Dissecting Two Empirical Research Articles for Epistemological Assumptions

Journal of Family Social Work

ISSN: 1052-2158 (Print) 1540-4072 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/wfsw20

Examining risk, strengths, and functioning of foster families: Implications for strengths-based practice

Francie J Julien-Chinn, Katie L Cotter, Megan Hayes Piel, Jennifer M. Geiger & Cynthia A Lietz

To cite this article: Francie J Julien-Chinn, Katie L Cotter, Megan Hayes Piel, Jennifer M. Geiger & Cynthia A Lietz (2017) Examining risk, strengths, and functioning of foster families: Implications for strengths-based practice, Journal of Family Social Work, 20:4, 306-321, DOI: 10.1080/10522158.2017.1348111

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1348111

Published online: 26 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2142

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wfsw20

Examining risk, strengths, and functioning of foster families: Implications for strengths-based practice Francie J Julien-Chinna, Katie L Cotterb, Megan Hayes Pielc, Jennifer M. Geiger d, and Cynthia A Lietzb

aSchool of Social Work, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Mānoa, Hawaii, USA; bSchool of Social Work, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA; cSchool of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA; dJane Addams College of Social Work, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

ABSTRACT Foster families provide safe and stable homes for children and youth who are removed from their homes due to maltreatment. Despite the stressors associated with bringing children in and out of a family’s home, manymaintain healthy family functioning and continue fostering for many years serving an essential function in the child welfare system. This study sought to understand the factors that explained higher levels of family functioning within foster families. Collaborating with one statewide public child welfare agency, 681 licensed foster parents participated in an online survey that examined the association between family functioning with family strengths and risk factors. Findings from this study can inform strengths-based practice including training, assessment, and interventions for new and existing foster families to strengthen families and improve the well-being of children and youth in their care.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 13 July 2016 Revised 2 March 2017 Accepted 23 March 2017

KEYWORDS Family-centered practice; foster families; resilience; strengths-based practice

Families who foster represent unique familial structures that serve an essential role in the child welfare system. These families provide temporary, safe, and stable homes to children who have been maltreated and are under the legal care of the state. Nationally, nonrelative licensed foster families care for more than 190,000 children and youth who are maltreated; an additional 130,000 young people are parented by relatives in formal kinship placements (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau, 2016). Considering the number of children in out-of-home care, there remains a consistent need tomaintain and recruit licensed relative and nonrelative foster homes (Bass, Shields, & Behrman, 2004). Identifying the strengths that can help foster families adapt and cope with the challenges associated with fostering offers implications for strengths-based, family-centered practice to best support and retain this important workforce of foster care providers.

CONTACT Cynthia A. Lietz [email protected] Arizona State University, College of Public Programs, School of Social Work, 411 N. Central Ave., Suite 800, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 2017, VOL. 20, NO. 4, 306–321 https://doi.org/10.1080/10522158.2017.1348111

© 2017 Taylor & Francis

Families choose to provide foster care for a variety of reasons. Some families become licensed because they see fostering as a calling, others attribute this decision to recognizing the great need for parents who can care for vulnerable children; some choose to foster due to their desire to grow their family through adoption, and others become involved because of a kinship placement (Geiger, Julien-Chinn, & Lietz, 2014). The process to become licensed as a foster parent varies by state, requiring thorough background checks, intensive interviewing, home inspections, and lengthy training. Upon approval as a licensed foster home, foster families begin what has been considered “one of the most demand- ing jobs a person can assume” (Chipungu & Bent-Goodley, 2004, p. 83). As meaningful as fostering can be, the role requires an increased workload and ongoing transitions that can be emotionally draining. Due to the stress asso- ciated with fostering, many licensed foster parents discontinue fostering within 1 year (Gibbs, 2005; Rhodes, Orme, Cox, & Buehler, 2003).

The stressors associated with fostering

Families who foster encounter unique challenges in their role as a temporary placement for children who have experienced maltreatment. Foster parents are charged with managing difficult behaviors of the children placed in their homes often resulting from a history of trauma (J.M. Brown, 2015; Farmer, Lipscombe, & Moyers, 2005; Pecora, Jensen, Romanelli, Jackson, & Ortiz, 2009). Foster children have an increased likelihood of presenting with behavioral or developmental problems (Stahmer et al., 2005) and disabilities (J. D. Brown & Rodger, 2009), which can also be difficult to manage. Some foster parents identify feeling restricted in their parenting practices due to the oversight of their homes, and some report an increased fear of allegations of maltreatment due to the behaviors of the children and the increased oversight (Farmer et al., 2005; Haugaard & Hazan, 2005).

