Introduction
Foster care is a relatively understudied topic among a wide spectrum of social issues in the United States. In plain terms, it competes for funding and the attention of the public consciousness with social security, Medicaid, medicare, food stamps, the United States Veterans Initiative, and many other programs. There is also the fact that absolute numbers of children in foster care have dropped in recent years (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013, p.2). Currently there are approximately 400,000 individuals under the age of 18. At the margins 45% of children were in foster care for less than one year. At the other end, 10% of children had been in foster care for five years or longer.
Among the 10% of children who have been in foster care for five years or longer, there is a disproportionate number who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ). Many resort to foster home institutions due to neglect by family members primarily because of their sexual orientation. Considering this sub-group of individuals are over-represented in the foster care system, it is important to understand how this translates into exit options, which are primarily focused on reunification, or adoption for these youth. In this context the following thesis statement is proposed: What are successful strategies utilized by foster care workers and the permanent guardians to ensure a successful transition from foster care to the home?
The aim of this paper is to consolidate the literature and identify strategies that have proven effective for LGBTQ youth who have successfully transitioned into permanent homes after residing in foster care for five years or longer. This information will of value to foster care workers, LGBTQ youth and current or prospective guardians. It will also be of use to inform programs or advocacy efforts to enhance support for this sub-group of youth who live, or have lived in foster care.
Foster Care in the United States: Context
According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), foster care is defined as, “24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the State agency has placement and care responsibility.” (United States Government Printing Office, 2014, p.276). Institutions that provide care and the commensurate proportions in 2013 include: Non-relative foster family homes (46%), foster homes of relatives (23%), institutions (e.g., emergency shelters, residential facilities, child care institutions) (10%), group homes (9%), and pre-adoptive homes (5%).
As noted in the introduction, the majority of children reside in foster care for one year or less and 10% reside in foster care for five years or longer. In 2013, the median age of children in foster care was 10.9 years old, a noticeable climb from 2012, when the median age was 8.5 years old (The Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013, p. 8). Relative to this paper, there are approximately 175,000 children between the ages of 10-18 in foster care (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012, p.3).
In terms of goals and outcomes, reunification or adoption rate the highest in these two categories. In terms of goals, reunification and adoption comprise 68% of goals of children, followed by long-term foster care (8%), emancipation (6%), living with other relatives (5%), and guardianship (3%) (The Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013, p. 6). Outcomes are nearly identical with no noticeable differences.
Overall, the population of youth in foster care has declined from 520,000 in 2003 to approximately 400,000 in 2012; an overall difference of 23% (The Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013, p. 2). Factors that have been associated with the drop vary. The Children’s defense fund (2011) points to the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions
Act of 2008. The Act released more federal funding that has translated into improvements to policy and practice. Among the range of decreases tallied (overall number, entry number, time spent, and adoption wait times), the major issue is youth who “age out” of foster care. Like other sub groups, the proportion of youth in foster care is in decline, yet the “age out” percentage remains at 11%, and reflects an increase of 61% since 1998. The worry, notes the report, is that those who are discharged from foster care without permanent families are at a higher rate of susceptibility to not complete high school, revert to crime, or suicide.
A closer examination of these figures relative to youth in foster home estimate that 5-10% are LGBTQ. This is widely deemed to be a conservative estimate with little statistical backing. Even by these conservative estimates, however, as many as 17,500 youth in foster care may identify as LBGTQ.
Within this context it is evident that foster care is highly specialized. The types of foster care differentiate from an institution to a home context. There also a range of goals identified by children ranging from reunification to emancipation. Despite the decline in overall figures, the relative percentage of youth who remain in foster care is high. Despite a relatively low estimate, a significant number are believed to be LGBTQ.
In the following sections we will look more closely at the context of LGBTQ youth who are in, or have resided in foster care. The first area to explore is that of the foster care worker.
Foster care worker: Experiences and strategies in supporting LGBTQ youth
Among the biggest assumptions is that foster care workers know of a youth’s sexual orientation. The development of youth over time means that such a component of their identity may not fully emerge until once the child has exited the system into adoption or reunification (or other as already identified). Disclosure by the youth of their identity is also important to consider. Such topics were among several foci in an impressive gathering of foster care workers (Woronoff & Estrada, 2006). By identifying and discussing how the forum were developed and conducted, a typography of issues emerges with the aim of improving the conditions and supports of LGBTQ youth in the institutional context of foster care. This reflects data amassed over 14 months between 2003 and 2004. The events were framed as addressing a civil rights issue and that the child welfare system has not been a safe place for LGBTQ youth. The guiding questions for the conference were: What are the most important steps to improve foster care for LGBTQ youth? And “What individuals and/or organizations need to become more involved to help LGBTQ youth in foster care? (p.354). The authors consolidated issues under three major themes: policy, training, and services (p.356). The conclusions reflect a positive and well-organized outlet for foster care workers to investigate and participate.
The article by Jacobs & Freundlich (2006) takes a different approach, addressing the issue of attrition, or ‘running aways’ from foster homes. The reality is that age and adoption rates are inversely proportional; older children are less likely to be adopted (p.302). In relation to LGBTQ youth there are added obstacles which were described as being subject to abuse within facilities and higher rates of failure in their foster placements. Among the most interesting suggestions is to “assume all youth need the same level of safety, protection, and service or they should raise issues of sexual orientation or gender identity with youth directly in an affirming and welcoming manner” (p.305). The aim is to provide a safe space for youth to “come out”. This feeds into the need to have non-discrimination policies. In terms of permanence, removing the stigma associated with LGBTQ youth not finding a home, it is important for staff to perceive the opposite – that it is possible and likely to find permanence in a loving a caring home (p.307).
