The voices of youth in foster care: A participant action research study

Abstract

Utilizing participant action research methodology, five youth in foster care participated in the design and implementation of a pilot research study to collect data from 16 participants in foster care, highlighting their perspective of their strengths and experiences within the American foster care system. Participant action research (PAR) provides a pathway for youth in foster care to share their voice with those that influence policy and implement change in the very system that governs their lives. The participant researchers remained committed to the project for a year, creatively designed the research methodology, and contributed to the interpretation of the findings. Despite some potential validity and reliability issues, PAR methodology provided a positive framework for the voices of the participant researchers to be heard and for the voices of the participants to be interpreted by other youth in foster care.

Keywords

Child welfare foster care participant action research

Foster care is the primary solution to the international problem of child maltreatment, despite the acknowledgement by professionals across the world that protective services systems do not generally produce positive outcomes for children (Stein, Ward, & Courtney, 2011). The experiences and perceptions of the youth participating in the child protective services system are likely to be relevant to policy and reform; yet, little research includes them in the development of methodology or attempts to hear from them directly. Participant action research (PAR) provides a pathway for the youth to share their voice with those that influence policy and implement change in the very system that governs their lives. In order to sensitively and accurately advocate for system reforms that will be in the best interests of the youth that are served by the foster care system, it is important to hear from them directly. This PAR study removes the filter of the researcher and provides the space for the participants in the foster care system to speak for themselves.

In the administrative structure of the foster care system, youth are not consulted with regard to important decisions such as where they live and what school they attend. Their placement is determined largely by factors outside of their control. Research found that in the American foster care system, youth move to an average of four to six different homes (Courtney, Piliavan, Grogan-Kaylor, & Nesmith, 2001; Needell, Cuccaro-Alamin, Brookhart, Jackman, & Shlonsky, 2002) and an average of nine different schools (Kelly, 2000). Placement instability and poor educational outcomes also plague youth in foster care from England, Ireland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, and Australia (Fernandez & Barth, 2010). Therefore, it can be concluded that these youth lack consistency in their lives and that growing up within the foster care system presents, in theory, an obstacle preventing broader participation in the world.

The significance of the influence of the foster care system on the growth and development of children is found in the research on their outcomes. The results consistently highlight that the foster care system does not adequately prepare youth for the adult world. Youth in foster care are less likely to earn a high school diploma or GED (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006), more likely to suffer from mental health problems (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Pecora, Jensen, Romanelli, Jackson, & Ortiz, 2005), have a higher use of illegal substances (Pecora et al., 2005), and are at an increased risk for incarceration (Keller, Cusick, & Courtney, 2007). Furthermore, youth in foster care experience difficulties maintaining steady employment (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006; Keller et al., 2007), and are more likely to live in poverty (Pecora et al., 2005), to experience homelessness (Courtney & Dworsky, 2006, Pecora et al., 2005), and to become parents prior to the age of 21 (Keller et al., 2007). These statistics and research findings suggest that when youth emancipate out of the foster care system, they do not have the necessary tools for adulthood and lack a safety net when they make mistakes.

While many of the professionals in the child protective services system focus on the deficits of youth in their work, Collins, Hill, and Miranda (2008) posit that a deficit orientation is not considered ‘best practice’ and, instead, they focus on positive youth development. Costello, Toles, Spielberger, and Wynn (2000) define positive youth development as a view of youth ‘… as assets, as individuals with resources and capabilities that deserve full support and development’. Damon (2004) has a complementary definition that refers to the contributions youth can make to society. Despite the negative statistics describing the outcomes of youth in foster care (cited above), they may likely possess strengths that assist them in navigating the foster care experience. PAR can provide the conduit through which they are able to describe these strengths and contribute to society.

There is limited evidence in the literature documenting the strengths that youth in foster care may possess. Diehl, Howse, and Trivette (2011) recently used intake interviews and surveys at a camp for youth in foster care and reported assets that include positive attitudes about mentoring and adoption, social competence, positive values and identities, outside support, and a sense of control over their lives. Their results lack generalizability in that their sample consisted of older youth with a demonstrated level of resilience and designated as appropriate to attend a camp focused on finding adoptive placements. While it is not likely that this sample represents the larger foster youth population, these findings indicate that when given the opportunity, these youth were willing to share their strengths. A further limitation of this study is that the survey instruments and interview questions were structured by the researchers. Perhaps if youth in foster care participate in the development of measures and the interpretation of results, a deeper understanding might be obtained.