Navigating a complicated child welfare system can be confusing and at times overwhelming (J. Brown & Calder, 1999; Lietz, Julien-Chinn, Geiger, & Hayes Piel, 2016). Foster families may experience conflict in decision making with the child welfare agency such as a decision to return a child home, which can cause emotional stress (Haugaard & Hazan, 2005; Hudson & Levasseur, 2002; MacGregor, Rodger, Cummings, & Leschied, 2006). At the same time, foster parents must also interact with complex medical, educational, andmental health systems as they seek tomeet the needs of children in their care (Hayes, Geiger, & Lietz, 2015; Heller, Smyke, & Boris, 2002). Building relationships with birth parents is also often necessary and important but can be perceived as a risk for some foster parents’ sense of safety and security (Haugaard & Hazan, 2005).

In addition to the increased degree and complexity of daily caregiving, families who foster also face substantial and sometimes unplanned transitions. The

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 307

structure of a foster family can change day to day and at timeswith little notice. The placement of a child in the home not only adds a member to the family, but also may also change the dynamics of the family system (Geiger, Piel, Lietz, & Julien- Chinn, 2016). These families are asked to open their homes to provide a warm, caring atmosphere, to assist the children with bonding and attachment; yet they must simultaneously remain prepared to have the children transition out of their home, sometimes with minimal notice (Haugaard & Hazan, 2005).

These families also continue to experience stressors that all families may face, that are not related specifically to fostering, such as caring for an aging parent, experiencing a loss, or caring for a family member with a chronic illness. Even normative transitions such as childbirth and launching youth into adulthood all represent risk factors that can strain any family system (Patterson, 2002). When families face multiple risk factors at once, the “pile-up” of this stress can increase a family’s likelihood of discord or break-up (McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1983). In other words, though all families face a variety of risk factors throughout the life course of the system, families who face multiple stressors in short periods of time are at increased risk of poor outcomes. Many of the risk factors identified in previous research predicting family functioning include normative transitions and non-normative specific stressful experiences such as a parent’s job loss (Walsh, 2003) or a serious health diagnosis in a child (Patterson, 2002). The family stress and coping theory assumes that the accumulation of these risks, particularly the non-normative risks, can negatively affect the functioning of the family system (McCubbin et al., 1983).

Family strengths and resilience

Providing foster care can involve many challenges, however families who foster may also possess a level of resilience that may help them adapt and continue fostering. The construct of resilience refers to one’s ability to avoid the negative trajectory associated with high risk and is often associated with examining child and youth development into early adulthood (Greene, 2002; Werner & Smith, 2001). The process of resilience involves the interaction of risk and protective factors that offer explanations into varied responses to adversity (Fraser, 1997; Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). The construct of resilience offers an explana- tion regarding situations in which an individual was able to maintain healthy functioning despite experiencing a set of risk factors that might suggest otherwise. These risk and protective factors are contextual and culturally grounded and offer understanding regarding how best to activate the process of coping and adaptation (Ungar, 2008).

The theory of family resilience emerged from earlier research studying resi- liency within children who were subject to challenging conditions (Black & Lobo, 2008). The concept of family resilience applies these ideas using a systems

308 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

perspective and considers how a family unit is able to collectivelymaintain healthy functioning despite adversity (De Haan, Hawley, & Deal, 2002; Hawley, 2000; McCubbin, Thompson, & McCubbin, 1996; Patterson, 2002; Simon, Murphy, & Smith, 2005). A family who demonstrates resiliency not only survives the chal- lenge, but through their strengths may potentially grow stronger as result of the challenges (Lietz, 2006; Lietz & Strength, 2011; Walsh, 2006).

Research regarding the process of family resilience has identified several family strengths that have been shown to predict positive outcomes in families facing a “pile-up” of stressors. For example, social support, the provision of practical and emotional assistance that includes formal support fromprofessionals and informal support from extended family and friends, has been identified as important (Lietz & Strength, 2011; Patterson, 2002; Ross, Holliman, & Dixon, 2003; Walsh, 2003). Spirituality, which can include a connection to a faith tradition or a connection to a greater purpose is cited as a motivation to begin a caregiving role such as fostering (Lietz et al., 2016). Spirituality also supports families through adversity and provides direction when facing complex situations (DeFrain & Asay, 2007; Walsh, 2002). Initiative involves the ability to take action, allowing the family unit to manage their daily challenges effectively (Lietz & Strength, 2011). A sense that families can exert an influence on their circumstances is helpful (Simon et al., 2005) and is described by Walsh (2003) as having a “can-do spirit” (p. 7).

Families who demonstrate resiliency are able to set boundaries to separate themselves from unhealthy influences (Lietz et al., 2011; Ross et al., 2003). This can also involve setting practical boundaries such as not taking on too much or choosing to take breaks from challenging circumstances when a family is feeling overwhelmed. Families adapting to a difficult event are flexible and creative in their ability to find multiple and potentially new solutions to the problem (Lietz & Strength, 2011; Walsh, 2003, 2015). The strong desire to remain committed to the preservation of the family unit is cited as important to family resilience (DeFrain & Asay, 2007; Walsh, 2003).

