Family Foster Care: Cross-National Research Perspectives

Abstract

Family foster care is attracting growing attention around the world as a service for children and youths who are placed in out-of-home care or at risk for such placement. In this essay we present selected findings from studies that have been conducted in Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America-countries that in recent years have sought to improve services for young people at risk. We have chosen studies that were based on empirical findings and/or covered primarily issues regarding the outcome of family foster care services rather than out-of-home care in general. 1 Our major purpose is to highlight what is known in this practice arena and suggest implications for further research. AustraliaThere is limited related research in Australia, where until recently there has been greater emphasis on placement in institutions or group homes for young persons requiring out-of-home care.2 In particular, there is little research on minority children and youths, even though they constitute an increasing proportion of those in care in some Australian states.Since the federal government closed many residential settings in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been increasing reliance on foster family care or some other form of family-based care. As a result, as of June 30, 2003, there were over 20,000 children in out-of-home care, with 51% living with foster parents (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004). It should be noted that there is a high proportion of Aboriginal children in care. Although the latter comprise only 2.7% of children in Australia, they constitute over 20% of those in out-of-home care; 77% of these are placed with an indigenous family or with relatives (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2004).

Attachment Styles in Children Living in Alternative Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…Bakermans-Kranenburg et al ( 2011 ) Institutional sample: 10 (55.5 %) Avoidant 5 (27.7 %) Secure 0 (0 %) Resistant 3 (16.6 %) Insecure other No significant main effect of type of care or genotype in continuous attachment disorganisation Interaction between 5HTTLPR and type of care significantly predicted attachment disorganisation (SS or SL genotype in Institutionalised children Small sample size/sub groups Quasi-experimental design Other confounds (conditions previous to institutional care, mothers were substance users) 62.5 2. a. BEIP (Bucharest Early Intervention Project) Zeanah et al ( 2005 ) Institutional sample 18.9 % secure (74 % control), 3.2 % avoidant (4.0 % c), 0 % resistant (0 %), 65.3 % disorganized (22 %) 12.6 % unclassifiable 22 % of children in institutions had organized attachments strategies with their favourite caregiver (78 % of community children had) 12.6 % of institutionalized children showed so little attachment behaviour that were deemed “unclassifiable” No relation between length of institutionalization and signs of RAD No differences between the organized and disorganized children in relation to the quality of Caregiving but significant differences with the “unclassified” group who received poorer quality of care The only measure that significantly predicted attachment rating (0–5) in institutionalized sample was quality of Caregiving. Also associated with the organization of attachment In the institutionalized group only, quality of Caregiving was associated to RAD inhibited scores but unrelated to RAD disinhibited scores In Scale for attachment formation, they propose a “tentative” cut off point Institutions with poor child caregiver ratios may be not representative of institutions in another countries Cross sectional design Coders not completely blind 70 b. BEIP Smyke et al ( 2010 ) CAU (I) FC Community Foster Care program especially designed. May be not representative of other foster care Institutional characteristics (same as a) Assessment at 42 used a different coding system than at baseline (and variations were seen in all groups not only in FC) 75 Secure 17.5 49.2 64.7 Avoidant 24.6 …”

“…International recommendations on AC (United Nations, Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children 2009 ) highlight the need to close institutions and develop foster care programs. However, whilst this process has begun in many countries, the implementation has been complex and several studies have revealed important difficulties with the placement of children in foster care, such as lack of motivation to foster due to cultural reasons, difficulties in supervision and support for foster parents leading to breakdowns and instability in placements and the overwhelmed foster care systems (Maluccio et al 2006 ; Mapp 2011 ; UNICEF 2010 ).…”

“Getting involved”

“…However, in many countries, the implementation of foster care has been difficult, failing to effectively provide protection and better care for children (Maluccio, Canali, & Vechiato, 2006; Mapp, 2011; UNICEF, 2010). Many children live in residential children’s homes, and this situation is likely to continue for some time.…”

Addressing issues of globalization in the training of public child welfare workers

“…There was not a cohesive body of literature on international child welfare that provided explicit guidance in developing our training module. Some of the broad areas covered by the international child welfare literature include: conceptual frameworks to compare national systems (Katz and Hetherington, 2006, categorize European child welfare systems as dualistic or holistic); a comparison of empirical results (Maluccio et al, 2006, compare research studies on foster family care in four countries); coverage of issues specific to a country (Dickens and Groza, 2004, address child welfare in Romania); and child welfare issues that are international by definition (Johnson, 2005, discusses international adoption).…”