6. What do we mean by permanence for children
accommodated away from home?
Need to consider both
Objective permanence
• Physical and legal stability
Subjective permanence
• Involves child’s emotional security and sense of belonging
• ‘Perception of permanence is key’ (Lahti 1982)
• Do children and caregivers both view the placement as
permanent?
6
7. A definition from English government guidance
‘Permanence is the framework of emotional permanence
(attachment), physical permanence (stability) and legal
permanence (the carer has parental responsibility for the
child) which gives a child a sense of security, continuity ,
commitment and identity. The objective of planning for
permanence is therefore to ensure that children have a
secure, stable and loving family to support them through
childhood and beyond. (My italics)
Children Act 1989 Guidance and Regulations: Care Planning, Placement
and Case Review (2010)
7
8. 1. Findings from University of York study Belonging and
Permanence: compared children in foster care (including
kinship foster care) those adopted
Compared objective permanence
Compared mental health and educational progress of
children on different pathways
Explored subjective perceptions of permanence for
children in long-term foster care
2. Will briefly introduce our ongoing Permanently
Progressing? study in Scotland
8
9. Belonging and Permanence study (2010)
In 2001 we identified 196 children who had been
in same foster placement for 3+ years or
adopted from care
By 5 year follow-up (2006) there were 3 groups
39% adopted from care
32% in stable foster care (in same placement 7-12 years)
• 1/3 of these were in kinship foster placements
23% experienced unstable care (1 or more moves since
previously stable placement)
Methods
Postal surveys of children’s social workers and foster carers or
adoptive parents
Focus groups with social workers, team managers, adoptive
parents and foster carers 9
10. Higher disruption rate for foster placements, even for apparently
stable placements
28% of the previously stable foster placements disrupted
11% of children placed for adoption/adopted
Other studies have found
High disruption rates for foster care: 17-50% (depending on
age at placement and other factors)
Very low disruption rates for adoption (Selwyn et al 2012)
• 3.2% of 37,335 adoptions disrupted over 12 years
• Disruption mainly occurred in adolescence
• Varied a lot by local authority
10
11. Children accommodated at a younger age were more likely to be
adopted
Age when last entered care (Belonging and Permanence study)
Adopted 1.6 years
Stable foster care 3.8 years
Unstable care 4.9 years
Late admission reduced children’s chance of adoption
59% children adopted by strangers entered care before age 1
But fewer children adopted by carers entered before age 1
Late admission increased the risk of placement instability
11
12. Mix of child, foster carer and agency factors (B & P study)
The child
Later admission to care - longer exposure to abuse, neglect,
other adversities at home may have impact on emotional &
behavioural development
Child may be more difficult to care for if enters care when older
The foster carer
Circumstances changed – some gave up fostering due marriage
breakdown, bereavement, domestic violence
Lack of legal permanence - no legal commitment to child when
carers’ circumstances changed
The local authority
Response to emerging placement difficulties?
Support to placement?
12
13. Used a standardised measure of emotional and behavioural
difficulties (SDQ) to compare mental health of the 3 groups
completed by adoptive parent or foster carer
Scoring above clinically significant threshold no different for
children adopted or in stable foster placements
Stable foster care 36%
Adopted 35%
Unstable care 54%
General population 10%
‘Unstable’ group at higher risk of mental health difficulties
At least 50% of disruptions triggered by behaviour problems
Impact of delay on mental health: those who entered placement
after age 4 had higher scores on SDQ
13
14. 14
Scores from 5 years earlier were available for 82 children
Those whose index placements subsequently broke down
(unstable group) already had higher SDQ scores beforehand
No significant change in scores over past 5 years
Lack of change suggests emotional and behavioural
difficulties are strongly influenced by pre-care adversity
Unstable care group entered care much later
Had longer exposure to adversity
• Other studies show that this reduces ability to recover from
impact of abuse and neglect
14
15. 15
Measured carers’ and adopters’ parenting style
Measures of child orientation, family integration, rejection
(completed by foster carers/adoptive parents)
Ratings of parenting (social workers)
Foster carer scores for family integration/rejection
correlated with social worker ratings of parenting
Children with higher SDQ scores less likely to be
perceived as integrated into the foster family (by carers)
Rejection scores for previous carers of unstable group
(in 2001) higher if children had high SDQ scores then
(i.e. before last placement disrupted)
15
16. 16
Interaction of child disturbance and parenting style
Behavioural and attachment difficulties can make
child more difficult to care for
May elicit carer rejection
Can lead to downward spiral: rejection or lack of
warmth/responsiveness to child may reinforce
emotional and behavioural difficulties
Carer commitment to the child was key
16
17. Combined measure of school progress, attendance,
exclusion and behaviour showed:
Better overall integration and progress for children in
permanent placements
Stable foster care as well as adoption
Unstable care group doing worse on overall measure
More likely to be excluded or truant in last 6 months
Children likely to be doing worse if they
Had high scores on SDQ (esp. if high for hyperactivity)
Were disabled
17
18. Other comparative studies at York have highlighted risk of
impermanence in foster care and also its potential
Study of 595 children in foster care found impermanence
sometimes due to repeated attempts to return child home even
when not in their best interests (Sinclair et al 2005)
Study of 149 children accommodated due to abuse/neglect,
and either reunified with parents or remained in foster care
2/3 reunified children returned to care 1, 2 or more times, foster care
group was more settled
Outcomes more positive for those who remained in foster care
Children in foster care were more likely to have positive wellbeing
and less likely to be involved in crime or substance misuse than
those reunified with families (Wade et al 2011; Biehal et al 2014).