Accepting a challenging circumstance necessitates insight, or the ability to gain an understanding into the circumstances surrounding a particular challenge the family faces (Lietz & Strength, 2011). In a family context, insight often emerges from communication, or the ability to verbally or nonverbally express the thoughts and feelings of individual family members to one another. Through this insight, families begin to comprehend and accept their circumstances, seeing it asmanage- able (Walsh, 2003). The use of humor allows for stress relief (Ross et al., 2003) and for the family to remain joyful despite the trying circumstance (Lietz & Strength, 2011). Finding meaning through appraisal allows for families to grow stronger by attaching a meaning to the challenges or adversity they face. Through appraisal, families perceive that good things can emerge as a result of the challenges they experience, an important part of the process of resilience (Lietz & Strength, 2011; Walsh, 2003).

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 309

Family functioning

The McMaster model of family functioning (Miller, Ryan, Keitner, Bishop, & Epstein, 2000) describes the functioning of a family system as complex, and encompassing several dimensions including (1) the ability a family has to solve problems; (2) how a family communicates or exchanges information; (3) how tasks and roles are assigned among each family member and how resources are provisioned; (4) the ability of family members to express emotion and affective responses to situations; (5) how family members demonstrate interest, care, and value in one another; and (6) how families set and monitor expectations for behavior control and management (Epsein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983; Miller et al., 2000). Additionally, transactional patterns between family mem- bers are accounted for when evaluating the overall functioning of a family (Miller et al., 2000).

Based on systems theory, the McMaster model has several corresponding underlying assumptions. For example, the model assumes that “family function- ing cannot be understood by simply understanding each of the individual family members or subgroups” (Miller et al., 2000, p. 169). Positioning a child within the family system of the foster family is essential to understanding the function- ing of the family as a whole. However, families who foster and the foster children in their homes are often seen as distinct entities, with interventions targeted for either the child or the foster family, and at times placing the foster parent in the role of providing professional intervention services (Holland & Gorey, 2004). Yet this model assumes that “all parts of the family are interrelated” (Miller et al., 2000, p. 169), again, highlighting the need to consider the family system when considering how best to support families who foster.

Families who foster are exposed to the normative and non-normative life events as are families who do not foster. However, as previously described, foster families are also exposed to distinct life events unique to their role. There is minimal prior research examining how the foster family structure copes with these risks through the resiliency process. This study sought to expand the findings of family resilience research to gain an understanding of how risks and strengths are associated with varied levels of functioning for the unique family structure of families who foster.

Method

The objective of this study was to understand how a set of risk and protective factors identified in previous research predict varying levels of family functioning for a sample of licensed foster families. The study was part of a larger two-phase project using a sequential explanatory design (Creswell, 2014). The quantitative data described in this article was collected first and used in the full study to select a purposive qualitative sample for the second phase of the project (see Lietz et al.,

310 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

2016 to review the qualitative findings). The state child welfare agency collabo- rated in recruitment efforts, and upon approval from the university and child welfare institutional review boards, a link to an online survey was sent via e-mail to one parental member of all licensed foster parents with a current e-mail address on file with the state agency in a Southwestern state (N = 1864). Foster parent participants were asked to provide demographic information and to rate their families’ experience with varied risk factors, familial strengths, and their level of current family functioning. It was hypothesized that (1) increased levels of risk would predict lower levels of family functioning and (2) higher levels of strengths would predict healthy family functioning. Based on previous research, it was expected that strengths would be the stronger predictor of the two variables (Lietz, 2006). In addition, we tested the hypothesis that strengths moderate risks when predicting family functioning as measured by the Family Assessment Device; that is, that the relationship between risks and family functioning depends on the amount of strengths within the family.

Measures

Demographic information was gathered to gain an understanding of the family structure. Participants were asked to describe their family unit, including the race/ ethnicity of each family member, how long they had been fostering, how many children they had fostered, and how recently they had fostered a child in their home. The demographic information was followed by three instruments measur- ing levels of (1) family risks, (2) family strengths, and (3) family functioning.

Risks The risk scale utilized was an adaptation of the Family Inventory of Life Events and Changes (FILE; McCubbin et al., 1983). The FILE was created to measure stressful life events experienced within families. Overall risk is measured based upon the “pile-up” factor, or the notion that families who experience a higher number of adverse situations are at greater risk for dysfunction (McCubbin et al., 1983). The full version of the FILE is a 71-item self-report inventory.