In a review of approximately 20 research studies that obtained information directly or retrospectively from youth in foster care between 1960 and 2006, Fox and Berrick (2006) noted the use of standard methodologies such as interviews and surveys administered by researchers. They concluded that the voices of youth in foster care are not being heard by the child protective services system. Long and Dart (2001) sensitively point out the difficulties of using typical research methods with at-risk youth. In general, they found that teenagers are likely to have difficulty with surveys and interviews for a variety of reasons including power struggles with authority figures, a lack of reflective and abstract thinking skills, and overall boredom or nervousness. Youth in foster care increase these obstacles with lower academic achievement levels (Altshuler, 1997), increased likelihood of learning disabilities (Weinberg, Zetlin, & Shea, 2001), inconsistent school attendance (Caywood, 2000; Eckenrode, Rowe, Laird, & Braithwaite, 1995), and a lack of trust for caregiving adults (Crittenden, 1983, 1985; Dozier, Stovall, Albus, & Bates, 2001; Egeland & Sroufe, 1981; Radke-Yarrow, Cummings, Kuczynski, & Chapman, 1985; Spieker & Booth, 1988). Yet, if the youth contribute to both the development of the research design and interview questions, as well as participate in the implementation of the study and the interpretation of the results, it increases the likelihood that the participants will be interested and engaged in the research process (Fetterman, Kaftarian, & Wandersman, 1996; Gaventa, 1988) and that the findings will accurately reflect their voice.

In order to hear this voice directly, a small group of youth in foster care participated in training for the design and implementation of this PAR study to explore the common experiences and strengths that youth in foster care share. PAR methods are increasingly utilized to increase the meaning and relevance of research (Burstein, Bryan, & Chao, 2005; Leff, Costigan, & Power, 2004; Wehmeyer & Powers, 2007). Participants that are involved with the design and implementation of a research study are more likely to select important questions and efficient and sensitive methods to find the answers (Gaventa, 1988). Additionally, PAR teaches the participants new skills, expands their knowledge and engages them in social justice (Gaventa, 1988). Research has found that PAR methods empower participants, helps them to identify their strengths and resources, and gives them more control in their lives (Fetterman, Kaftarian, & Wandersman, 1996; Small, 1995).

Therefore, within a PAR framework, this research study was designed to capture the voices of youth in foster care. There were two goals for this initial step into the use of PAR with this population: 1) to explore the competence of youth in foster care to conduct PAR and 2) to discover if PAR uncovers common experiences and strengths amongst youth in foster care.

Method

Participants

All of the youth from the Emancipated Youth Advisory Council (EYAC), a peripheral program at Peace4Kids in Los Angeles, California, were invited to train as researchers on this project. Five young adults between the ages of 17 and 20 years volunteered. Four of the participant youth (PY) researchers were male and one was female, four were African American (80%), and one was Latino American (20%). Peace4Kids is a community-based organization that provides organized educational and enrichment activities for youth in foster care once a week in a Saturday Core Program; the EYAC youth had ‘graduated’ from this program. The goal of EYAC was to advocate for the rights and needs of youth in foster care and they met once per month to regularly engage in activities to increase the voice of youth in foster care policy.

Data were collected from 16 youth in foster care ranging in age between 13 and 17 years, of whom 56 percent were male and 44 percent were female. The participants were African American (81%), Latino American (6%), and Caucasian (13%). All of the participants were attending the Peace4Kids Saturday Core Program for varied lengths of time. The participants were offered the opportunity to join the research study. One male participant indicated interest but he did not attend any research team meetings.

Researcher positionality

It is important to note the background and related experiences of the university researcher as part of the environmental context in which this study took place. The university researcher was formerly a social worker and a supervisor for four years at a non-profit, private foster care agency as well as a former foster parent. As a member of the Peace4Kids Board of Directors since 2001, some individual relationships were formed between the university researcher and a few of the youth that participate in Peace4Kids programming, although the majority of board member work took place outside of the program. As a result, the youth were minimally familiar with the university researcher prior to the study. The influence of the presence of a Caucasian, female university scholar with a background in the foster care system is unknown.

