foster parent perceptions of placement success

Children and Youth Services Review

com/locate/childyouth
29 (2007) 1010–1020
www.elsevier.

Foster parent perceptions of placement success

Jason D. Brown a,⁎, Melissa Campbell b

a Faculty of Education, University of Western Ontario, 1137 Western Road, London, Canada, N6G 1G7b University of Manitoba, Canada

Received 18 December 2006; received in revised form 3 February 2007; accepted 11 February 2007Available online 29 April 2007

Abstract

In this study a random sample of 61 foster parents from a central Canadian province participated in atelephone interview that included the question: “What in your opinion is a successful foster placement?” Atotal of 71 unique responses were obtained and grouped together by foster parents. The grouping data wereanalyzed using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Six themes resulted: security for child, familyconnections, good relationships, positive family change, seamless agency involvement, and child grows.The results were generally consistent with the available literature. Differences between the literature andfoster parents interviewed were discussed and implications made for foster care research.© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Foster parent; Foster placement; Foster care

1. Introduction

Success in foster care has been described in various ways and from different perspectives. Studieshave defined success from the viewpoints of child protection systems and caseworkers. And whileresearchers recognize the importance of foster parent and child perspectives, relatively few studieshave represented them. While there are various indicators of success in foster care, there has beenrelatively little attention to the perspectives of foster parents about what constitutes success.

2. Literature review

The following review includes studies of successful fostering, based on the perspectives ofchild protection systems, foster children, and foster parents.

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 661 2111x88617; fax: +1 519 661 3833.E-mail address: [email protected] (J.D. Brown).

0190-7409/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.02.002

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.02.002

1011J.D. Brown, M. Campbell / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1010–1020

2.1. Child protection

One method of determining the success of foster care has focused on the goals of the childwelfare system, including reunification and other forms of permanency planning, such asadoption, as well as stability in long-term foster care. Reunification with the birth family is animportant goal; if reunification is not possible, then adoption is considered (Courtney, 1994).Foster placement stability (e.g. absence of disruption, breakdown) is also an indicator of success(Sinclair, Wilson, & Gibbs, 2005).

Measures of child well-being used by caseworkers have emphasized the quality of placement,based on evidence of resilience, coping and general functioning, as well as reports from otherprofessionals about physical and mental health (cognitive functioning and developmental delay,behavioral disturbance, and emotional or psychosocial adjustment), and school performance(Altshuler & Gleeson, 1999). Another version of this approach was based on observations offoster parents and foster children (Sinclair & Wilson, 2003). Convergence of evidence (includingthe caseworker's perceptions) that the placement was going well led to a conclusion of success.

2.2. Foster child

Foster children have described different kinds of positive experiences with foster parents.Children in successful foster placements were happy (Barber & Delfabbro, 2005). They describedtheir foster families as “nice”, “trustworthy” and “caring” (Whiting & Lee, 2003),“understanding”, “fair”, “patient”, and “good listeners” (Johnson, Yoken, & Voss, 1995).Researchers have described the perceptions of foster children in successful foster families ashighly nurturing (Barber & Delfabbro, 2004), based on observations and child reports of theirrelationships with the parents (Whiting & Lee, 2003) as well as the physical condition of the home(Johnson et al., 1995).

Children in successful foster placements have been described as satisfied with theircaseworkers. They see the caseworkers as helpful, interested in them, and willing to listen to theirconcerns (Barber & Delfabbro, 2004). Some ways that caseworkers had shown an interest werethat they were knowledgeable of the child's biological family, reasons she or he was in foster care,that they knew the foster family well, and were present to see how things were going (Johnsonet al., 1995).

2.3. Foster parent

Foster parent satisfaction has been the subject of some research. Foster parents, indescribing their experiences of fostering in general, indicated that they received satisfactionin their role when the children made positive changes in their lives (Wells, Farmer, Richards,& Burns, 2004). Foster parents also indicated that their own personal and familyrelationships had been strengthened as a result of a good fostering experience (Buehler,Cox, & Cuddeback, 2003). Successful relationships, to foster parents, are those based onrespect, recognition and acknowledgement (Hudson & Levasseur, 2002). Financialcompensation as well as practical skills they learned from the system, were also beneficial(Butler & Charles, 1999).