Items in the FILE are weighted based on those known to produce a higher degree of negative outcomes for families. To keep the full survey a reasonable length, consistent with previous research (Lietz, 2006), we chose 20 items from the FILE known to cause the greatest degree of strain to families. In addition, nine items were added that represent new emerging stressors that were not included at the time the FILE was created. For example, an item about infertility was added because of the stress this experience can cause (Cousineau & Domar, 2007; Van DerMerwe&Greeff, 2015).Additionally, one open-ended itemwas added to allow participants to describe their own risks. The revised scale was tested by Lietz (2006) in a previous study. The FILE is an inventory; respondents who identify four or more of these risk factors are considered at higher risk of poor familial outcomes.

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 311

Strengths Tomeasure the strengths of a family, the Family Resilience and Strengths Scale (FRSS) was utilized, as developed by Lietz (2006) and Lietz and Strength (2011). The original scale of 14 strengths statements was tested with a sample of 182 families, and an acceptable level of internal consistency was found (α = .74; Lietz, 2006). The scale, expanded to 17 questions by Lietz and Strength (2011), was used in this study. The scale measures the 10 previously described strengths that families use to cope with the risks and challenges in their lives. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) to statements measuring each strength, such as “Our family is willing to take the steps necessary to solve problems.” In the current sample of foster families, the Cronbach’s alpha indicated a higher level of reliability (α = .84).

Family functioning The functioning of a family unit is complex and comprises multiple dimensions (Epsein et al., 1983). To capture this complexity, the McMaster Family Assessment Device (FAD) was selected based on its predominance in the literature, established psychometric properties (Epsein et al., 1983), and the intention to compare findings from the foster family sample to family sample in Lietz (2006). The 12-item short form of the FAD was selected due to the overall length of the full survey.

The FAD is a standardized scale that has established cutoff points that separate low functioning from high functioning scores. Participants were asked to rate their level of agreement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) on 12 items, from which a mean score is created. Based on the scale, families who score 3.0 or higher are considered to have healthy family interactions. The scale was found to have a high level of internal consistency with the foster family sample (α = .89). To test the associations between the variables, multiple regression was utilized. The variables were entered hierarchically to gain an understanding of the distinctive association between, risks, strengths, and family functioning.

Results

Sample characteristics

Through a collaboration with the child welfare agency, a 36.5% response rate was achieved (n = 681). Families, on average, had about five family members (M = 4.89, SD = 2.59). More than 90% of the participants were actively licensed as a foster parent (n= 615) and 3.5% indicated that though they were not currently licensed, they were a licensed and active foster parent within the past 2 years (n = 24). The majority of participants were nonrelative foster parents (74.6%; n = 508), and 17.4% (n = 119) of families were licensed foster families who were

312 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

providing kinship care or a combination of kinship and nonkinship care. More than one half of the participants had been licensed as a foster care provider in the state of study for 2 years or fewer (n= 346, 50.81%). Participants reported that they had fostered between one and more than 25 children during their time as foster families. The average number of children families had fostered was about seven (M = 7.03), and the highest frequency being two children fostered (n = 114).

Table 1 displays the racial/ethnic make-up of the study participants. Participants were asked to identify the role and race/ethnicity of each member of their household; thus the numbers reported do not reflect the sample size but rather the entire family structure. Themajority of the participants who identified as “parent” reported their ethnicity as White (n = 457) and the majority of the total number of reported children in the home (biological, foster, and adoptive), were also identified as White (n = 964). In the sample, more than 70% of biological children were White (n = 452), whereas about 40% of children who were in foster care (n = 302) or were adopted (n = 210) were identified asWhite. In addition, there were about 20% of foster parents’ spouse or partner (n = 177) who identified as belonging to a minority race/ethnicity. About 60% of the children in foster care were identified by the foster parent as belonging to a minority race/ethnicity.

Regression results

Multiple regression was used to test the relationship among family risks, family strengths, and family functioning. Variables were added hierarchically to compare the relative change in explained variance (R2). In Model 1, family functioning was the dependent variable and family risks were included as the independent variable of interest. Number of people within the immediate family and years fostering were included as covariates to control for the variance associated with these variables. Results of Model 1 are displayed in Table 2. The variables included in Model 1 explained 4% of the variance in family functioning (R2 = .04). Results indicated that family risks were negatively associated with family functioning. Control variables (number of people within the immediate family and years

Table 1. Demographic details of the sample (percentages in parentheses).

