Session: Understanding Adoptive Family Dynamics: Responses from Young Adults and Adoptive Parents (Society for Social Work and Research 29th Annual Conference)

Background/Purpose: Healthy familial relationships can promote well-being and may mitigate the trauma, grief and loss associated with adoption. Yet, close to 20% of children adopted through the U.S. child welfare system face challenges, including post-adoption instability and strained family relationships.

Methods: The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being Adoption Study gathered information from 383 families who exited foster care to adoption. Surveys from young adults who were adopted (YA; average age 24) and adoptive parents (AP) were linked to prior survey data about YA’s childhood, creating a longitudinal database. This symposium reports the findings of four studies on adoptive family well-being, formal and informal post-adoption instability (e.g., runaway, homelessness) and the impact of relative versus non-relative relationships.

Results: The first study, (201 YA and 288 AP), found that 33% experienced instability (8% reentered foster care, 24% were homelessness, runaway, etc.). Adoptees reported that instability occurred because they needed help managing emotions (56%) and did not feel accepted by their adoptive family (52%). The YA model found a greater level of nurturing and attachment was associated with a decreased likelihood of instability (OR=0.69, 95%CI=0.457-0.978). The AP model found that children with clinical-level externalizing behavioral scores were at higher risk (OR=2.21; 95%CI=1.017-4.780), and higher nurturing and attachment scores were associated with lower risk, for instability (OR=0.63, 95%CI=0.453-0.863).

In the second study logistic regression revealed that YA who experienced higher family functioning (b=.11, SE=.04, p<.05), and nurturing and attachment (b=.20, SE=.06, p<.01) during childhood reported a stronger sense of familial closeness as YA. However, only family functioning was found to be a significant predictor for the sense of belonging (b=.24, SE=.05, p<.01). From AP’s perspectives, higher levels of nurturing and attachment significantly increased the odds of a greater sense of closeness (OR=1.31, p<.01) and belonging (OR=1.28, p < .01).

The third study found 44% of YA with a Child Behavior Checklist Problems (CBCL) score in clinical range experienced post-adoption instability, compared to 23% of YA who never had CBCL clinical scores (p<.000); this pattern was present for the externalizing and internalizing behavior subscales (p<=.001). Multivariable models with propensity score weights showed that, controlling for covariates, having a clinical CBCL score was associated with higher risk of post-adoption instability than CBCL scores below clinical range (p<=.005).

In the final study, logistic regression revealed that YA adopted by grandparents reported a stronger sense of closeness and belonging than those adopted by other relatives and non-relatives after controlling for covariates (p<.05). However, significant difference was not detected when the comparison was made for YA adopted by relatives vs. non-relatives. The opposite trend was observed in the findings with AP. Relative parents reported a stronger sense of closeness and belonging than non-relatives. However, when the comparison was made across three groups with AP data (i.e., grandparent, other relatives, non-relatives), no significant difference was reported.

Conclusion/Implications: These studies illuminate challenges adoptive families experience and insights into adoptive family well-being. Gathering the perspective of both YA and AP provides important, yet sometimes contradictory, insights about adoptive family life.