Abstract

This study was designed to deepen our understanding of permanency for the children and families served by New York City's foster care system. The researchers explored the meaning and importance of “permanency” to the various stakeholders in the system by examining how the concept of permanency is understood by individuals most directly affected: young people who have experienced foster care, the parents of children who have been or currently are in foster care, adoptive parents, and child welfare professionals. The study utilized a participatory action design (PAD) in which young adults formerly in foster care, parents of children currently in foster care, parents who had been reunified with their children, and adoptive parents actively contributed to the design and implementation of the study. The interview protocols used a semi-structured format organized around four central concept domains: the meaning of permanency, permanency goals and options, the permanency planning process, and post-permanency outcomes. The interview protocols were comprised of a series of open-ended questions designed to explore the respondent's experiences with permanency planning. All interview protocols were translated into Spanish. Study results indicate that despite the presumed clarity regarding the definition of permanency, individuals most directly affected by “permanency” efforts often do not understand the implications of permanency for themselves or how this principle applies in child welfare practice. Recommendations for strengthening permanency practice are discussed.

Keywords: Permanency; Participatory action design; Foster care

Article Outline

1. Introduction

2. Exploring the meaning and importance of permanency

3. Motivation and study objectives

4. Study methods

4.1. Description of study participants

5. Study results

5.1. The meaning of permanency to birth parents

5.2. The meaning of permanency to youth and young adults

5.3. The meaning of permanency to adoptive parents

5.4. Responses of child welfare professionals to youth, parent, and adoptive parent interviews

6. Discussion and recommendations

6.1. Strengths and limitations of the study design

7. Conclusion

References