18
19. 19
Subjective permanence was important too
Interviewed 37 children in Belonging and Permanence
study and their foster carers or adoptive parents
Used a range of methods to explore
Relationships with adoptive and foster families
Relationships with birth parents
Perceptions of permanence – a family for life?
Child’s sense of belonging
Some findings in relation to children in stable foster
placements………………
20. 20
Ideas about ‘family’ and ‘belonging’ were complex and
could shift over time
Some children were preoccupied with birth parents
½ of stable foster care group, ¾ of unstable care group
A key factor in sense of belonging was how child
located the foster family in relation to the birth family
Feelings of hurt, anger, ambivalence about parents
sometimes linked to ambivalence towards carers
‘Chemistry’ between child and carer and carer’s love/
commitment to child despite difficulties were also key
also found in fostering studies by Ian Sinclair, Gill
Schofield, and Mary Dozier
21. 21
Some parents physically present (in contact), but unreliable
or rejecting, so their psychological presence was troubling
How far can fostered children mentally process their
experience and knowledge of parents?
How does their ‘story’ explaining parents’ past and current
actions represent their parents - and themselves – to them?
How far can they resolve complicated feelings about parents
who have harmed or rejected them, and settle for permanence in
another family?
Can they find a way to identify with and ‘belong’ to both
families?
22. 22
Children who felt they ‘belonged’ to the foster family and
thought it would be a ‘family for life:
Could reconcile belonging to two families OR
Were physically and/or emotionally distanced from parents
Contact with parents relatively unproblematic (or no contact)
Where negotiating the boundaries between the two families
was difficult for children:
They were often ambivalent about parents and/or
Pre-occupied with unreliable, rejecting or dangerous parents
More difficult for these children to identify with foster family
and feel emotionally secure
Were more troubled about where they belonged
23. Foster care can provide stability, but often fails to do so
For 1/3 of children, placements broke down even after 3 years
But where foster care is stable
chance of positive outcomes similar for fostering & adoption
Need to avoid delay in admission and permanent placement
Late admission to accommodation may mean lengthy exposure
to abuse/neglect other adversities
increases risk of placement instability and poor mental health
reduces chance of adoption
High levels of need for many fostered and adopted children
continuing support needed to ensure stability and child
wellbeing
Important to help children in long-term foster placements make
sense of their location between two families
support their sense of belonging to their foster families (as well
as to their birth families).
23
24. A collaboration between University of Stirling (Dr Helen
Whincup and others), University of York and AFAS (Dr
Margaret Grant)
Builds on Belonging and Permanence study, but in
Scottish context
Investigating decision-making, permanence, progress,
outcomes and belonging for children in Scotland placed
permanently away from their birth parents
October 2014 – October 2018
24
25. Following up large sample of children who were under 5 years old
when accommodated (during the year 2012-13)
Pathways study: pathways over 4 years for all 1,836 children under 5
who became accommodated or looked after at home in 2012-13
Analysis of data from CLAS and SCRA (all local authorities)
Outcomes study: Histories, decision-making and outcomes for 416
adopted or fostered children, 3-4 years after accommodated
surveys of social workers and foster carers/adoptive parents (19
local authorities)
Qualitative study of children in 16 adoptive or foster families
Interviews with adopters, foster carers and some children
Policy and decision-making study
Interviews and focus groups with children’s and family placement
SWs, CHS panel chairs/members and others (9 authorities)
25
26. Findings will be presented at
conference in Stirling on
September 19th 2018
Please join us!
26
27. Nina Biehal, Sarah Ellison, Claire Baker and Ian Sinclair (2010)
Belonging and Permanence. Outcomes in Long-term Foster Care and
Adoption. London: BAAF.
Nina Biehal (2014) A sense of belonging: meanings of family and home
in long-term foster care, British Journal of Social Work, 44, pp. 955-971.
Nina Biehal, Ian Sinclair and Jim Wade (2014) Reunifying abused or
neglected children: decision-making and outcomes, Child Abuse and
Neglect, 49, pp.107-118
Jim Wade, Nina Biehal, Nicola Farrelly and Ian Sinclair (2011) Caring for
Abused and Neglected Children. Making the right decisions for
reunification or long-term care, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Ian Sinclair, Claire Baker, Kate Wilson & Ian Gibbs (2005) Foster
Children. Where They Go and How They Get On. London: JKP.
27
28. Poster session
Make your way to the poster
number on your badge.
Once the presentation is
finished, move in a clockwise
direction to the next poster.
#GatheringPACE
33. Round table
discussion
1. What do you think is working well, in
meaningfully involving children and
their families – or carers – in providing
services in your area of work?
2. What would be even better if… ?
#GatheringPACE