Race/ethnicity n (%) White

African American

Hispanic/ Latino(a)

Native American Asian Multiracial

Other race/

ethnicity Total

Parent 457 (81.61) 32 (5.71) 49 (8.75) 8 (1.43) 3 (0.54) 10 (1.79) 1 (0.18) 560 Partner/spouse 252 (76.83) 13 (3.96) 46 (14.02) 6 (1.83) 5 (1.52) 5 (1.52) 1 (0.30) 328 Biological child 452 (71.41) 20 (3.16) 75 (11.85) 18 (2.84) 2 (0.32) 65 (10.27) 1 (0.16) 633 Foster child 302 (40.27) 71 (9.47) 237 (31.60) 48 (6.40) 3 (0.40) 86 (11.47) 3 (0.40) 750 Adopted child 210 (40.86) 40 (7.78) 168 (32.68) 22 (4.28) 3 (0.58) 64 (12.45) 7 (1.36) 514 Other family member

47 (61.04) 5 (6.49) 22 (28.57) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 3 (3.90) 0 (0.00) 77

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 313

Ta bl e 2.

St an da rd iz ed

an d un

st an da rd iz ed

re gr es si on

co ef fic ie nt s fo r fa m ily

fu nc tio

ni ng

m od

el s.

M od

el 1

M od

el 2

M od

el 3

Va ria bl e

b SE

95 %

CI β

b SE

95 %

CI β

b SE

95 %

CI β

In te rc ep t

3. 62

0. 05

1. 07

0. 14

1. 28

0. 23

Im m ed ia te

fa m ily

si ze

0. 01

0. 01

[– .0 1,

.0 3]

0. 06

− 0. 01

0. 01

[– .0 2,

.0 1]

− 0. 03

− 0. 01

0. 01

[– .0 2,

.0 1]

− 0. 03

Ye ar s fo st er in g

− 0. 01

0. 01

[– .0 2,

.0 0]

− 0. 11

− 0. 01

0. 00 4

[– .0 2,

.0 0]

− 0. 07

− 0. 01

0. 00 4

[– .0 2,

.0 0]

− 0. 07

Fa m ily

ris ks

− 0. 02

0. 01

[– .0 3,

–. 01 ]

− 0. 19

− 0. 01

0. 00 4

[– .0 2,

.0 0]

− 0. 11

− 0. 05

0. 04

[– .1 3,

.0 2]

− 0. 48

Fa m ily

st re ng

th s

0. 78

0. 04

[.7 0,

.8 6]

0. 67

0. 71

0. 07

[.5 8,

.8 5]

0. 62

Fa m ily

St re ng

th s x Fa m ily

Ri sk s

0. 01 3

0. 01 1

[– .0 1,

.0 3]

0. 37

R2 .0 4

.4 8

.4 8

N 44 5

44 5

44 5

314 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

fostering) were not significant predictors of varied levels of functioning. In Model 2, the family strengths variable was added, which resulted in a 0.44 increase in model R2. Comparison of the standardized beta coefficients indicated that family strengths (β = .67) were a stronger predictor of family functioning than family risks (β = −0.11). In Model 3, we added an interaction term (Family Strengths x Family Risks) to assess whether the impact of family risks on family functioning varied based on the amount of strengths within the family. Results indicated that the interaction term was not statistically significant.

Discussion and implications

The findings from Model 1 confirm our hypotheses that (1) elevated levels of risk are associated with lower levels of healthy family functioning and (2) that as family strengths increase, so do the levels of healthy family functioning as measured by the FAD. The model also supports the hypothesis that family strengths are a stronger predictor of family functioning than are risks. These findings corroborate Lietz’ (2006) study examining family resiliency in typical family structures, and extends these findings to include foster families. This suggests that models of family resilience can help in understanding the process used by families who foster as they overcome the challenges associated with fostering, as well as those difficulties they face more generally.

The second hypothesis was not supported, as seen in Model 2. This suggests that the relationship between risk and functioning does not depend on the amount of family strengths. Rather, as indicated in Model 1, there are simple, direct relationships among strengths, risks, and family functioning. This find- ing also provides information related to training, support, and intervention strategies with foster parents. Specifically, it appears that family risks operate similarly for foster parents regardless of existing family strengths, which suggests that universal programming is appropriate. Intervention researchers should seek to develop programs for foster parents that enhance family strengths and decrease family risks.

Foster families are distinctive family structures in that they face challenges related and unrelated to their role fostering. Therefore, foster families may need to rely heavily on their strengths to move them through the resiliency process (Lietz, 2007). The movement away from a deficit-based approach to working with families towards an approach that builds upon strengths is the foundation of resiliency-based methods of practice (Lietz, 2006; Walsh, 2003). Families, including foster families, will most likely experience some level of risk in their lives, however our results suggest that it is the strengths within the family that are most strongly associated with their functioning.

This study is not without limitations. The sample is limited to one state and to foster parents who had access to e-mail. There is concern for sampling bias in that there is no way to discern if there are differences between those foster

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 315

parents who took the survey and those who did not thereby limiting general- izability. The nonexperimental design and use of cross-sectional data restricts the ability to make inferences regarding directional causality.

