In the child protection field, some types of placement are regarded as superior to others. There is strong NGO advocacy for closure of residential care institutions while adoption is often seen as the ideal type of protection for the permanent legal relation it creates between the child and the adoptive parents. Foster care contrasts with both residential care and adoption as the child’s identity is preserved while children grow up in a family like environment. But is the type of care sufficient to predict a child’s future outcomes?
What matters to children in the care system? How do they regard the types of placement they have been through? What were the challenges and highlights of their protection experience? What in their childhood had an influence on their well-being in adult life?
This qualitative research interviewed 37 young people born in Romania in 1989-1991 who entered adulthood from types of placement: residential care (large institutions as well as group homes), foster care, adoption (domestic as well as intercountry adoption) and explored their transition to adulthood from each of these types of placement. Through life history interviews they have been asked to reflect on their childhood and their current life and what in their views has contributed to who they are today.
The analysis of the interview data will use the lenses of ‘threatened identities’ and ‘resilience’, both considered relevant to the experiences of growing up in care. ‘Threatened identity’ is defined by Breakwell (1986, p.47) as occurring when ‘the process of identity, assimilation-accommodation and evaluation are, for some reason, unable to comply with the principles of continuity, distinctiveness and self-esteem, which habitually guide their operation’. This might be helpful in understanding the care and adoption experiences of the research participants since Breakwell identifies denial and acceptance as possible coping strategies, the latter with a view to minimising the damage produced by change. According to her, the coping powers of the individual depend on his/her social network and membership groups. The research will explore whether specific coping strategies are associated with individual attitudes or if there is dominance of a certain coping strategy in a particular type of placement and whether there is any association between the quality of care and the identity threat imposed by the care.
Resilience has been variably defined and has developed in an attempt to understand children’s different reactions to adversity. Gilligan (2008, p.37) defines it as ‘a person faring better than might be expected in the face of serious adversity’. Luthar et al. (2000, p.546) note the importance within debates on resilience of acknowledging the ‘two-dimensional characterization that encompasses aspects of children’s life circumstances (…such as “impoverished” or “maltreated” children), and evidence of positive adaptation …across one or more domains of functioning. Resilience is a ‘dynamic process’ (Luthar et al. 2000) and can be used to explore associations between adversity and outcomes. In this study, resilience may serve as a useful conceptual framework for the experiences of young people who grew up in care.
The findings will inform professionals and policy makers on what is important to children when they are in one form of care on another and which affect their everyday life and development.
Breakwell, G. (1986). Copying with Threatened Identities, London & New York: Methuen.
Gilligan, R. (2008). Promoting resilience in young people in long‐term care—The relevance of roles and relationships in the domains of recreation and work. Journal of Social Work Practice, 22(1), 37-50.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child development, 71(3), 543-562.