The third important approach is to build trust with LGBTQ youth while in foster care. In addition to dealing with separation from birth parents, growing independence and lack of trust of workers within the foster care system, there is the possibility of youth running away once placed. The alternative of living on the street, or other undesirable contexts is addressed and that skills such as coping mechanisms, communication, and patience are developed.
A final approach is to have programs in place that re-engage biological parents. The assumption is that one of the reasons LGBTQ youth are in foster care is because of rejection by family members regarding their sexual orientation. Rapprochement with family members should be constructed in the context of bridging understanding around orientation and how to resolve differences, and to ultimately achieve acceptance and reunification (p.312).
Foster care parents: Experiences and strategies in supporting their LGBTQ children
Once in a permanent home context, it is essential that sustained supports are in place from children who identify as LGBTQ. Research in this area has revealed a range of strategies to employ.
In Oldson, Craig and Morton (2006), they identify a range of strategies acquired from pre-service and in-service foster parent training programs. Among the most beneficial strategies were: sharing strategies among parents who were in care of LGBTQ youth; identifying threats to safety of LGBTQ youth; and challenges and strategies for parents of LGBTQ youth. In setting the context the authors point to common issues faced by LGBTQ youth. This includes bullying, mental health issues, oversexualization, religious intolerance, sexual predation and treatment. In the context of approach, the authors cite building trust as the first step and to understand the unique needs of LGBTQ youth. Training involves addressing areas of comfort or discomfort to ascertain the kind of approach to take by the trainer. In regards to safety talking about past issues, or coping strategies demonstrated by the youth are also important. The key behind this seems to be for the parent(s) to amass a sense of empathy with the child. Like the major event identified under the foster care worker section, the article identifies further practical resources for parents are organizations such as Parents, Families, and Friends, of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) or other support groups.
Conclusions
This paper set out to identify problems within the foster care system in regards to long-term foster care. It was found that the number of children in foster care has declined over the last decade and that only about 10% of children have been in foster care for five or more years. Despite these relatively low statistics, there are still about 175,000 children between the ages of 10 and 18 in foster care. Further, a growing number, estimated at about 25,000 to 30,000 are discharged every year due to reaching the age of independence. These individuals are effectively independent and on their own. The outcomes are generally not very positive for these individuals as they have little support structures around them, low levels of education and other issues, such as sexual orientation. It is estimated that up to 10% of youth in foster care identify as LGBTQ, determined to be conservative as the estimate is drawn from the general population. One study looked at placements of 40 youth, of which 19 voluntarily identified as LGBTQ (Nolan, 2006). The reality, however, is that many children are in foster care because of their sexual orientation; they have been rejected by their biological family.
This paper posed the following question: What are successful strategies utilized by foster care workers and the permanent guardians to ensure a successful transition from foster care to the home? A range of strategies were shared that were aimed at foster care workers and prospective foster care parents, or biological parents after successful reunification. To consolidate the range of strategies that were presented we arrive at trust, transparency, and safety. A range of interpretations may be derived from these terms. In the context of the literature reviewed, this was rooted to communication, policy and training. Creating a space for open dialogue among foster care workers and parents is key, both individually, and as a shared responsibility. It was found that oftentimes foster care workers are sources of abuse based on ignorance or intolerance of LGBTQ youth. Policies have a place and can be centred on non-discriminatory statutes, or complete disclosure of the likelihood that LGBTQ youth reside within a foster care setting. Such transparency may lead to greater openness of the part of the child and thereby lead to earlier intervention to help them with issues they may have.
The limited amount of research found on LGBTQ youth who reside or have resided in foster care is a finding in and of itself. The lack of research on this area demonstrates that there is more work to be done relative to empirical research, but also that identification of LGBTQ youth is low. Any study read reverted to the same source regarding the percentage of LGBTQ youth in foster care – as a reflection of the general population. The presentation of a foster care facility as a ‘queer safe’ place is something that other institutions, such as universities, have employed. Indeed there must be many foster care centers that subscribe to such practices, but whether universal seems unclear. Again, more research is needed for this vulnerable population. Despite a decline in children going into foster care, those who seem to be most vulnerable seem to remain stable, an outcome that is nothing to champion.
References
Child Welfare Information Gateway (2013). Foster Care Statistics, 2012. US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.pdf
Children’s Defense Fund (2011). The Number of Children in Foster Care Continues to Decline. Retrieved from: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data publications/data/numbers-of-children-in-foster.pdf
Craig-Oldsen, H., Craig, J. A., & Morton, T. (2006). Issues of shared parenting of LGBTQ children and youth in foster care: Preparing foster parents for new roles. Child Welfare, 85(2), 267-80. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213808173?accountid=14771
Gonsiorek, J. C. & Weinrich, J. D. (2009). The Definition and Scope of Sexual Orientation,” in (Eds.) C., Dworsky, L. Raap, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy (pp.120-138). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Jacobs, J., & Freundlich, M. (2006). Achieving permanency for LGBTQ youth. Child Welfare, 85(2), 299-316. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213809029?accountid=14771
Nolan, T. C. (2006). Outcomes for a transitional living program serving LGBTQ youth in New York City. Child Welfare, 85(2), 385-406. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213808837?accountid=14771
The United States Printing Office (2014). General Welfare, Article 45 Public Welfare, Subchapter G. Retrieved from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2011-title45-vol4/pdf/CFR-2011 title45-vol4-sec1355-20.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012). The AFCARS Report. Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. Retrieved from: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb
Woronoff, R., & Estrada, R. (2006). Regional listening forums: An examination of the methodologies used by the child welfare league of america and lambda legal to highlight the experiences of LGBTQ youth in care. Child Welfare, 85(2), 341-60. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213808941?accountid=14771