Implications

Despite these limitations, these findings provide an understanding regarding how some families cope and adapt with the challenges associated with fostering offer- ing important implications for assessment, intervention, and training of foster families. Infusing a family resilience framework into practice with foster families is consistent with family-centered practice as it focuses on identifying and leveraging family strengths in the coping and adaptation process. A family resilience frame- work not only involves acknowledging the challenges encountered by foster families but also focuses on enhancing the strengths families already possess to improve outcomes for these families and the children in their care. Activating current strengths and building new capabilities is helpful for families facing challenges (DeFrain & Asay, 2007; Dunst & Trivette, 2009; Walsh; 2015), an idea that can be translated to foster families (Lietz et al., 2016).

Assessment Results of this study indicate that strengths are a stronger predictor of family functioning than risks, illustrating that assessment should move away from a deficit approach to a strengths-based approach in the assessment of foster families. Walsh (2003) recommends that clinical practitioners should acknowledge the struggles families face but avoid a focus on the problems and rather shift the focus to enhancing the strengths of the family. Assessment tools that uncover family strengths can be administered during the licensing process so that each family’s strengths can be incorporated into ongoing work to support that family. These assessments can be updated upon licensing renewal to identify emerging strengths. Examples of family-centered, strengths-based family assessments include the Family Resilience and Strengths Scale (Lietz, 2006), American Family Strengths Inventory (DeFrain&Stinnett, 2008), the Family Functioning Style Scale (Deal, Trivette, & Dunst, 1988), the Family Strengths Inventory (Stinnett & DeFrain, 1985), the Family Strengths Scale (Olson, Larsen, & McCubbin, 1985), and the FamilyHardiness Inventory (McCubbin,McCubbin, &Thompson, 1987).

Intervention How families approach and respond to situations is affected by their degree of support, commitment, flexibility and how they make meaning of situations (DeFrain & Asay, 2007; Lietz et al., 2016; Walsh, 2012). Practitioners should work with foster families to identify and build on ways in which they have already overcome adversities, such as through increased awareness of resources, problem-solving skills, and mutual support of all family members. Interventions

316 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

from Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (Berg, 1994) orMotivational Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002) that explore past successes and exceptions to problems can help families who foster recognize the internal and external resources that have been helpful to them in the past.

Consistent with a family-centered approach, it is important for child welfare practitioners to acknowledge the complexity of each foster family and develop an individualized approach that is responsive to the cultural background of the family and children in care. Narrative approaches (White, 2011) may be helpful for allowing each family to author their own story of fostering. Although there are universal expectations of decreasing family risk and enhancing family strengths, practitioners need to be cautious that a one- size-fits-all approach will not adequately meet the needs of individual foster families. There are many variables within the family, community, and sys- tems of care that can affect foster families differently lending support the idea that family practice remain responsive and individualized to unique needs and capacities (Haugaard & Hazan, 2005).

When considering the risks and strengths families who foster experience, it is necessary to recognize the trauma experiences children bring with them and the attachment that develops between foster families and children (Cavazzi, Guilfoyle, & Sims, 2010). Transparent and clear communication and coordina- tion is needed between systems and team members to help support foster families and children. Research has found that the previous trauma experienced by the children in care (Holland & Gorey, 2004) and high stress levels of foster families (Farmer et al., 2005) can lead to placement disruptions. Utilizing interventions that enhance family strengths may help support foster families cope with the strain of caring for children with a history of trauma.

A strengths-based approach to interventions with foster families may translate to better outcomes for the children and youth returning home to biological families. Foster parents who demonstrate resiliency are modeling to the children in their care how to enhance their strengths and to reach out for support and resources when needed. Thomas, Chenot, and Reifel (2005) suggest that increas- ing strengths and protective factors with children in out-of-home care can buffer or even reduce the impact of risk factors and prevent reentry into care when these children return to biological families. Including biological families as coparents while their children are in foster care can increase the likelihood for success when the children return home. Practitioners should also consider multigenerational strategies to connect foster children and their biological families to relational resources to support long-term family resilience (Walsh, 2012).

Training A focus on building upon internal and external strengths is a necessary compo- nent of foster parent training. Training should promote continued growth and capacity building to enhance strengths of foster families. Resilience is an active

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 317

process of growth and adjustment, and ongoing training can help support families’ strengths and resourcefulness (Walsh, 2012). It is important for licen- sing workers to remaining aware of the strengths of each individual foster family so they can help foster parents lean on those strengths in times of crisis and hardships. Child welfare workers need to understand the challenges foster families endure and be aware of how foster families can overcome these chal- lenges. Foster families who feel supported are more likely to have enhanced outcomes and continue fostering (Farmer et al., 2005; Geiger et al., 2014). Families who experience and are able to overcome similar adversities often build informal or formal networks to support other foster families. This creates an additional support, as seasoned foster parents are able to support new and other foster families through collaboration and mentorship.