Research design

The conception of this PAR study began within an EYAC meeting discussion regarding the need to inform social work professionals about the strengths of youth in foster care. A subset of the EYAC group committed a year to the research study. Meetings were held twice per month at the Peace4Kids office for six months prior to data collection. In addition to interactive discussions on research design and cultural context, the participant youth (PY) researchers viewed two movies, Freedom Writers and Stomp the Yard. The intention of including these movies was to inspire a discussion of cultural context and advocacy. Freedom Writers also inspired the methodological design.

Initially, the PY researchers lacked confidence in their abilities to design the study. They asked for assistance and after several discussions of traditional methodology, they developed the Walk-the-line game based on a scene from Freedom Writers. This game was played with a small group of four participants standing behind a line taped on the ground in a room at Peace4Kids. A list of 39 prompts were read, one at a time, and the participants were requested to step forward in front of the line if the prompt mirrored their experiences. The prompts were divided into five sections: 1) placements, 2) school, 3) trust, 4) family, and 5) health and well-being. An example of a prompt from the placements section is: ‘You have moved more than three times in one year’; and an example from the school section is: ‘You plan to go to college.’ A PY researcher recorded the participant's response (or lack of response) on a checklist for each prompt.

Consensus on the design was reached quickly; however, the development of the prompts was challenging. The PY researchers developed the set of prompts over a three-month period of meetings. They discussed the content areas that they thought would best represent the foster care experience. Active listening strategies and a number of choices at every decision point were utilized so as to provide the PY researchers the most control over the outcomes of the discussions. Once the five sections were decided, the PY researchers developed a list of specific items they determined were relevant and, in collaboration with the university researcher, developed the language for each item. For example, under the heading of school, the university researcher suggested they consider asking if a student intended to go to college or had experienced failure. At each suggestion, the PY researchers debated until consensus within the group was achieved.

It is important to note that the culture of Peace4Kids and EYAC is one in which the program is ‘owned’ by the youth and that the adults are present to offer support and guidance. In fact, the youth view the adults that they encounter as ‘visitors’ and proudly show them around or offer assistance. Therefore, the PY researchers, accustomed to this culture, never seemed to hesitate to express their views, disagree with the university researcher, or offer alternative suggestions. However, the culture of Peace4Kids and EYAC also stresses respect and this was critical to the need to reach consensus when disagreements occurred amongst the PY researchers.

Once the first draft of the game prompts was complete, the PY researchers practiced delivery of the prompts and implementation of the game amongst themselves. Additional revisions were made to some of the items and to the order of the sections until consensus was reached on the final version. Prior discussions of categories and specific prompts often had to be repeated as a result of individual absences before all of the PY researchers reached agreement. Inconsistent attendance was due to school responsibilities, employment responsibilities, and transportation issues.

The PY researchers felt strongly that they wanted more depth than what could be achieved in the Walk-the-line game. They developed prompts to gain a richer, more detailed description of the participant’s experiences. The process for developing the interview questions occurred over a two-month period of meetings. After designing the Walk-the-line game, the PY researchers were more confident in their ability to contribute to the research design and their motivation and engagement increased. Consistent attendance continued to be elusive; however, more trust had developed amongst the PY researchers and if they missed a discussion, they were able to assume that it had been fully vetted by those who had been present.

The interview questions were based upon the prior recorded responses of the participants in the Walk-the-line game. Each pair (PY researcher and participant) would find a quiet space to conduct the interview within the larger space designated for the study. The interview questions were somewhat similar across the five sections. For example, if a participant indicated that they had moved more than three times in one year, the PY researcher would ask the participant to describe what happened with questions such as ‘Can you tell me more about that?’ and ‘What was that like?’

After the youth completed the methodological design, trainings continued with practice sessions, role-plays, and feedback discussions until they decided they were ready to conduct the study. The Executive Director of Peace4Kids recruited participants during the regularly scheduled Peace4Kids Saturday Core program, the university researcher obtained consent, and then the PY researchers led the data collection under the general supervision of the university researcher. This supervision included being present in the room during the Walk-the-line game and during the interviews to respond to any immediate needs of the PY researchers with little to no intervention so as not to influence the experience for the PY researchers or the participants.