There is a gap in the literature on successful fostering. While several references to fosterparents' perceptions of contributors to high satisfaction in their roles exist, we could find nostudy of their beliefs about what constitutes success in fostering. In this study, foster parents

Table 1Foster parent characteristics (n=61)

GenderMale 10Female 51

Single foster parent homes 21Location

Urban 28Rural 33

1012 J.D. Brown, M. Campbell / Children and Youth Services Review 29 (2007) 1010–1020

throughout a central Canadian province were asked what they see as a successful fosterplacement.

3. Method

Concept mapping is a quantitative approach to the analysis of qualitative data. Researchparticipants provide responses to a question that each then groups together. The groupings areanalyzed quantitatively and the result is a visual representation of the themes they co-construct.The role of the researchers in this process is to identify a question, record and distribute responses,determine the appropriate number of concepts, and assign descriptive labels to each.

Concept mapping has been used in many studies published in the human services literature. Ithas been used to explore the challenges faced by individuals with a traumatic brain injury(Donnelly, Donnelly, & Grohman, 2005), the need of children with life-limiting health conditions(Donnelly, Huff, Lindsey, McMahon, & Schumacher, 2005), the perceptions of adolescents onhelpful aspects of counseling (Paulson & Everall, 2003) and male partners of pregnant teens(Goodyear, 2002). This procedure has also been used to describe the experiences of femalesmanagers in a corporate setting (Schuck & Liddle, 2004).

3.1. Components of concept mapping

Five steps were taken in the concept mapping process (Trochim, 1989). The first step was thegeneration of responses to a question among a group of participants. Second, their responses wereedited for clarity and to remove those that were redundant. Third, the statements were groupedtogether by participants. Fourth, two types of statistical analysis were applied to the groupings. Adecision was made regarding the optimal number of concepts. Fifth, the major concepts wereidentified according to the statements included in each cluster.

3.2. Participants

The membership list of the Manitoba Foster Family Network (MFFN), held by the Manitobagovernment's Department of Family Services and Housing, Child Protection and Support

Table 2Fostering experience (n=61)

Max Min Mean S.D.

Years fostering 38 Less than 1 11.9 9.3Current foster children 4 0 1.8 1.2Total foster children 200 1 29.7 45.9


Services, was used to make contact with potential participants across the province. The mission ofthe Manitoba Foster Family Network is “to encourage, promote and assist in the development ofhealthy foster homes, to improve the quality of life for children in care” (MFFN, 2006).

A description of the study was included in a newsletter sent to all members before any contact wasmade with foster parents. The list of telephone numbers for 2310 licensed foster homes wasrandomized. Participants were contacted in order by telephone. Datawere collected until therewere nonew responses in five consecutive interviews. We interviewed 61 foster parents from 57 families. Themajority of participants were female. Close to one-third of participants were the only foster parents intheir homes. Participants resided in urban and rural areas, and had been fostering for less than 1 to38 years. For a description of the participants and their fostering experience see Tables 1 and 2.

3.2.1. Research instrument and questionsWhen contacted by telephone, foster parents were told about the purpose of the study as well as

what participation would include. They were informed that their responses would be keptconfidential and anonymous, and that they could choose not to answer a question or withdrawtheir participation at any time. All foster parents who gave verbal consent to participate wereasked the open-ended question: “What in your opinion is a successful foster placement?” Theywere also asked if they were interested in participating in the sorting task at a later date.

3.3. Generation of statements

A total of 181 statements were made in response to the question. The statements were edited ofclarity and essential meaning (Trochim, 1989). Because there appeared to be few differencesbetween responses frommales and females, their responses were combined for the purposes of thisanalysis. Redundant statements were removed, leaving a total of 71 statements for the analysis.

3.3.1. Inter-rater agreement processThree raters, including the authors and a human service professional reviewed the statements

separately. Individually, they edited for clarity and essential meaning. The raters compared thelists of statements by gender and agreed that there were no significant differences, so the lists were

Fig. 1. Concept map of 71 statements.