Conclusion

Foster families experience complex dynamics, including risk and protective factors like any other family. Utilizing a family resilience model to support families who foster allows practitioners to more adequately assess and provide intervention and support for those who care for children who are vulnerable. This strengths-based framework for assessment and intervention affects the well-being of children while in foster care and after they exit care to permanency. Approaching training and support for foster families through a family-centered, strengths-based model allows for a forward-focused approach that supports family functioning and addresses the challenges encountered by foster families. A strengths-based approach may improve foster parent satisfaction with foster- ing and improve retention, thus reducing placement disruption due to licensure closure. Each family overcomes adversity in different ways; families can be supported through a resilience framework that recognizes and builds upon their unique strengths and available supports.

Acknowledgment

Thank you also to the many committed families who provide a loving home for children in foster care.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the Arizona Department of Child Safety and Arizona Friends of Foster Children Foundation for their support of this project.

ORCID

Jennifer M. Geiger http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5726-3475

318 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

References

Bass, S., Shields, M. K., & Behrman, R. E. (2004). Children, families, and foster care: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 14(1), 5–29. doi:10.2307/1602752

Berg, I. K. (1994). Family-based services: A solution-focused approach. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.

Black, K., & Lobo, M. (2008). A conceptual review of family resilience factors. Journal of Family Nursing, 14(1), 33–55. doi:10.1177/1074840707312237

Brown, J., & Calder, P. (1999). Concept-mapping the challenges faced by foster parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(6), 481–495. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00034-1

Brown, J. D., & Rodger, S. (2009). Children with disabilities: Problems faced by foster parents. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(1), 40–46. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.05.007

Brown, J. M. (2015). Therapeutic moments are the key: Foster children give clues to their past experience of infant trauma and neglect. Journal of Family Therapy, 37(3), 286–307. doi:10.1111/joft.2015.37.issue-3

Cavazzi, T., Guilfoyle, A., & Sims, M. (2010). A phenomenological study of foster caregivers’ experiences of formal and informal supports. Illinois Child Welfare, 5(1), 125–141.

Chipungu, S. S., & Bent-Goodley, T. B. (2004). Meeting the challenges of contemporary foster care. The Future of Children, 14(1), 75–93. doi:10.2307/1602755

Cousineau, T. M., & Domar, D. A. (2007). Psychological impact of infertility. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 21(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j. bpobgyn.2006.12.003

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Haan, L., Hawley, D. R., & Deal, J. E. (2002). Operationalizing family resilience: A methodological strategy. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(4), 275–291. doi:10.1080/01926180290033439

Deal, A. G., Trivette, C., & Dunst, C. J. (1988). Family Functioning Style Scale. In C. J. Dunst, C. M. Trivette, & A. G. Deal (Eds.), Enabling and empowering families: Principles and guidelines for practice (pp. 179–184). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

DeFrain, J., & Asay, S. (2007). Strong families around the world: The family strengths perspective. New York, NY: Haworth Press.

DeFrain, J. D., & Stinnett, N. (2008). Creating a strong family: American family strengths inventory. NebGuide, September issue. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1052&context=extensionhist

Dunst, C. J., & Trivette, C. M. (2009). Capacity-building family-systems intervention prac- tices. Journal of Family Social Work, 12(2), 119–143. doi:10.1080/10522150802713322

Epsein, N. B., Baldwin, L. M., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The McMaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9(2), 171–180. doi:10.1111/j.1752- 0606.1983.tb01497.x

Farmer, E., Lipscombe, J., & Moyers, S. (2005). Foster carer strain and its impact on parenting and placement outcomes for adolescents. British Journal of Social Work, 35, 237–253. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch181

Fraser, M. (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Geiger, J. M., Julien-Chinn, F. J., & Lietz, C. A. (2014). Foster parent satisfaction survey. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona State University Press.

Geiger, J. M., Piel, M. H., Lietz, C. A., & Julien-Chinn, F. J. (2016). Empathy as an essential foundation to successful foster parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(12), 3771–3779. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0529-z

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 319

Gibbs, D. A. (2005). Understanding foster parenting: Using administrative data to explore retention (Report prepared by RTI International for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Greene, R. R. (Ed.). (2002). Resiliency: An integrated approach to practice, policy, and research. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Haugaard, J., & Hazan, C. (2005). Foster parenting. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting, volume 1, children and parenting (pp. 313–327). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hawley, D. R. (2000). Clinical implications of family resilience. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(2), 101–116.