Data collection

Participants played the Walk-the-line game in small groups of four. One PY researcher was assigned to read the game prompts and the other PY researchers were assigned to record the steps of a particular participant for each prompt on a checklist with a clipboard. The PY researchers rotated their roles rotated their roles for each of the participant groups. Despite practice and trainings, the PY researchers deviated from the scripted prompts often during the game. For example, one PY researcher repeatedly told a participant when he should step across the line; these directions were based on his personal knowledge of that participant’s experiences.

Following the game, each participant was individually interviewed by a PY researcher with open-ended questions about his/her answers in the game. The interviews were audiotaped for transcription and coding. It had been strongly believed by the PY researchers that responses from the participants would be more forthcoming if the interactions occurred on a one-on-one basis between youth without interference from any adult. When the transcriptions were reviewed, it became apparent that there was much variation in the way the interviews were conducted. Some of the PY researchers proceeded to give advice instead of staying focused on collecting data. Others skipped one of the five sections or did not use the discussed strategies to invite more details from participants.

The majority of participants easily shared their experiences with the PY researchers. It is difficult to determine if their level of comfort was due to familiarity with the PY researchers or because of the PAR methodology. It is uncertain if they were comprehensively open about their experiences.

Data analysis

The PY researchers and the participants were all invited to participate in the coding of the interviews. This stage of the study was scheduled in the summer to avoid school conflicts; however, the youth were busy with increased employment responsibilities and other competing demands on their time. Therefore, the coding was conducted by a university research assistant and the university researcher. Inter-rater reliability was tested on 15 percent of the audiotapes with 89 percent agreement. Common themes across participant responses were highlighted and grouped together in a spreadsheet. The coded transcripts and the results from the statistical analyses of the game data were presented to the PY researchers for reflection and insight. The results described below are based on their interpretations of participant responses. Although the participants, themselves, did not attend these research meetings or contribute to the analyses, the voices of the PY researchers continued to be heard throughout the process. The identities of all participants were kept secure and confidential; only numbers were used to match game data with interview data.

Results

Observations of the PY researchers reveals the following: 1) youth in foster care are capable of designing and conducting PAR; 2) challenges exist in PAR with youth in foster care that may threaten the validity and reliability of the findings; and 3) PAR was a positive experience for the PY researchers and participants. The data that were collected by the PY researchers found: 1) youth in foster care value education to achieve, although they do not have a realistic understanding of their own educational pathway; 2) youth in foster care seek and find love and support outside of the family, such as through mentors; 3) youth in foster care have a positive attitude about their future; and 4) youth in foster care are resourceful and discover ways to meet their own needs. Two trends will also be described relating to issues of control within the lives of participants.

PAR competence

During initial meetings, the PY researchers were reluctant to share their ideas and thoughts about research, yet very vocal about their desire to contribute to change in the foster care system. As their knowledge base expanded during discussions and trainings, the reticence disappeared. In fact, at times, they were competing for the attention of the others to share their ideas. They creatively developed their own design over a number of months. Although there were attendance challenges, no one quit or decreased their commitment. This is particularly encouraging considering that the PY researchers were experiencing instability in their home and school lives. Therefore, PAR appears to be a viable format for youth in foster care to demonstrate their strengths and find their voice.

Challenges

A number of months were spent training the PY researchers on the importance of consistency. They role-played how to read the prompts and interview questions the same way and in the same order and examples were used to demonstrate how variations can lead to drawing the wrong conclusions from the data. Unfortunately, deviations from the game script and from the interview protocol were observed, resulting in a threat to reliability and validity. Sometimes both the PY researchers and the participants would erupt into laughter. Additionally, there were many instances of missing data from the interviews because the PY researchers did not follow up adequately or missed an entire section. The well-being section was missing in five interviews, and so as a result, that entire section was eliminated from data analysis.

