Summary articles about Foster Care. Premaster Orthopedagogiek SPO
45 views 4 purchases
Course
Gedrag- en Opvoedproblemen
Institution
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RuG)
This summary contains seven articles on the topic of foster care. These articles are part of week 8 and 9 of the course Orthopedagogiek of the SPO. The articles:
- Rabbit, C., Admiral, S., Baart, J., van Rooij, F., Stams, G.-J., Colonnesi, C.,... Assink, M. (2019). Foster care placement instabilit...
Artikelen rondom Pleegzorg
Nothing goes as planned: Practitioners reflect on matching children and foster families
Introduction
Nonkinship foster care placements starts with a matching decision, in which a practitioner decides which
available foster carer will look after the foster child. A mismatch is associated with an increased risk of
placement endings. Unplanned placement endings affect both the child and the foster family. Therefore
understanding the decision-making process can improve the well-being of foster children and carers.
Studies on matching have shown a negative predictive value on placement success for the following variables: a
narrow age gape between foster child and other children in foster family, mismatch between child’s behaviour
an carers parenting style, and discrepancy between carers expectations and the reality after child’s placement.
Assessment Questionnaire Foster care Situations -> assess the willingness and preparedness of foster carers to
care for different types of children.
Matching as theorized might be different from matching in practice.
Decision-Making Ecology is an exploratory model, were four different contextual clusters are distinguished that
influence the decision: case, organisational, external and decision-maker factors.
In Netherlands foster care is the main type of out-of-home-care. The organisations are free to determine their
own method for making matching decisions as long as the Youth Care Inspection considers the quality of care
satisfactory. Only regulatory statement is the Dutch Youth Act (2015) and this relates to religion, belief or
cultural background of child and parent, which need to be considered within reason and whenever possible.
This paper aims to improve the knowledge on matching by focussing on the case-specific context of decisions
on which Dutch practitioners adjust their day-to-day decisions. The case-specific context of a decision consists
of case information but also includes the availability of resources at the time that or in the specific situation
wherein a decision has to be made.
Following question will be answered: How does the case-specific context influence the practitioners decision-
making process regarding matching in family foster care.
Method
An inductive qualitative methodology is considered best. Participants were 22 matchers form 17 foster care
organisations. Average age was 46. Average work experience was 9 years.
Semi structured interview scheme was used, with four categories of the Decision-Making Ecology. Questions
focused not only on case factors but also on organisational, external and decision-maker factor.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim. And was conducted using the thematic analysis guidelines. Three distinct
themes were identified: ‘matching as planned’, ‘matching being tailored’ and ‘matching being compromised’.
Furthermore there could be made a distinction between two components of matching decision: content and
process. Content refers to characteristic of foster child, parents, and foster families. Process reflects the steps
that matchers take during decision-making.
Results
Three levels: matching as planned (consists of standardized matching being used as a framework for daily
practice), matching being tailored (practitioners described how matching as planned could be adjusted when
encountering a case requiring a different approach), matching as compromised (consists of the obstacles which
practitioners face in decision-making. These hinder the ability to follow the way of working described in the
matching as planned layer). Final theme is divided in: lowering matching standards and safeguarding quality.
Matching as planned -> is based on rational thinking, empirical evidence, work experience, existing procedures
or agreements between practitioners. For some matchers the process entailed speaking with children, parents
and foster carers. Whereas others made an assessment based on written information from other practitioners.
Consultation with other colleagues differed form once per week to only when facing difficulties. Some
organisations used lists complied of distinct characteristics (age, religion, location etc.) and other organisations
did not have their matching written down. Reported content of matching decision did not show major
differences between organisations. Age of child, distance between family of origin and foster family and type of
care needed were mentioned by all as starting variables. Religion or cultural background, behaviour and
pedagogical skills of foster carers, and other children in foster family were recurring matching elements
mentioned by practitioners. Differences could only be found in details.
Matching being tailored -> Practitioners encountered situation in which the matching decision was tailored to
, the wishes, needs, circumstances or characteristics of those involved. Both content ant process of matching
could be adjusted by decision-maker.
Related to content matchers determined what is most important for their decision based on unique
characteristics of child and parents. Therefore, matching decision is different form case to case.
Interpretation of different element of a match (child’s behaviour in accordance with the skills of foster carers,
geographical distance between foster carer and parents and child’s age and foster family composition) differed
per child. Participants adjusted matching process when they believed it was in the best interest of stakeholders
(when noticing process went to fast for child or parents needed another conversation to accept their child
being placed). Different circumstances required participant to change matching (incarceration of parent,
sudden incident that requires quicker placement, sickness of colleague). Matchers tended to be flexible.
Matching being compromised -> When obstacles occurred, practitioners deviated from their intended
matching practice while simultaneously being aware that this could decrease matching quality. Main obstacles
were: time-pressure, lack of options and incompleteness of information. To deal with these obstacles
practitioners described 2 strategies: lowering matching standard (to ensure that despite obstacles, a matching
decision can be made) and safeguarding quality (effort of practitioners to assess and increase quality of
decision despite obstacles.
Lowering matching standards -> Time-pressure influenced both content of matching decision and process.
Participants expressed that quality of matching decreased, sense of urgency resulted in lower standards.
Clearest consequence of feeling pressured or a lack of time was a less comprehensive matching process.
Resulted in skipping or shortening different steps: gathering information, talk to colleagues and stakeholders,
allowing time for foster cares to reflect on the proposed placement, reporting or evaluating the placement.
Lack of families made that matchers were faces with a decision with limited options, which resulted in lowering
standards on quality of match and not being able to take into account all elements of the match. Furthermore
practitioners sometimes approached foster carers with a placement request outside their described
preference. Lack of options resulted in a match with less agreement from those involved. Practitioners
described the incompleteness of data as an obstacle for making a thorough decision. Missing, outdated,
distorted or incorrect data demanded them to make a superficial match.
Safeguarding quality -> Participants looked for ways to decrease placement risk: enhance the matching process
or trajectory after placement (downsides were communicated to practitioner guiding placement. Extra support
was arranged when deemed necessary), find a foster family able to handle a compromised placement.
Furthermore matcher assessed the strengths and weaknesses of each decision to predict possible risk for a
negative placement. Matching decision considered good enough if the risk is low enough to make the
placement, even though not all matching criteria have been met. Level of risk participants were willing to take
depended on expected duration and intensity of the placement. For short placements, match was less intrusive
and more downsides of the match were tolerated. Same was for part-time placements. Young children
required a more thoughtful match compared to older children who stayed in foster care for a shorter period.
Discussion
Matching in practice appeared mostly pragmatic rather than systematic. Current existing guidelines do not fit
the complexity of decision-making.
There is a clear distinction between the process of matching decision and the content. All themes were
applicable to both, but the influence of obstacles on process or content differed.
Matchers have a threshold for deciding if a match is good enough. Threshold determines whether one takes
action or not. Threshold dictates whether the foster child will indeed go to the foster family or whether the risk
for negative placement experiences is too high.
Foster care placement breakdown in the Netherlands and Flanders: Prevalence, precursors and associated
factors
Introduction
In Flanders and Netherlands foster care breakdown rates between 23 and 54% within 1,5 to 6 years.
Breakdown is associated with several outcomes. A disruption leads to movements from one place to another,
resulting in loss of social relations. Also can it promote difficulties in trusting adults, an onset or increase of
behavioural problems and heightened risk of poor educational outcomes and a decrease of the likelihood of
successful reunification with the parent. Some youngsters end up living independently too soon, which can
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller hoogeveendian. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.05. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
