Three sides to a foster care story: An examination of the lived experiences of young adults,their foster care case record,and the space in between

Abstract

Between 2000 and 2013, the U.S. foster care caseload decreased while the number of children in adoptive homes doubled. These shifts were a result of federal policies prioritizing the moving of children from state custody into legal permanence (e.g., adoption and guardianship) with the presumption they will live “happily ever after.” This study used a mixed-methods multiphase, iterative process to illuminate the congruencies and incongruencies between the young adults' accounts of their foster care experiences and the legalistic, system-focused view of their experiences. This study highlights the limitations of administrative data as the primary source for evaluating systems, assessing child well-being, and for understanding child welfare outcomes. An important consideration for assessing the success of the child welfare system in finding safe, stable, permanent placements for children involved with the child welfare system is including the perceptions of the young adults with foster care histories. There are often three sides to a foster care story: the lived experiences of the participant, the official case record, and the space in between. This study begins to illuminate this space, through an understanding of the quality and enduring nature of these relationships as reported by young adults who lives were impacted by their foster care histories. Child welfare records indicate a legal permanency status, but the interviews address the enduring nature and quality of the relationships.

Keywords

Child welfare adoption foster care well-being youth perspectives postpermanency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Pub. 105-89 § 42 U.S.C. 1305.

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. Pub. 96-272 § 42 U.S.C. 622.

Cohen

(2004) How do we choose among permanency options? The adoption rule out and lessons from Illinois. In: Bissell

Miller

(eds) Using Subsidized Guardianship to Improve Outcomes for Children: Key Questions to Consider, Washington, DC: Cornerstone Consulting and Children's Defense Fund, pp. 22–23.

Committee on Ways and Means of the U.S. House of Representatives (2014) 2014 Green book: Background material and data on the programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Available at: http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov.

Courtney

Dworsky

Brown

et al. (2011) Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 26, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

Cushing

Samuels

Kerman

(2014) Profiles of relational permanence at 22: Variability in parental supports and outcomes among young adults with foster care histories. Children and Youth Services Review 39: 73–83.

Emlen A, Lahti J, Downs G, et al.; Regional Research Institute for Human Services (1978) Overcoming Barriers to Planning for Children in Foster Care (DHEW Publication No. OHDS 78-30138). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Fanshel

Shinn

(1978) Children in Foster Care: A Longitudinal Investigation, New York: Columbia University Press.

10.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (2015) America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2015, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

11.

Festinger

(1983) No One Ever Asked Us… A Postscript to Foster Care, New York: Columbia University Press.

12.

Fostering Connection to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Pub. L. No. 110-351 §42 U.S.C. 1305.

13.

Freundlich

Avery

Gerstenzang

et al. (2006) Permanency options and goals: Considering multifaceted definitions. Child & Youth Care Forum 35(5–6): 355–374.

14.

Fuller T, Bruhn C, Cohen L, et al. (2006) Supporting adoptions and guardianship in Illinois: An analysis of subsidies, services and spending. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, School of Social Work.

15.

Geen

(2004) The evolution of kinship care policy and practice. Future of Children 14(1): 131–149.

16.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Company.

17.

Gleeson

(1999) Kinship care as a child welfare service. In: Hegar

Scannapieco

(eds) Kinship Foster Care: Policy, Practice, and Research, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 28–53.

18.

Goldstein J, Freud A and Solnit AJ (1973) Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.

19.

Goldstein J, Freud A and Solnit AJ (1979) Before the best interests of the child. New York: Free Press.

20.

Hanna

Tokarski

Matera

et al. (2011) Happily ever after? The journey from foster care to adoption. Adoption Quarterly 14(2): 107–131.

21.

Hesseling-Green

(2015) The Ties that Bind: An Exploratory Study into the Relationships in Open Adoption, Palmerston North: Massey University.

22.

Houston

Kramer

(2008) Meeting the long-term needs of families who adopt children out of foster care: A three-year follow-up study. Child Welfare 87(4): 145–170.

23.

Howard

Smith

Zosky

et al. (2006) A comparison of subsidized guardianship and child welfare adoptive families served by the Illinois adoption and guardianship preservation program. Journal of Social Service Research 32(3): 123–134.

24.

Maas

Engler

Jr (1959) Children in Need of Parents, New York: Columbia University Press.

25.

Palys

Atchison

(2008) Research Decisions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives, Toronto, ON: Thomson Nelson.

26.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Pérez AG (2014) Are we putting the cart before the horse? Understanding legal and relational permanence among young adults with foster care histories. (Order No. 3668285). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1647258732).

28.

Rolock

(2015) Post-permanency continuity: What happens after adoption and guardianship from foster care? Journal of Public Child Welfare 9(2): 153–173.

29.

Sanchez

(2004) Youth Perspectives on Permanency, San Francisco, CA: California Permanency for Youth Project.

30.

Samuels

(2008) A Reason, A Season, or A Lifetime: Relational Permanence among Young Adults with Foster Care Backgrounds, Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall University of Chicago.

31.

Scott

Lee

Harrell

et al. (2013) Permanency for children in foster care: Issues and barriers for adoption. Child & Youth Services 34(3): 290–307.

32.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

33.

Zosky

Howard

Smith

et al. (2005) Investing in adoptive families: What adoptive families tell us regarding the benefits of adoption preservation services. Adoption Quarterly 8(3): 1–23.