PAR experience

The collegiality amongst the PY researchers during the project revealed that they enjoyed the opportunity to collaborate with each other. The positive social environment was evident throughout the PAR experience. It is important to note that the Peace4Kids administrator offered to pay the PY researchers for their time on the project. They unanimously refused to accept money for their work and declared their dedication to contribute to changes in the foster care system.

Approximately half of the participants seemed to take the research seriously and made every attempt to follow directions and to consider their responses carefully. A few others found the situation to be humorous and would giggle when a PY researcher followed the script. This may have contributed to the script deviations described previously. Finally, there were two boys with negative attitudes regarding their participation. They repeatedly asked when it would be done and if they could go back to their Peace4Kids activities. When reminded that they had the right to leave the study at any time, they chose to continue and were less negative.

Education

The PY researchers thought PAR would increase their knowledge base and skills. They also thought it would help them in their applications for college or employment. The participants in the research study also described education as an important pathway towards success in life. One participant stated: ‘For me to be successful, I would have to go to school. I would have to have a positive attitude to be well-educated, to be who I want to be.’ The Walk-the-line data revealed that 94 percent of the participants believed they would experience some success in school. Their belief persisted despite their simultaneous reports of attendance issues, frequent school moves, and failing grades. Participants expressed desires to attend top-rated regional universities such as UCLA, but did not seem to understand the barriers their school issues may present. Correlations conducted by the university researcher revealed that youth who reported beliefs in their school success were more likely to be unstable in their foster home placements (r = −.55, p < .05).

Love and support

The PY researchers were strongly connected to Peace4Kids, the EYAC group, and also other resources such as mentors. They indicated that they wanted to participate in PAR in order to make the foster care experience positive for others. They attributed their own positive experiences largely to these networks that provided love and support. The participants also consistently described situations where they had utilized a social support network outside of the family; 87.5 percent had some level of trust in others, 69 percent felt loved and respected by someone, and only 31 percent believed they had family support. For example, one participant said: ‘When I’m in trouble, I can easily call my mentor, I can just talk it out with him and he’ll probably get my head right, or just tell me something I can do to get out of trouble or just stay away from what happened, or something like that.’ Statements such as this one were coded twice, once for identifying a specific resource (see the resourcefulness section below) and once in this category for describing how that resource provides love and support. Correlations revealed that the participants reporting higher levels of outside support were also more likely to report the ability to trust others (r = .58, p < .05).

Positive attitude

A particularly inspiring observation of the PY researchers was their positive attitude regarding the PAR research. They were constant in their belief that it would make a difference and contribute to change. This aligns with their desire to improve the provision of foster care services. Similarly, despite the majority of participants (75%) reporting that their current placements were unstable, 56 percent of participants reported having more opportunities than their peers. One participant said: ‘It’s a lot of things you could get out of foster care, like a regular person couldn’t get… different types of programs that, like, help you with your future and stuff.’ Similarly, 88 percent of the participants believed that others expect them to succeed and that their success was important to someone. For example, a participant stated: ‘There’s a lot of people who have my back cuz they want to see me succeed in life.’ Correlations revealed a negative, significant relationship between participants’ expectations for future success and the length of time spent in foster care (r = −.46, p < .05) indicating that youth were more likely to expect success if they had been in foster care for a shorter time. Similarly, as the number of foster care placements increased, the expectations for success decreased (r = −.52, p < .001).

Resourcefulness

The PY researchers were resourceful in the development of the PAR design. Their ability to see research methodology within a movie demonstrated their ability to think creatively and see the possibilities that often elude traditional researchers. Research design can clearly benefit from new perspectives that are possible through a PAR framework. Correspondingly, the participants reported an ability to use the resources that were within their environments; 75 percent could identify someone specific they could turn to for guidance and 69 percent were willing to ask for help when it was needed. Statements that were coded to fit in this category identified helpful organizations and individuals, such as in the following statement: ‘You gotta know who your resources are. Peace4Kids is a really good resource and they have more resources… it’s like a chain reaction.’ When participants described the functions of the resources, the statement was coded into an additional category such as love and support or education.