Hayes, M. J., Geiger, J. M., & Lietz, C. A. (2015). Navigating a complicated system of care: Foster parent satisfaction with behavioral and medical health services. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(6), 493–505. doi:10.1007/s10560-015-0388-2

Heller, S. S., Smyke, A. T., & Boris, N. W. (2002). Very young foster children and foster families: Clinical challenges and interventions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(5), 555– 575. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0355

Holland, P., & Gorey, K. M. (2004). Historical, developmental, and behavioral factors associated with foster care challenges. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 21(2), 117–135. doi:10.1023/B:CASW.0000022727.40123.95

Hudson, P., & Levasseur, K. (2002). Supporting foster parents: Caring voices. Child Welfare, 81 (6), 853–877.

Lietz, C. A. (2006). Uncovering stories of family resilience: A mixed methods study of resilient families: Part 1. Families in Society, 87(4), 575–582. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3573

Lietz, C. A. (2007). Uncovering stories of family resilience: A mixed methods study of resilient families: Part 2. Families in Society, 88(1), 147–155. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3602

Lietz, C. A., Julien-Chinn, F. J., Geiger, J. M., & Hayes Piel, M. (2016). Cultivating resilience in families who foster: Understanding how families cope and adapt over time. Family Process, 55(4), 660–672. doi:10.1111/famp.2016.55.issue-4

Lietz, C. A., & Strength, M. (2011). Stories of successful reunification: A narrative study of family resilience in child welfare. Families in Society, 92(2), 1–8. doi:10.1606/1044- 3894.4102

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. doi:10.1111/cdev.2000.71.issue-3

MacGregor, T. E., Rodger, S., Cummings, A. L., & Leschied, A. W. (2006). The needs of foster parents. Qualitative Social Work, 5(3), 351–368. doi:10.1177/1473325006067365

McCubbin, H., Patterson, J., & Wilson, L. (1983). Family inventory of life events and change. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Sciences.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Center for Excellence in Family Studies.

McCubbin, M. A., McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1987). Family hardiness index. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 125–130). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin.

Miller, I. W., Ryan, C. E., Keitner, G. I., Bishop, D. S., & Epstein, N. B. (2000). The McMaster approach to families: Theory, assessment, treatment and research. Journal of Family Therapy, 22, 168–189. doi:10.1111/1467-6427.00145

Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

320 F. J. JULIEN-CHINN ET AL.

Olson, D. H., Larsen, A. S., & McCubbin, H. I. (1985). Family strengths. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Family Social Science.

Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(2), 349–360. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00349.x

Pecora, P. J., Jensen, P. S., Romanelli, L. H., Jackson, L. J., & Ortiz, A. (2009). Mental health services for children placed in foster care: An overview of current challenges. Child Welfare, 88(1), 5–26.

Rhodes, K. W., Orme, J. G., Cox, M. E., & Buehler, C. (2003). Foster family resources, psychosocial functioning, and retention. Social Work Research, 27(3), 135–150. doi:10.1093/swr/27.3.135

Ross, L., Holliman, D., & Dixon, D. R. (2003). Resiliency in family caregivers: Implications for social work practice. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 40(3), 81–96. doi:10.1300/ J083v40n03_07

Simon, J. B., Murphy, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2005). Understanding and fostering family resilience. Family Journal, 13(4), 427–436. doi:10.1177/1066480705278724

Stahmer, A. C., Leslie, L. K., Hurlburt, M., Barth, R. P., Webb, M. B., Landsverk, J., & Zhang, J. (2005). Developmental and behavioral needs and service use for young children in child welfare. Pediatrics, 116(4), 891–900. doi:10.1542/peds.2004-2135

Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1985). Family strengths inventory. In Secrets of strong families. (pp. 180–182). New York, NY: Berkley Books.

Thomas, M., Chenot, D., & Reifel, B. (2005). A resilience-based model of reunification and reentry: Implications for out-of-home care services. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 86(2), 235–243. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.2458

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2016). The AFCARS report, 23. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/ sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport23.pdf

Ungar, M. (2008). Resilience across cultures. British Journal of Social Work, 38(2), 218–235. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcl343

Van Der Merwe, E., & Greeff, A. P. (2015). Infertility-related stress within the marital relationship. International Journal of Sexual Health, 27(4), 522–531. doi:10.1080/ 19317611.2015.1067275

Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework: Innovative practice applications. Family Relations, 51(2), 130–137. doi:10.1111/fare.2002.51.issue-2

Walsh, F. (2003). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42(1), 1–18. doi:10.1111/famp.2003.42.issue-1

Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Walsh, F. (2012). Community-based practice applications of a family resilience framework. In

D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 65–81). New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media.

Walsh, F. (2015). Strengthening family resilience. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Werner, E. E., & Smith, R. S. (2001). Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and

recovery. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. White, M. (2011). Narrative practice: Continuing the conversations. New York, NY: W.W.

Norton & Company.

JOURNAL OF FAMILY SOCIAL WORK 321