Ult of caregivers feeling they are unable to appropriately care for youth who are exhibiting behavior problems, or in extreme cases could be due to caregivers feeling unsafe with these children. Thus, it may be that already existing behavior problems are predicting changes in placement in a way that is not present in those youth with less observable or noxious internalizing symptoms. Both internalizing and externalizing scores increase when caregivers report the GW856553X molecular weight neighborhoods in which they live have higher rates of problem occurrences and lower support from neighbors and other parents. This finding is consistent with research suggesting disadvantaged neighborhoods have higher rates of mentally ill youth living within them (Leventhal Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Meier et al., 2008; Xue, Leventhal, BrooksGunn, Earls, 2005). While some suggest kinship care is a way to keep children in their families and communities, youth in these neighborhoods may be exposed to a variety of risks. For example, exposure to violence and crime in one’s community may increase internalizing symptoms such as anxiety or depression (Bartholet, 2009). Behavioral problems may increase as well for youth who may become entrenched in committing violent or criminal acts in the neighborhood. Additionally, caregivers report decreased neighborhood cohesion and parental authority in neighborhoods where child welfare service involvement is high (Roberts, 2008). It is probable that living in a community where caregivers and families feel less supported contributes to challenges monitoring problem behavior, and may also decrease the amount of support the youth themselves are able to seek when experiencing emotional challenges. Researchers suggest disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to have less collective efficacy, which refers to social ties between members of a neighborhood or community and often includes a willingness to care for each other and youth in the neighborhood. Without a sense of cohesion among residents of a neighborhood it is likely stress amongst both children and caregivers heightens. In disadvantaged neighborhoods where residents report a higher sense of cohesion and collective efficacy, negative effects on youth mental health have been shown to be mitigated (Xue et al., 2005). It must also be noted that the neighborhoods included were those in which youth were placed. Thus, it is unclear what relationship neighborhood problems have with increased emotional and behavioral problems in youth. If youth are order Oxaliplatin placed in neighborhoods similar to those in which they originally lived, this may indicate accumulated risk of living in suchAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageneighborhoods; however, if youth were placed in worse neighborhoods, it could indicate a sort of culture shock or pervasive effect of neighborhood disadvantage. Future Directions Kinship foster care shows promise to support mental health of African American youth placed in out-of-home settings. However, it is important for caseworkers to recognize the multitude of factors affecting the quality of care and living arrangements available for foster youth. Kinship foster homes are not required in all states to meet the same standards as nonkinship foster homes (Bartholet, 2009; Falconnier et al., 2010). Future research should identify what, if any, differences there are in outcomes in kinship.Ult of caregivers feeling they are unable to appropriately care for youth who are exhibiting behavior problems, or in extreme cases could be due to caregivers feeling unsafe with these children. Thus, it may be that already existing behavior problems are predicting changes in placement in a way that is not present in those youth with less observable or noxious internalizing symptoms. Both internalizing and externalizing scores increase when caregivers report the neighborhoods in which they live have higher rates of problem occurrences and lower support from neighbors and other parents. This finding is consistent with research suggesting disadvantaged neighborhoods have higher rates of mentally ill youth living within them (Leventhal Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Meier et al., 2008; Xue, Leventhal, BrooksGunn, Earls, 2005). While some suggest kinship care is a way to keep children in their families and communities, youth in these neighborhoods may be exposed to a variety of risks. For example, exposure to violence and crime in one’s community may increase internalizing symptoms such as anxiety or depression (Bartholet, 2009). Behavioral problems may increase as well for youth who may become entrenched in committing violent or criminal acts in the neighborhood. Additionally, caregivers report decreased neighborhood cohesion and parental authority in neighborhoods where child welfare service involvement is high (Roberts, 2008). It is probable that living in a community where caregivers and families feel less supported contributes to challenges monitoring problem behavior, and may also decrease the amount of support the youth themselves are able to seek when experiencing emotional challenges. Researchers suggest disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to have less collective efficacy, which refers to social ties between members of a neighborhood or community and often includes a willingness to care for each other and youth in the neighborhood. Without a sense of cohesion among residents of a neighborhood it is likely stress amongst both children and caregivers heightens. In disadvantaged neighborhoods where residents report a higher sense of cohesion and collective efficacy, negative effects on youth mental health have been shown to be mitigated (Xue et al., 2005). It must also be noted that the neighborhoods included were those in which youth were placed. Thus, it is unclear what relationship neighborhood problems have with increased emotional and behavioral problems in youth. If youth are placed in neighborhoods similar to those in which they originally lived, this may indicate accumulated risk of living in suchAuthor Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptJ Soc Serv Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2016 February 25.Rufa and FowlerPageneighborhoods; however, if youth were placed in worse neighborhoods, it could indicate a sort of culture shock or pervasive effect of neighborhood disadvantage. Future Directions Kinship foster care shows promise to support mental health of African American youth placed in out-of-home settings. However, it is important for caseworkers to recognize the multitude of factors affecting the quality of care and living arrangements available for foster youth. Kinship foster homes are not required in all states to meet the same standards as nonkinship foster homes (Bartholet, 2009; Falconnier et al., 2010). Future research should identify what, if any, differences there are in outcomes in kinship.