An Ecological Model of Conversations about Permanency Between Child Welfare Caseworkers and Children

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE:

Approximately 397,122 children are in the U.S. foster care system (DHHS, 2013). There is a general consensus that children in foster care should participate in developmentally appropriate conversations about permanency. These conversations can moderate a child’s cumulative loss and trauma experiences, depending on specific circumstances of the case, the context of the conversation, and conversation dynamics. Despite their importance, no studies on the methods, challenges, and outcomes of these conversations are available. To address this knowledge gap, this study sought to gain a holistic understanding of caseworkers’ conversations, including the overall context and caseworkers’ perceptions of factors that influence conversation dynamics.

METHODS:

Twenty-seven (N=27) child protection caseworkers, employed in a large southwest state, participated in six focus groups held in two state service regions. Purposive and maximum variation sampling methods were used to recruit participants. The majority of participants were female (77%) and white (54%). One-third (35%) had at least one social work degree and one-third (35%) had a master’s degree.

Focus groups were audiotaped and co-facilitated using a semi-structured interview guide.  Participants were asked about their approaches and experiences speaking with children about permanency. After every group, co-facilitators debriefed, discussed emergent data, and refined follow-up questions for future groups. Participants also completed an anonymous demographic questionnaire, which included a scaled question about their comfort level in permanency conversations.

Thematic analysis and inductive coding were used to analyze data. Two researchers who co-facilitated the groups used a line-by-line process to code each transcript. A graduate research assistant was trained to be a third reader and to serve as a coding auditor for all transcripts. Auditing involved checking every code for accuracy and comprehensiveness in encapsulating participant meaning. Finally, themes were identified across and within focus groups.  Analysis decisions were recorded with an audit trail.

RESULTS:

Only half of the participants (47%) indicated on the scaled questionnaire that they felt “very comfortable” having permanency conversations. Caseworkers shared beliefs that their conversations contribute to children’s well-being and sense of safety, yet the conversations are affected by numerous factors beyond their control. Caseworkers’ descriptions revealed a picture of the context surrounding permanency conversations, and suggest that several factors influence conversations. The ecological model suggested by this study’s findings includes four influential areas: System factors, Child’s in-the-moment emotional status, Child’s developmental capacities (social-emotional and cognitive), and Child’s situation. System factors affecting permanency conversations include case history, outcome being discussed, match between outcome being discussed and child preferences, and the level of certainty versus ambiguity in possible outcomes.  Factors in the child’s situation that influence permanency conversations include family factors, risks, and resources available.

IMPLICATIONS:

Findings begin to address the knowledge gap regarding permanency conversations between children and caseworkers, and provide an ecological model to guide future research. Implications for research, practice, and education/training will be presented. Findings inform several areas of interest to researchers and educators, including workforce development, organizational dynamics, interprofessional collaboration, child development, and direct practice with children.