Issues of control

The motivation of the PY researchers to change the foster care system for the better indicates a need to increase control in their lives by actively participating in those changes. Likewise, two trends related to control appeared in the data. First, the participants recognized their lack of power, as described in this statement: ‘Sometimes I’m nervous and don’t have the power to ask.’ Second, they indicated a desire to join the system. ‘I really want to be an RN [Registered Nurse] cuz I like to help people’; ‘I wanna study law and law enforcement.’

Discussion

The results of this study are informative in understanding the relevance of PAR for this population and some of the common experiences and strengths of youth in foster care. The richness of the data, the honesty of the participants, the originality of the methodology, and the positive experience that was achieved for both participants and researchers were benefits that PAR uniquely offers. This study utilized a strengths-based perspective to discover that these youth were resourceful, positive, and had a desire to be loved and to achieve success.

The participation of youth as researchers with other youth is the first step in utilizing PAR methodology in foster care. A major limitation is that the 16 participants did not continue their participation beyond data collection. They declined the invitation to assist with the remaining stages of the study. A contributing reason may be their age, as they were three to seven years younger than the PY researchers. The next stage of this research project is focused on foster care alumni, over the age of 18 years, who may be more interested in participating at a higher level.

Although some aspects of the measures and procedures were challenging, the success of the methodology and the interesting findings that were uncovered support further PAR work with this population. While the young adults trained to be PY researchers were committed to the project, scheduling and transportation to training meetings proved to be challenging. Consistency in the delivery of the measures was problematic in that each PY researcher developed an individual style in the game prompts and interview questions. Interviews varied considerably in length and depth, and at times, the PY researchers forgot their roles. However, despite these potential validity and reliability issues, PAR methodology provided a framework for the voices of youth in foster care to be heard.

The PY researchers demonstrated their competence in designing and conducting meaningful research, their ability to interpret the results to better inform the professionals that work within the foster care system, and their positive attitude and dedication to a long-term project. Of the five PY researchers, several continued their education or gained specialized training for employment following the completion of the project. One of the researchers continues to participate in the current expansion of the project with a new set of PY researchers, a revised methodology, and a larger sample of participants.

This new iteration is strongly influenced by the PAR experience described here. An online survey was developed in which the PY researchers chose provocative images to reflect the foster care experiences that were captured in this PAR study, as well as others that they felt were highly relevant. All participants in the new study will rate themselves on a resilience scale, indicate to what extent the 90 images reflect their personal experiences, and finally, choose the images that best describe the strongest influences on their identity development. All participants will be over the age of 18 years and will be invited to extend their participation into an interview and subsequent stages of the research project (coding, data analysis, and dissemination).

The utilization of youth in foster care to conduct research is unique and the methodology they created was also one-of-a-kind. Therefore, the results of this small study cannot be directly compared to more traditional methods and conclusions cannot be drawn as to whether PAR is better for this population. It was clear that PAR was a positive experience through which the PY researchers learned new skills, felt comfortable expressing their views, and were committed to the completion of the project. Their voices were clear in the research design and the participant voices were recorded in the data collection and interpreted by the PY researchers. Considering the rare opportunities that exist for youth in foster care to participate in the world, PAR is a viable pathway to increase those opportunities and contribute to the field with realistic data about the foster care experience.

The results on education beliefs highlight that the participants were exposed to the role that education can play in their future; yet, they have little idea of what is needed to become successful. The PY researchers and the participants did not fully understand how their current performance status in school could prevent them from obtaining future educational goals. The PY researchers described a system where youth attend court dates and meet with social workers and lawyers during school hours. They also discussed how numerous moves to new schools in the middle of a semester results in a loss of credit. The PY researchers believed that participants attributed their school failures to external causes within the foster care system, rather than to internal causes such as inability.

An interesting finding in this study was that participants with unstable placements were more likely to believe in their educational success. The PY researchers suggested that they may lack information of how their current school performance is related to their future choices. Perhaps youth in stable foster home placements also have more stability in their school placement and, therefore, have a more realistic understanding of their educational status. Future research will need to examine the relationship between placement stability and success beliefs in order to more accurately interpret this finding.

Despite issues of distrust and frequent moves within the foster care system, the PY researchers believed that youth in foster care inherently still need a place to belong and to seek resources to help them survive. Therefore, the findings that a larger percentage of these youth trust someone (87.5%) and feel loved (69%) while fewer find support within their family (31%), demonstrates resilience. Although participation in the Peace4Kids program limits the generalizability of these findings to the larger population of youth in foster care, a similar finding has been reported in another study (Diehl et al., 2011). Future research can uncover where and how these sources of support are found.

