a protective factor for developing behavioral problems,

such as delinquency (Lynam et al. 1993; Vermeiren et al. 2002). Moreover, young people

with mental retardation are significantly more often likely to show aggression and non-

compliant behavior during residential care than young people without mental retardation

(Sukhodolsky et al. 2005). In addition, research suggests that adolescents in secure resi-

dential care often show a combination of poor motivation to change and externalizing

behavioral problems (Englebrecht et al. 2008; Harder 2011). This accumulation of risk

factors might make it even more difficult to attain a level of good academic achievement

for adolescents in secure residential care.

Our findings do not support the hypothesis that a good student–teacher relationship is

associated with positive academic outcomes. This does not correspond with previous

results regarding young people with antisocial behavior, which has shown that a good

quality teacher–student relationship seems to be an important factor in successful outcomes

in terms of reducing aggressive behavior (Meehan et al. 2003) and improving the cognitive

performance of adolescents in residential care (Hintikka et al. 2006). We did find that

students with poor academic achievement tend to report a higher quality for their rela-

tionship with the teacher than students who show better academic achievement. This

suggests that students with good achievement are more critical with regard to their rela-

tionship with their teacher than adolescents with relatively poor academic achievement.

However, from the teacher’s perspective, there was an opposite trend. Teachers reported a

better relationship with students showing good academic achievement than with students

showing poorer academic achievement.

These results point to the fact that students and teachers have different views of the

quality of their relationship, which is consistent with other findings regarding relationships

between adolescents and care workers in secure residential care (Florsheim et al. 2000). It

is also consistent with research indicating that there often is a difference in perspectives

between young people and professionals in their perception of problem behavior (Colli-

shaw et al. 2009). Since consensus between clients and staff can be considered an

important success factor for treatment (cf. Karver et al. 2005), such consensus between

Child Youth Care Forum

123

students and teachers with regard to the quality of their relationship might also be

important for improving academic success in secure residential youth care.

While we expected good teacher interaction skills to be positively associated with good

academic achievement on the part of students, we unexpectedly found an opposite trend.

Students with good academic achievement reported poorer interaction skills with their

teacher than students with average, moderate, or poor academic achievement. This sug-

gests that students with good achievement are also more critical with regard to their

teacher’s interactions skills than adolescents with relatively poor academic achievement. It

might be that students have different expectations for their teachers: Students with poorer

academic achievement might have a need for more emotional support, while students with

higher achievement might have a need for more study-specific support (cf. Harker et al.

2003). More research into adolescent’s individual problems and needs, teacher’s skills, and

the adolescent–teacher relationship is necessary to make clear how these factors are

associated with academic success in secure residential care.

Limitations

A first limitation of the present study is that a part of the results is based on relatively small

subsamples of adolescents. Therefore, the results may not generalize to all adolescents in

the population, although we did not find indications for an attrition bias. The small

subsamples also limited the analysis methods that could be applied: We only used uni-

variate analysis. Since it is more desirable to apply analyses that include several variables

in one model so that interaction effects can be detected, future research on this topic should

include a larger study sample.

Second, there were no psychometric properties in the academic achievement ques-

tionnaire that we used. This questionnaire was intended to measure the general perceptions

of teachers with regard to the performance and functioning of adolescents at school. We

used only one item that asked for the general opinion of the teacher about the school

performance of a specific student. It is unclear what norm or benchmark the teachers were

using to answer this question. It is likely that the teachers were using students in the secure

residential care center as the norm group, but this might not have been the case for all the

teachers. The opinions of teachers might also interfere with more objective measurements

of achievement. Their perception might, for example, have been influenced by their

knowledge of the student’s intelligence level or other characteristics of the student. It is

known that teachers who have higher expectations of students report higher assessment of

the students’ academic achievements (Jussim and Harber 2005). We did not collect more

objective information about the educational progress of the students, even though this

might have provided better insight into academic success. The information about students’

grades that we did collect in the research project was too incomplete and complex (i.e.,

each student followed different courses) to include in the present study. We recommend

that future research on this topic includes instruments with sufficient psychometric quality,

because that can strengthen the conclusions that can be drawn upon findings and provides

opportunities to make comparisons among study results.

A third limitation is that we did not include information about the quality and contents

of the educational program beyond the student–teacher relationship and teacher’s inter-

action skills. For example, we did not collect information about other aspects of educa-

tional quality or specific educational approaches that were applied in practice, for example,

with regard to literacy or numeracy skills. Future research should include such information,

Child Youth Care Forum

123

so that it can become clear which educational approach is successful for whom (Bettmann

and Jasperson 2009; cf. Forsman and Vinnerljung 2012; Knorth et al. 2008).

Conclusion and Implications

Despite its limitations, our study suggests that the problems that teachers experience in

coping with the poor academic motivation and externalizing problem behavior of the

students in class (cf. Houchins et al. 2009) interfere with successful academic outcomes for

young people in secure residential care. Since little has been done in intervention research

to improve educational outcomes for young people in care (Forsman and Vinnerljung

2012), future research should focus on intervention research with regard to academic

achievements of adolescents in secure residential care. Considering our findings, these

interventions should focus on improving teachers’ ability to handle two challenges in class:

adolescents’ poor academic motivation and externalizing behavioral problems.

Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the teacher’s report form and 1991 profiles. Burlington: University ofVermont.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060.

Berridge, D. (2008). Educating difficult adolescents: Effective education for children in public care or withemotional and behavioural difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Berridge, D. (2012). Educating young people in care: What have we learned? Children and Youth ServicesReview, 34(6), 1171–1175. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.032.

Bettmann, J., & Jasperson, R. (2009). Adolescents in residential and inpatient treatment: A review of theoutcome literature. Child & Youth Care Forum, 38(4), 161–183. doi:10.1007/s10566-009-9073-y.

Boendermaker, L. (1995). Youth in judicial treatment institutions. The Hague: WODC. (in Dutch).Boendermaker, L., Eijgenraam, K., & Geurts, E. (2004). Crisis placements in secure residential care

institutions. Utrecht: NIZW. (in Dutch).Brodie, I. (2001). Children’s homes and school exclusion: Redefining the problem. London: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.Bullock, R., Little, M., & Millham, S. (1998). Secure treatment outcomes: The care careers of very difficult

adolescents. Aldershot: Ashgate.Cheung, C., Lwin, K., & Jenkins, J. M. (2012). Helping youth in care succeed: Influence of caregiver

involvement on academic achievement. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1092–1100.doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.033.

Collishaw, S., Goodman, R., Ford, T., Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Pickles, A. (2009). How far are associationsbetween child, family and community factors and child psychopathology informant-specific andinformant-general? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50(5), 571–580. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02026.x.

Connor, D. F., Doerfler, L. A., Toscano, J., Volungis, A. M., & Steingard, R. J. (2004). Characteristics ofchildren and adolescents admitted to a residential treatment center. Journal of Child and FamilyStudies, 13(4), 497–510. doi:10.1023/B:JCFS.0000044730.66750.57.

de Groot, A., Koot, H. M., & Verhulst, F. C. (1996). Cross-cultural generalizability of the youth self-reportand teacher’s report form cross-informant syndromes. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 24(5),651–664.

Englebrecht, C., Peterson, D., Scherer, A., & Naccarato, T. (2008). ‘‘It’s not my fault’’: Acceptance ofresponsibility as a component of engagement in juvenile residential treatment. Children and YouthServices Review, 30(4), 466–484. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.005.

Evers, A., Van Vliet-Mulder, J. C., & Groot, C. J. (2000). Documentation of tests and test research in theNetherlands. Amsterdam: Dutch Institute of Psychologists. (in Dutch).

Child Youth Care Forum

123

Fletcher, B. (1993). Not just a name: The views of young people in foster and residential care. London:National Consumer Council.

Florsheim, P., Shotorbani, S., Guest-Warnick, G., Barratt, T., & Hwang, W. C. (2000). Role of the workingalliance in the treatment of delinquent boys in community-based programs. Journal of Clinical ChildPsychology, 29(1), 94–107. doi:10.1207/S15374424jccp2901_10.

Foley, R. M. (2001). Academic characteristics of incarcerated youth and correctional educational programs:A review. Journal of Emotional & Behavioral Disorders, 9(4), 248–259.

Forsman, H., & Vinnerljung, B. (2012). Interventions aiming to improve school achievements of children inout-of-home care: A scoping review. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6), 1084–1091. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.037.

Franz, B. S. (2004). Predictors of behavioural and emotional problems of children placed in children’shomes in Croatia. Child & Family Social Work, 9(3), 265–271. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2004.00324.x.

Gharabaghi, K. (2012). Translating evidence into practice: Supporting the school performance of youngpeople living in residential group care in Ontario. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(6),1130–1134. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.038.

Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). The relationship between relative levels of motivation and intra-personal, interpersonal, and academic functioning among older adolescents. Journal of School Psy-chology, 44(5), 375–391.

Handwerk, M. L., Friman, P. C., Mott, M. A., & Stairs, J. M. (1998). The relationship between program restric-tiveness and youth behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 6(3), 170–179.

Harder, A. T. (2007). EPL: Educational performance list. Groningen: University of Groningen. (in Dutch).Harder, A. T. (2011). The downside up? A study of factors associated with a successful course of treatment

for adolescents in secure residential care (Doctoral dissertation). Groningen: University of Groningen.Harder, A. T., Knorth, E. J., & Kalverboer, M. E. (2012a). A secure base? The adolescent-staff relationship in

secure residential youth care. Child and Family Social Work,. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00846.x.Harder, A. T., Knorth, E. J., & Kalverboer, M. E. (2012b). Securing the downside up: Client and care factors

associated with outcomes of secure residential youth care. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(3), 259–276.doi:10.1007/s10566-011-9159-1.

Harker, R. M., Dobel-Ober, D., Lawrence, J., Berridge, D., & Sinclair, R. (2003). Who takes care ofeducation? Looked after children’s perceptions of support for educational progress. Child & FamilySocial Work, 8(2), 89–100. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.2003.00272.x.

