Comparing Differences in the Effect of Family Finding for Youth with and without Previous Group Care?

Purpose:  An estimated 15% of the foster care population is served in group care (USDHHS, ACF, 2011). Compared to children in less restrictive placements, those in group care experience the highest rates of failed placements and re-entry into placement (Wulzcyn, Chen, Brunner Hislop, 2007). Research supports that family involvement is key to helping youth in group care achieve permanency (Landsman et al., 2001; Lee, 2011), yet these youth often have few and unstable family supports. There has been limited focus on strategies to strengthen connections to family and natural supports to improve permanency outcomes for youth in group care. Results will be presented from a study that examined the effectiveness of intensive family finding services for youth who have experienced group care placements. 

Methods: For the current study we used data that was originally collected as part of a randomized experimental study of family finding services (FIC) aimed at increasing family connections and relative placements among youth in Iowa's foster care system. For the current study, we segregated the sample (n = 243) into four mutually exclusive groups: 1) FIC + history of group care 2) FIC no group care, 3) control + history of group care, 3) control no group care. 

Analysis: Multinomial regression was used examine differences in relational and physical permanency, length of time in care, and subsequent maltreatment. Next, we conducted a qualitative review of case records of the 57 youth in the FIC condition who had a history of group care placements.   

Results: The results showed that youth with group care placements in the FIC condition were more likely to achieve relational permanency and had more engaged natural supports compared both control conditions (with and without group placements). Youth with group care placements in FIC were least likely to achieve physical permanency compared to the other groups.  Results from in-depth case studies revealed consistent evidence of meaningful family engagement, engaging new supports and re-connecting youth with family they had lost touch with. Consistent themes that presented challenges to achieving physical permanency included family conflict and youth’s severe mental health/behavioral conditions requiring extensive treatment. Successful worker strategies to address challenges and engage families/supports included consistent and frequent contacts, mediating conflict, the use diverse engagement strategies, and identifying multiple family-based placements options.

Conclusion: Results support family finding as highly effective in helping youth with group care placements achieve relational permanency but it may be less effective at increasing physical permanency, at least in the short-term. Developing meaningful connections and creating safe and stable relative-based permanency for youth in group care may require a unique approach including the use of creative and intensive engagement strategies and additional time. We highlight strategies to connect and engage youths’ families/natural supports and discuss common themes surrounding successes and challenges related to permanency outcomes. Finally, we discuss implications for practice and policy related to creating family/natural supports networks for youth in group care as a way to improve permanency outcomes and interrupt existing patterns of failed placements and high rates of re-entry.