Table 3Cluster items and bridging values for concept map

Cluster and statement Bridging index

Cluster #1 — security for child 0.1361. Safe environment 0.0154. Nourishing 0.0265. Stable 0.111. A happy home 0.122. A nurturing home 0.1251. Moderately clean house 0.1553. No violence 0.2440. Having space in my home 0.25Cluster #2 — family connects 0.1327. Family likes children 0.0759. Recognition of children's problems 0.0869. Understanding child's situation 0.085. Child accepted by extended family 0.0928. Family understands needs of child 0.1049. Lots of care and attention 0.1456. Physical and emotional needs met 0.1552. No difference between treatment of biological and foster children 0.1967. Treatment as equals 0.1968. Trusting relationship between parent and kids 0.1916. Child is provided with needed materials 0.22Cluster #3 — good relationships 0.7735. Get the child back with biological parents 0.5548. Long-term planning 0.5710. Child goes to home community 0.6618. Children go back into a safe environment 0.7032. Foster family speaks with birth family 0.7213. Child is adopted 0.8447. Lifelong commitment to child 0.8946. Letting go of the children when it is time for them to go 0.9466. Temporary 0.9933. Foster home is ongoing resource 1.00Cluster #4 — positive family change 0.2739. Has balance 0.0934. Foster parents who change with the family 0.1560. Respect for different values 0.2026. Family is sensitive to child's culture 0.2124. Everyone in the home affected positively 0.3136. Giving child a home 0.3671. Working together to reach goals 0.4122. Cooperation 0.43Cluster #5 — seamless agency involvement 0.4931. Foster family re-educates itself 0.3537. Good match between foster family and child 0.3642. Informed foster parents 0.4325. Family gets help when needed 0.4543. Informed parents 0.5230. Follow up after placement 0.5629. Feeling healthy yourself 0.6158. Pre-Placement Visits 0.62Cluster #6 — child grows 0.238. Child feels comfortable 0.00


Table 3 (continued )

Cluster and statement Bridging index

9. Child feels like part of family 0.0345. Kids feeling like they matter 0.0320. Children know you are there for them 0.0614. Child is loved 0.087. Addresses needs of each child 0.116. Child adjusts 0.1121. Comfortable fit 0.133. Child feels cared for 0.1511. Child grows in all areas 0.1512. Child has identity and direction 0.164. Change in behavior for the better 0.2062. Seeing child develop normally 0.2050. Makes a difference in child's life 0.2117. Children are well-behaved 0.2741. Helping kids with their individual needs 0.2844. Instilled values such as kindness, caring, sharing and loving 0.3138. Grow up happy and healthy 0.3264. Sending child out into the world with the right tools 0.3255. Overcome emotional problems 0.3857. Positive connection to school and community 0.4115. Child is productive and contributes to society 0.4423. Does not break down 0.4470. Victories over problem areas 0.4863. Seeing child succeed in life 0.5019. Children know more about their culture 0.64


combined. They compared their ratings on each remaining statement, and removed redundantresponses.

3.4. Structuring of statements

Foster parents who expressed interest at the time of interview were later contacted bytelephone by the researchers to participate in the sorting task. Those who remained interestedwere provided with the full set of statements made in response to the question by all participants.They were asked to read through the statements and group them together into clusters. When theycompleted the sorting, they contacted the researchers and provided their responses by telephone.A total of 13 sorts were returned.

3.5. Representation of statements

The authors utilized the Concept System (Trochim, 1987) to perform the analysis andconstruction of the concept maps. Two statistical procedures were applied to the sort data –multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis – before a final decision was made about the mostappropriate number of clusters.

Multidimensional scaling placed each statement on a two-dimensional space with the distancesreflecting the frequency with which they were grouped together by participants. The result was apoint map. A bridging index was calculated for each statement, representing the relationship


between each statement and others close to it or far from it on the map. Statements with lowbridging indices (less than .25) were more often sorted together by participants with statementsclosest to them on the map. High bridging index values (.75 or greater) indicated that thestatement was sorted with other statements in various areas of the map.

Cluster analysis of the multidimensional scaling results was used to group the statements onthe map into clusters (Anderberg, 1973; Everitt, 1980). Initially, each statement is treated as itsown cluster. The clusters are combined, two at a time, until all statements are in one cluster. Adecision about the most appropriate number of concepts was made by the researchers based onconceptual fit and the items that contributed most to the uniqueness of the cluster (based onindividual bridging indices). We examined cluster solutions from 9 to 4 before concluding that thesix-cluster solution best represented the data.

3.6. Cluster labels

At the time foster parents were asked to sort the statements into themes, they were also asked toprovide a label for each theme. The researchers, when assigning labels to the clusters in the six-cluster solution, used these suggestions. Where the labels from participants corresponded to thestatements within the clusters, they were used.

4. Results

Fig. 1 is the concept map of statements made by participants. The statements that make up eachcluster are listed in Table 3.

5. Discussion

In this section we compare the study results to available literature.