Within the coding of interviews, there was some overlap between the support category and the resource category; therefore, operational definitions were utilized to understand the nuances of the data. The PY researchers differentiated between the function of providing support and the naming of a resource. The participants reported having resources and having the capacity to utilize them. The PY researchers suggested that placement instability is connected to the skill of meeting their own needs, utilizing whatever resources are available.

Slightly more than half of the participants in this study reported a positive attitude about their opportunities, with the majority believing that their future success was important to others, once again reflecting their ability to find support in their lives. Yet, a longer stay in the foster care system and a higher number of foster care placements were both negatively correlated with beliefs about future success. While placement instability resulted in high expectations of educational success, these same youth did not have a sense that they would be successful over the long term. The university researcher suggested the possibility that this contradiction was related to their developmental stage of life; teenagers often engage in ‘false self’ behavior and have unrealistic views of risks and strengths in their immediate environment (Harter, Marold, Whitesell, & Cobbs, 1996). Simultaneously, they ponder the roles and responsibilities that will emerge when they become adults (Erikson, 1968; Kroger, 1993) using recently acquired abstract thinking capabilities (Collins & Steinberg, 2006). The PY researchers disagreed and described how moving to a new home or a new school brought up the insecurities and anxieties that may have subsided when their placement was even temporarily stable. Each subsequent move increased negative expectations for the future, yet, there was always some hope that maybe they could climb their way out of their predicaments by achieving success in school.

Some of the findings in this study (expectations for support outside the family and positive attitudes) were consistent with prior research by Diehl et al. (2011), described earlier. There was also a contradiction between the two studies in that the sample of youth in foster care in the Diehl et al. (2011) study reported a sense of control over their lives while some of the participants in this current study reported that they did not feel they had control over their lives. This trend was paired with another where the youth described future participation in the system where they would have more power or control to help others. This difference may be reflective of the selective, small samples utilized in both studies.

This study was only the first step in expressing the voices of youth in foster care and uncovering their perspectives about the very system that controls their lives. By engaging youth in this process, they are empowered to share their common experiences, articulate their strengths, and advocate for change that will have the greatest influence over their lives. Educational interventions and system protections should consider the voices of the youth in foster care for whom these programs are designed.

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We thank Marie Brennan for leading the review process for the author of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Author biography

Leslie Ponciano, PhD, is Director of Early Childhood Education in the School of Education, Loyola Marymount University, USA.

References

Altshuler

S. J.

(1997) The educational experiences of children in foster care: The perceptions of teachers, foster parents, and children (Final Report), Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Burstein

Bryan

Chao

(2005) Promoting self-determination skills among youth with special health needs using participatory action research. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 17(2): 185–201. doi:10.1007/s10882-005-3688-1.

Caywood, J. (2000). Educational services for foster children. Unpublished paper, School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley.

Collins

M. E.

Hill

Miranda

(2008) Establishing positive youth development approaches in group home settings: Training implementation and evaluation. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 25(1): 43–54. doi:10.1007/s10560-008-0111-7.

Collins, W. A., & Steinberg, L. (2006). Adolescent development in interpersonal context. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed., pp. 1003–1067). New York: Wiley.

Costello

Toles

Spielberger

Wynn

(2000) History, ideology and structure shape the organizations that shape youth. In Youth development: Issues, challenges and directions, Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, pp. 185–232.

Courtney

M. E.

Dworsky

(2006) Early outcome for young adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA. Child & Family Social Work 11(3): 209–219. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00433.x.

Courtney

Piliavan

Grogan-Kaylor

Nesmith

(2001) Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare 80(6): 685–716.

Crittenden

P. M.

(1983) The effect of mandatory protective daycare on mutual attachment in maltreating mother-infant dyads. Child Abuse and Neglect 7: 297–300. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(83)90007-8.

10.

Crittenden

P. M.

(1985) Social networks, quality of child rearing, and child development. Child Development 56(5): 1299–1313. doi:10.2307/1130245.

