Defining Permanence: An Examination of the Lived Experiences of Young Adults Compared to Their Foster Care Case Records

Background and Purpose: A Grand Challenge for the 21^st child welfare system is to shift gears from a 20^th century system focused on the achievement of legal permanence to a 21^st century system focused on the well-being of children who have achieved legal permanence. In 2000 there were 290,000 children in foster care and 228,000 children in federally-subsidized adoptive homes; in 2013 there were 159,000 children in foster care and 432,000 in adoptive homes. This dramatic shift was a result of a concerted effort to move children out of foster care and into permanent homes, where it was assumed they would live ‘happily ever after’.  However, there are lingering reservations about the pace of change, the quality of aftercare and the stability for children after legal permanence has been achieved. This paper asks, how does the understanding of permanence and well-being of young adults match the official state records regarding permanence?

Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 20 young adults (average age 27.5) who exited foster care (average age of 15.5) through adoption (45%) or guardianship (55%). Interview questions focused on young adults’ relationships with caretakers before and after achieving permanence, and current relationships with caretakers. These interviews were linked to administrative data that documented the ‘official record’ for each participant’s foster care experience. Comparative analysis was conducted to identify congruence and incongruence between the state records and the retrospective accounts of the young adults on two accounts: the reported permanency outcome and the experience of post-permanency discontinuity.

Results: Findings revealed that 55% (11) of young adults reported permanency outcomes that were incongruent with their administrative record. Three young adults reported exiting state custody through adoption, although records indicate that the three achieved permanence through guardianship. Similarly, eight respondents reported achieving permanence through guardianship while administrative records indicate these young adults emancipated from care at an average age of 22.4 (range 17 – 29). The records for 7 of the 8 respondents show that their last placement before emancipation was with a relative, which the young adults may have interpreted as a guardianship arrangement.  While the administrative records show that 25% of the respondents experienced post-permanency discontinuity, 55% of respondents reported having experienced discontinuity.  Respondents provided insight into how they define family, permanence and post-permanence discontinuity and the meanings they ascribe to these.

Implications: The child welfare system emphasizes permanency planning and documents activities and outcomes, yet we found that the official record varies from the lived experiences of the respondents. In considering the well-being of youth served by the child welfare system, these findings suggest redefining how permanency status is communicated with youth and, more broadly, youth involvement in decision-making. Once permanence has been achieved, understanding post-permanency discontinuity is elusive; activities after legal permanence are not tracked in administrative data. These findings suggest that post-permanency well-being is best understood if researchers look beyond administrative data, and communicate directly with youth and young adults who have previously been involved with the child welfare system.