5.1. Cluster 1: Security for child

In this cluster the statements focused on safety and security issues. Foster parents described theneed for a “safe environment” where there was “no violence” as evidence of success. Theyindicated that the children should experience “a happy home” where basic needs (“nourishing”)were met, as well as “a nurturing home”, where emotional needs were met for the foster children.They also described “having space in my home” and the maintenance of a “moderately cleanhouse” as contributors to the children's safety and security.

In the fostering literature on success, we found little attention on basic safety. Perhaps this isdue to an emphasis on social and emotional well-being as evidence of success for children infoster care (Altshuler & Gleeson, 1999). It may be assumed that if basic safety issues areaddressed that the evidence will appear in children's adjustment and well-being. However, theabsence of such evidence of well-being may be due to the absence of feeling physically andemotionally secure.

5.2. Cluster 2: Family connects

In this cluster the statements emphasized the ways in which foster parents connect with thechildren, socially and emotionally. Connecting with foster children, according to foster parents,


starts from a basic premise that the “family likes children”. The “child is provided with neededmaterials”, and given “lots of care and attention” so that “physical and emotional needs met”. Thisrequires “recognition of children's problems” and “understanding child's situation”, so that theentire foster “family understands needs of child” and the “child (is) accepted by extended family”.The evidence of good connections between the foster child and the foster family can be found inhow they are treated. Foster children should receive “treatment as equals” and there should be “nodifference between treatment of biological and foster children”. A desirable goal is to have“trusting relationship between parent and kids”.

While there has been some attention to issues of attachment in foster care (Carlson, Sampson,& Sroufe, 2003; Vig, Chinitz, & Shulman, 2005), recent data looking at success in foster carefrom the perspective of trusting connections between foster families (foster parents and theirchildren) and the foster children, has not been reported.

5.3. Cluster 3: Good relationships

In this cluster foster parents described strong relationships as an indicator of success in fostercare. Some of the relationships developed with foster parents are “temporary”, and it is difficult“letting go of the children when it's time for them to go”. Sometimes, the “child is adopted” byfoster parents. When “long-term planning” is done, and the foster parents make a “lifelongcommitment to child”, the “foster home is ongoing resource”.

There relationships were not limited to those within the foster family. Indeed, it was importantthat “foster family speaks with birth family” to foster good relationships in order to “get the childback with biological parents”. If it was not possible for the child to go back to birth parents,relationships with others in the child's family and social circles were important so that when a“child goes to home community” they “go back into a safe environment”.

The impermanency of foster care, due to reunification with birth or extended family in thehome community, is cited as a measure of success in the literature (Courtney, 1994). However,relatively little attention is paid to the nature and strength of ongoing relationships with fosterfamilies of children who have reunified, either during or following reunification, as a measure ofsuccess. Even less research attention has been drawn to the possibility (though we are aware ofthis practice) of success in foster care that is based on combined care. There has been no researchthat we have found looking at foster families and birth families together raising healthy and happychildren.

5.4. Cluster 4: Positive family change

Statements in this cluster emphasized the positive effects on the foster family as indicative ofsuccess in fostering. When a family “has balance” and “respect for different values”, it includes“foster parents who change with the family” and members “working together to reach goals”.Starting with “giving child a home”, adding “cooperation” when the foster “family is sensitive tochild's culture”, can lead to the outcome that: “everyone in the home affected positively”.

References have been made in the literature to altruistic motives and selfless interests of fosterparents, as well as the perceptions that they're just in it for the money (Butler & Charles, 1999;Grimm & Darwall, 2005). Other studies have described improved relationships among fosterfamily members as successful outcomes (Buehler et al., 2003; Hudson & Levasseur, 2002). Itwould be misleading to suggest that any one positive outcome for a foster family could accountfor what appears to be a range of possibilities for success.


5.5. Cluster 5: Seamless agency involvement

In this cluster, the statements focused on ongoing involvement of child welfare agencies tosupport families through various transitions, as an indicator of success in fostering. Participantsidentified the need for “pre-placement visits” so that they could feel like “informed fosterparents”. They described the need for a “good match between foster family and child” as well as“follow up after placement”. During the placement parents indicated that the “foster family re-educates itself”; they have to learn about the children and relationships. In terms of the birthfamily, during or after placement, foster parents wanted them to know what was going on(“informed parents”), so that the “family gets help when needed”. Transitional support wasneeded by foster parents in order to stay “feeling healthy yourself”.