11.

Damon

(2004) What is positive youth development? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591: 13–24. doi: 10.1177/0002716203260092.

12.

Diehl

D. C.

Howse

R. B.

Trivette

C. M.

(2011) Youth in foster care: Developmental assets and attitudes towards adoptions and mentoring. Child & Family Social Work 16(1): 81–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00716.x.

13.

Dozier

Stovall

K. C.

Albus

K. E.

Bates

(2001) Attachment for infants in foster care: The role of caregiver state of mind. Child Development 72(5): 1467–1477. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00360.

14.

Eckenrode

Rowe

Laird

Braithwaite

(1995) Mobility as a mediator of the effects of child maltreatment on academic performance. Child Development 66(4): 1130–1142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00927.x.

15.

Egeland

Sroufe

L. A.

(1981) Developmental sequelae of maltreatment in infancy. New Directions for Child Development 11: 77–92. doi:10.1002/cd.23219811106.

16.

Erikson

E. H.

(1968) Identity, youth, and crisis, New York: Norton.

17.

Fernandez

Barth

R. P.

(2010) How does foster care work? International evidence on outcomes, Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

18.

Fetterman

Kaftarian

Wandersman

(1996) Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability, Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

19.

Fox

Berrick

J. D.

(2006) A response to No One Ever Asked Us: A review of children’s experiences in out-of-home care. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 24(1): 23–51. doi: 10-1007/s10560-006-0057-6.

20.

Gaventa

(1988) Participatory research in North America. Convergence 21(2/3): 41–46.

21.

Harter

Marold

D. B.

Whitesell

N. R.

Cobbs

(1996) A model of the effects of parent and peer support on adolescent false self behavior. Child Development 67: 360–374. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1996.tb01738.x.

22.

Keller

T. E.

Cusick

G. R.

Courtney

M. E.

(2007) Approaching the transition to adulthood: Distinctive profiles of adolescents aging out of the child welfare system. Social Service Review 81(3): 453–484. doi: 10.1086/519536.

23.

Kelly

(2000) The education crisis for children in the California Juvenile Court System. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 2: 757–773.

24.

Kroger

(1993) Ego identity: An overview. In: Kroger

(eds) Discussions on ego identity, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 3–20.

25.

Leff

S. S.

Costigan

Power

T. J.

(2004) Using participatory research to develop a playground-based prevention program. Journal of School Psychology 42(1): 3–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2003.08.005.

26.

Long

Dart

(2001) Opening-up: Engaging people in evaluation. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice 4(1): 71–78. doi:10.1080/13645570119680.

27.

Needell

Cuccaro-Alamin

Brookhart

Jackman

Shlonsky

(2002) Youth emancipating from foster care in California: Findings using linked administrative data, Berkeley: California Social Work Education Center.

28.

Pecora

P. J.

Jensen

P. S.

Romanelli

L. H.

Jackson

L. J.

Ortiz

(2005) Mental health services for children placed in foster care: An overview of current challenges. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice and Program 88(1): 5–26.

29.

Radke-Yarrow

Cummings

E. M.

Kuczynski

Chapman

(1985) Patterns of attachment in two- and three-year-olds in normal families and families with parental depression. Child Development 56: 884–893. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00161.x.

30.

Small

S. A.

(1995) Enhancing contexts of adolescent development: The role of community-based action research. In: Crockett

L. J.

Crouter

A. C.

(eds) Pathways through adolescence: Individual development in relation to social contexts, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, pp. 211–233.

31.

Spieker

S. J.

Booth

C. L.

(1988) Maternal antecedents of attachment quality. In: Belsky

Nezworski

(eds) Clinical implications of attachment, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

32.

Stein

Ward

Courtney

(2011) Editorial: International perspectives on young people’s transitions from care to adulthood. Children & Youth Services Review 33(12): 2409–2411. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.012.

33.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Powers, L. E. (Eds.) (2007). Self-determination. Exceptionality, 15(1), 1–2.

34.

Weinberg, L. A., Zetlin, A. G., & Shea, N. M. (2001). Literature review on the education needs of children involved in family and juvenile court proceedings (contract number 997449). Judicial Council of California, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, San Francisco, CA.