Is permanence necessary for resilience?

Brown, Ivan W.; Léveillé, Sophie; Gough, Pamela

doi:10.2307/j.ctt1ckpc6v.10

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The five emergent relational dimensions are similar to the constructs of relational permanence identified previously (Brown, Léveillé, & Gough, 2006;Cushing et al, 2014;Jones & LaLiberte, 2013) and highlight the various components of relational permanence are not mutually exclusive. Young adults reported a combination of relational factors in their relationships with their caretakers.…”

Section: Discussion and Implications For Practice And Policysupporting

confidence: 72%

Classifying Relational Permanence among Young Adults who Exited Foster Care through Legal Permanence as Adolescents

Pérez

2017

Families in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The achievement of legal permanence is not only a primary goal of U.S. child welfare policy but is also presumed to translate into relational permanence. This study examines whether state-sanctioned permanence translates into relational permanence among foster care alumni. In-depth interviews were conducted with a sample of 31 young adults who exited care as adolescents through adoption, guardianship, or relative placement to gain insights into how they make meaning of their relationships with caretakers over time. Constructivist grounded theory was used to develop a conceptual classification scheme of relational permanence that resulted in four types of young adult–caretaker relationships: enduring, ambivalent, spurned, and severed. Findings underscore the unintended consequences of solely focusing on legal permanence as an outcome, and implications for promoting relational permanence before and after foster care are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Implications For Practice And Policysupporting

confidence: 72%

Classifying Relational Permanence among Young Adults who Exited Foster Care through Legal Permanence as Adolescents

Pérez

2017

Families in Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…setting and resilience trajectories falls in line with prior work yielding mixed or null findings of placement setting on children's longterm development (Berger et al, 2009). One potential explanation could be that initial placement setting is not most influential but rather what happens after the initial placement (e.g., safety, placement stability, permanency) has more direct impact on children's outcomes, including resilience development (Brown et al, 2006;Rubin et al, 2004). Similarly, it might be that the placement setting is not as important as other factors such as the types of caregiving behaviors shown by the primary caregivers.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Trajectories of resilience among young children involved with child protective services

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although child maltreatment is associated with short- and long-term maladaptive outcomes, some children are still able to display resilience. Currently, there is a limited understanding of how children’s resilience changes over time after experiencing maltreatment, especially for young children. Therefore, the current study used a longitudinal, multidimensional approach to examine trajectories of resilience among very young children involved in child protective services and determine whether placement setting and caregiving behaviors are associated with resilience trajectories. This study used data from National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being I and conducted repeated measures latent class analysis, focusing on children under 2 years old at baseline (n = 1,699). Results suggested that there were three trajectories of resilience: increasing resilience, decreasing resilience, and stable, low resilience. Caregiver cognitive stimulation was related to increasing trajectories of resilience compared to both decreasing and stable, low resilience. These findings illustrate the importance of caregiving behaviors for promoting resilience among a particularly vulnerable population.

show abstract

“…Similarly, family QoL can also be measured. For example, the Beach Center's Family Quality of Life Scale identifies 25 indicators in 5 family life domains (Beach Center on Disability, ) for families of children and youth, while the Family Quality of Life Survey (Brown et al., ; Brown, Léveillé, & Gough, ) used by the International Family Quality of Life Project uses quantitative and qualitative measurement methods in 9 family life domains (Surrey Place Centre, ).…”

Section: A Qol Conceptual Framework For Integrating Functioning At Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As measures, outcomes tend to be more stable than outputs, precisely because they reflect the longer term impact on a person's or a family's life that has already been modified by the juxtaposition of a variety of life outputs from a variety of sources. For example, some individuals or families may be largely unaffected by even a rather severe negative circumstances such as a sudden loss of income because it is counterbalanced by other positive inputs and outputs, resulting in a state of resilience (Brown, Léveillé et al., ). However, other families may not have stable support systems or skills to practice resiliency, leaving them at risk for unfavorable outcomes.…”

Section: A Qol Conceptual Framework For Integrating Functioning At Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Proposed Framework for an Integrated Process of Improving Quality of Life

Schippers¹,

Zuna

Brown

2015

Policy Practice Intel Disabi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for quality of life, both as a concept and as a measure, to be applied to policy and practice has been noted in the disability literature for several years. In 2012, Schalock and Verdugo introduced a conceptual model to help service organizations evaluate if congruence exists among their systems, policies, and practices and, if misalignments exist, to make changes through policy and systems change. Their model focuses on two levels, system-level processes and organization-level practices, at three consecutive stages of use: inputs, throughputs, and outputs. In this article, the authors extend the work of Schalock and Verdugo by adding a third level of application, individual-and family-level living, and propose the inclusion of outcomes as a fourth stage of use representing a consequence of outputs. We recognize the dynamic interaction among all components of the conceptual framework and, like Schalock and Verdugo, argue for alignment both vertically (system, organization, and individual and family living levels) and horizontally (inputs, throughputs, outputs, and outcomes) within our revised conceptual framework. Based on this, the authors propose that quality of life outcomes (the ongoing effects of outputs) should be an ultimate focus of service organizations and policy development if quality of life is to be enhanced for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities and their families.

show abstract

Is permanence necessary for resilience?

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Classifying Relational Permanence among Young Adults who Exited Foster Care through Legal Permanence as Adolescents

Classifying Relational Permanence among Young Adults who Exited Foster Care through Legal Permanence as Adolescents

Trajectories of resilience among young children involved with child protective services

A Proposed Framework for an Integrated Process of Improving Quality of Life

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About