The literature on agency involvement as related to success in fostering has emphasized thetypes of relationships (Hong, Mandell, Harrington, & Warren, 2004) and intensity of services(Reddy & Pfeiffer, 1997) provided. However, there has been little attention to the developmentalpathway of service type and intensity before, during and after placement. There also appears to bea gap in the literature on the nature and extent of optimal service provision to the birth andextended families at each point.

5.6. Cluster 6: Child grows

The statements in this cluster concern positive outcomes for foster children. Foster parentsindicated that a successful foster placement is one that “does not break down”. Breakdowns areless likely when the “child is loved”, the “child feels cared for”, the “child adjusts” and the “childfeels comfortable”. Placements are successful when “children know you are there for them”, thefamily “addresses needs of each child”, and the “child feels like part of family”. Foster parentswant the “kids feeling like they matter” and having a “comfortable fit” for all members of thefamily.

Participants also indicated that a successful foster placement is affected by what theycontribute as parents. Foster parents described “helping kids with their individual needs” and thattheir effort “makes a difference in child's life”. Foster parents also described their hopes for thechildren themselves, over the short- and longer-term. They wanted the children to experience“victories over problem areas”, for example, to “overcome emotional problems”. They wanted thechildren to have a “change in behavior for the better” so that the “children are well-behaved” andhave a “positive connection to school and community”.

Foster parents wanted to see the children grow “grow up happy and healthy”. They believedthat a successful foster placement is one where the “child grows in all areas”. If they have“instilled values such as kindness, caring, sharing and loving” and the “children know more abouttheir culture”, each “child has identity and direction” and each “child is productive and contributesto society”. They enjoyed “seeing child develop normally”, and “sending child out into the worldwith the right tools”, so they could help the “child succeed in life”.

There is a great deal of literature on developmental outcomes for children in care, and fostercare in particular (Jones-Harden, 2004). However, there are relatively few that follow childreninto adulthood. The foster parents in this study indicated that they measured a successful fosterplacement in terms of not only the immediate changes for a child, but later-life experiences ofthe children well after they had left care. Foster parents see both short-term and long-termoutcomes from fostering, and look holistically as well as for evidence of well-being in theirfoster children.


6. Conclusion

There were many similarities between the literature on foster placement success and the resultsof our study. Both the literature and foster parents identified a range of stakeholders in fosterplacement outcomes, including birth families, foster children, their own families (children andextended members), as well as those that are system-wide and those of the caseworker. Oneconclusion that could be drawn from the literature and perspectives of foster parents is that thereare many ways to capture the notion of success in foster care, and that indicators of success suchas family reunification, stability in placement, and adoption, are limited in their utility to capturethe more subtle positive (and negative) aspects of foster care, such as the support network forfoster and birth families, as well as overcoming difficult transitions (into care, while in care,leaving care, among foster children and birth parents as well as foster parents), and long-termchild outcomes.

There were also some significant differences between what has been reported in the literatureand what foster parents identified. Two differences which we discuss here are the connectionsbetween birth and foster families, as well as transitions. These differences suggest ways thatresearchers and practitioners can understand and document success and look for change inresponse to their interventions.

One area where there was a difference between foster parents in the present study and theavailable research literature was on the connections between birth and foster families. Fosterparents in our study saw the birth family as important people with ongoing involvement in thelives of their children while they were in care. While much research has focused on eitherpermanent care (e.g. adoption) or family reunification as successful outcomes of a fosterplacement, our data challenge the necessity of an either/or outcome. Indeed, foster parents in thisstudy saw their role and relationship continuing after placement was over, when the child returnedto her or his birth family and community. This ongoing involvement, if appropriate, could be of avery low degree, such as infrequent telephone contact, or a much higher degree, such as returningto the foster home on a short-term or long-term basis, if the need arose. Although such anarrangement would be need to be carefully considered and weighed against other options, it ispossible that foster placement success be determined on the basis of the strength of relationshipsbetween the foster and birth families of a child.

Another area of difference between the foster parents we spokewith and the literature on successin fostering was on fostering process issues. Foster parents in our study saw successful fostering asa process, and not only as an outcome. The process indicators of success that have not been well-studied are the transitions that foster parents experience in their relationships with foster children,birth families and caseworkers. Some significant transition points in fostering center on thepreparation for a child, the welcoming of a new child into the home, developing some level of trustwith the child and the birth/extended families, as well as the timewhen the child leaves their care. Insituations where birth families are involved, visits create, at least temporarily, a transitional pointfor foster parents. How well foster parents handle these transitions varies. Successful fostering, tothe parents we spoke with, depends, in part, on how well one handles the various transitions.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of this research through a grantfrom the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors also wish tothank Bev Wiebe of the Manitoba Foster Family Network and Brian Ridd of the Child Protection


Branch, Manitoba Family Services and Housing for their support of this study. We would like toacknowledge the contributions of Meghan Sprung, Lee Anne Jarman, and Christine Miller fortheir research assistance. We would also like to thank the many foster parents who shared theirtime and expertise with us.