Hintikka, U., Laukkanen, E., Marttunen, M., & Lehtonen, J. (2006). Good working alliance and psycho-therapy are associated with positive changes in cognitive performance among adolescent psychiatricinpatients. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 70(4), 316–335.

Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2009). Barriers andfacilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing School Failure, 53(3),159–166.

Huisman, M., Oldehinkel, A. J., de Winter, A., Minderaa, R. B., de Bildt, A., Huizink, A. C., et al. (2008).Cohort profile: The Dutch ‘TRacking Adolescents’ Individual Lives’ Survey’; TRAILS. InternationalJournal of Epidemiology, 37(6), 1227–1235. doi:10.1093/ije/dym273.

Jackson, S. (2001). Nobody ever told us school mattered: Raising the educational attainments of children inpublic care. London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.

Jackson, S., & Cameron, C. (2012). Leaving care: Looking ahead and aiming higher. Children and YouthServices Review, 34(6), 1107–1114. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.041.

Jansen, M. G., & Feltzer, M. J. A. (2002). Follow-up research and research on perceptions of youth from aresidential treatment home. Tijdschrift voor Orthopedagogiek, 41(6), 332–345. (in Dutch).

Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies: Knowns andunknowns, resolved and unresolved controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(2),131–155. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_3.

Karver, M. S., Handelsman, J. B., Fields, S., & Bickman, L. (2005). A theoretical model of common processfactors in youth and family therapy. Mental Health Services Research, 7(1), 35–51. doi:10.1007/s11020-005-1964-4.

Knorth, E. J., Harder, A. T., Zandberg, T., & Kendrick, A. J. (2008). Under one roof: A review and selectivemeta-analysis on the outcomes of residential child and youth care. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 30(2), 123–140. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.001.

Kurtz, Z., Thornes, R., & Bailey, S. (1998). Children in the criminal justice and secure care systems: Howtheir mental health needs are met. Journal of Adolescence, 21(5), 543–553. doi:10.1006/jado.1998.0176.

Lindsay, M., & Foley, T. (1999). Getting them back to school—Touchstones of good practice in theresidential care of young people. Children and Society, 13(3), 192–202.

Child Youth Care Forum

123

Lynam, D., Moffitt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1993). Explaining the relation between IQ anddelinquency: Class, race, test motivation, school failure, or self-control? Journal of Abnormal Psy-chology, 102(2), 187–196.

Lyons, J. S., Libman-Mintzer, L., Kisiel, C. L., & Shallcross, H. (1998). Understanding the mental healthneeds of children and adolescents in residential treatment. Professional psychology: Research andpractice, 29(6), 582–587. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.29.6.582.

Madge, N. (1994). Children and residential care in Europe. London: National Childrens’ Bureau.Meehan, B. T., Hughes, J. N., & Cavell, T. A. (2003). Teacher–student relationships as compensatory

resources for aggressive children. Child Development, 74(4), 1145–1157. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00598.

Munro, E. R., & Stein, M. (2008). Introduction: Comparative exploration of care leavers’ transition toadulthood. In M. Stein & E. R. Munro (Eds.), Young people’s transitions from care to adulthood:International research and practice (pp. 11–20). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Orlando, M., Chan, K., & Morral, A. (2003). Retention of court-referred youths in residential treatmentprograms: Client characteristics and treatment process effects. American Journal of Drug and AlcoholAbuse, 29(2), 337–357. doi:10.1081/ADA-120020518.

Schuengel, C., & Zegers, M. A. M. (2003). Psychological Availiability and Reliance on Adult manual.Amsterdam/Zetten: Free University Amsterdam/Orthopedagogical center OGH.

Sukhodolsky, D. G., Cardona, L., & Martin, A. (2005). Characterizing Aggressive and NoncompliantBehaviors in a Children’s Psychiatric Inpatient Setting. Child Psychiatry and Human Development,36(2), 177–193. doi:10.1007/s10578-005-3494-0.

Trout, A. L., Hagaman, J., Casey, K., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2008). The academic status of children andyouth in out-of-home care: A review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(9),979–994.

Van der Ploeg, J. D., & Scholte, E. M. (2003). Outcomes of treatment programs for youth with seriousbehavioral problems in residential settings: Final report. Amsterdam: NIPPO. (in Dutch).

Van Erve, N., Poiesz, M., & Veerman, J. W. (2007). Treatment in child and youth care: Manual B-test.Nijmegen: Praktikon. (in Dutch).

Verhulst, F. C., Van der Ende, J., & Koot, H. M. (1997). Manual for the teacher’s report form (TRF).Rotterdam: Erasmus MC/Sophia children’s hospital.

Vermeiren, R., Schwab-Stone, M., Ruchkin, V., De Clippele, A., & Deboutte, D. (2002). Predictingrecidivism in delinquent adolescents from psychological and psychiatric assessment. ComprehensivePsychiatry, 43(2), 142–149.

Vreugdenhil, C., Doreleijers, T. A. H., Vermeiren, R., Wouters, L. F., & Van den Brink, W. (2004).Psychiatric disorders in a representative sample of incarcerated boys in the Netherlands. Journal of theAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43(1), 97–108.

Child Youth Care Forum

123