References

Altshuler, S. J., & Gleeson, J. P. (1999). Completing the evaluation triangle for the next century: Measuring child “well-being” in family foster care. Child Welfare, 78, 125−147.

Anderberg, M. R. (1973). Cluster analysis for applications. New York: Academic Press.Barber, J., & Delfabbro, P. (2004). Children in foster care. New York: Routledge.Barber, J., & Delfabbro, P. (2005). Children's adjustment to long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review,

27, 329−340.Buehler, C., Cox, M. E., & Cuddeback, G. (2003). Foster parents' perceptions of factors that promote or inhibit successful

fostering. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 61−83.Butler, S., &Charles,M. (1999). The tangible and intangible rewards of fostering for carers.Adoption&Fostering, 23, 48−58.Carlson, E. A., Sampson, M. C., & Sroufe, L. A. (2003). Implications of attachment theory and research for

developmental-behavioral pediatrics. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24, 364−379.Courtney, M. E. (1994). Factors associated with the reunification of foster children with their families. Social Service

Review, 81−108.Donnelly, J. P., Donnelly, K., & Grohman, K. K. (2005). A multi-perspective concept mapping study of problems

associated with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 19, 1077−1085.Donnelly, J. P., Huff, S.M., Lindsey,M.L.,McMahon,K.A.,&Schumacher, J. D. (2005). The needs of childrenwith life-limiting

conditions: A healthcare-provider-based model. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 22, 259−267.Everitt, B. (1980). Cluster analysis, (2nd ed.). New York: Halsted Press.Goodyear, R. K. (2002). A concept map of male partners in teenage pregnancy: Implications for school counselors.

Professional School Counseling, 5, 186−193.Grimm, B., & Darwall, J. (2005). Foster parents: Who are they? Youth Law News, 26(3), 3−6.Hong, G., Mandell, M., Harrington, D., & Warren, D. (January, 2004). Exit rates and exit types for foster care children in a

managed care delivery system. Paper presentation at the 8th Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work andResearch, New Orleans, LA.

Hudson, P., & Levasseur, K. (2002). Supporting foster parents: Caring voices.ChildWelfare League of America, 81, 853−877.Johnson, P. R., Yoken, C., & Voss, R. (1995). Family foster care placement: The child's perspective. Child Welfare, 74,

959−974.Jones-Harden, B. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: A developmental perspective. The Future of Children,

14, 31−47.MFFN (2006). Retrieved October 19, 2006 from http://www.mffn.caPaulson, B. L., & Everall, R. D. (2003). Suicidal adolescents: Helpful aspects of psychotherapy. Archives of Suicide

Research, 7, 309−321.Reddy, L., & Pfeiffer, S. (1997). Effectiveness of treatment foster care with children and adolescents: A review of outcome

studies. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 581−588.Schuck, K., & Liddle, B. J. (2004). The female manager's experience: A concept map and assessment tool. Consulting

Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56, 75−87.Sinclair, I., & Wilson, K. (2003). Matches and mismatches: The contribution of carers and children to the success of foster

placements. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 871−884.Sinclair, I., Wilson, K., & Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster placements: Why they succeed and why they fail. Philadelphia, PA:

Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Trochim, W. M. (1987). The concept system. Ithasca, NY: Trochim Publishing.Trochim, W. M. (1989). Concept mapping: Soft science or hard art? Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 87−110.Vig, S., Chinitz, S., & Shulman, L. (2005). Young children in foster care: Multiple vulnerabilities and complex service

needs. Infants and Young Children, 18, 147−160.Wells, K., Farmer, E. M. Z., Richards, J. T., & Burns, B. J. (2004). The experience of being a treatment foster mother.

Qualitative Social Work, 3, 117−138.Whiting, J. B., & Lee, R. E. (2003). Voices from the system: A qualitative study of foster children's stories. Family

Relations, 52, 288−295.

http://www.mffn.ca/

foster parent perceptions of placement success

Documents