National statistics for federal fiscal year 2009 estimate that 190,511 or approximately two in five children in the foster care system are between the ages of 11 and 20 (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau 2010). Although reunification with the birth family is the primary goal when children are placed in out-of-home care, followed by adoption and guardianship, these legal permanency options are often more difficult to achieve for older youth due to a host of barriers (Barth and Chintapalli 2009; Stoltzfus 2003). These include a lack of services tailored to older youth, difficulty in recruiting adoptive families who can meet older youths’ needs (McRoy and Madden 2009), youths’ unwillingness to consider adoption (Macomber et al. 2004), inadequate permanency planning, caseworkers attitudes toward adoptability of older youth (Avery 2000), unintended pregnancy (Dworsky and DeCoursey 2009), and legal and/or court issues (Children’s Rights 2009). These challenges are evidenced by the over 28,000 youth that ‘aged out’ of foster care in U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau 2011).

The outlook for youth who emancipate from the system (typically at age 18) is dismal. Research indicates they are at higher risk of experiencing negative life outcomes, including homelessness, unemployment, and involvement in illegal activity and substance abuse (Courtney et al. 2007; Pecora et al. 2006). In contrast, some studies demonstrate the beneficial aspects of permanency for older youth in foster care through reunification with parents, adoption, and kinship care (Geen 2003; McNaught and Onkeles 2004). Translation of these studies into common practice, however, is complicated, as stakeholders (e.g., parents, agencies, youth) do not always share similar or positive views about permanency (Freundlich et al. 2006). Thus, it is particularly crucial to ascertain how child welfare professionals working directly with older youth on the frontlines understand and engage in practice with older youth. Caseworkers’ everyday experiences supporting the diverse needs of youth provide critical information for improving policy, practice, and research. This study highlights their perspectives on how they approach permanency with older youth, including events that hinder or work in favor of youth achieving legal and lifelong adult connections. Moreover, this study was designed to learn more about how caseworkers interpret and utilize Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement (APPLA) as a case goal for older youth.

Literature Review

Since the deletion of the Long Term Foster Care (LTFC) permanency goal from the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997(ASFA, P.L. 105-89), APPLA has become a least preferred, yet common default case designation for older youth (Renne 2002). APPLA is formally defined as “any permanent living arrangement not enumerated in the statute,” in which there is no goal for legal placement. It should only be used when there are compelling reasons, including (a) when parent(s) and youth have a strong bond, but the parent is not able to care for child due to physical or mental health disabilities, (b) when a tribe has determined another planned living arrangement, or (c) when an older youth requests emancipation as a case plan (e.g., an adolescent specifically states he does not want adoption or guardianship or does not have a relative to care for him) (Renne and Mallon 2005). However, due to lack of understanding as well as inappropriate and over-utilization, APPLA has become a euphemistic replacement for LTFC (Fiermonte and Renne 2002). Whereas, there are indeed cases in which APPLA may serve in the best interest of a youth (McGill 2007), a danger of defaulting to APPLA lies in the subsequent decrease in priority that APPLA cases receive, including a reduction in ongoing searches for legal permanency and involvement of youth and family in permanency planning (Renne and Mallon 2005). Consequently, youth with APPLA are often at higher risk of leaving the system without the possibility of establishing legal and permanent connections (Metzger 2009).

Developmental Needs of Older Youth in Care

Adolescence is a critical period during which loving and stable relationships are necessary for building young persons’ self-esteem, identity, and sense of belonging (Schofield and Beek 2005). For example, the concept of emerging adulthood (Arnett 2000, 2004) describes the period of development between ages 18 and 25 as a considerably unpredictable time with regards to living situation, relationships, and school and job stability. Furthermore, it is a time when individuals experience the most confusion as they make major life decisions. Accordingly, the emerging adult requires a balance of autonomy and reliance on safety nets often provided by significant adults.

Studies on attachment reveal that a history of disrupted opportunity to form long-lasting connections can be detrimental to a youth’s ability to cultivate positive lifelong relationships in adulthood (Adshead and Bluglass 2001; Bowlby 1969; 1988). Research also indicates a link between attachment and effects on social, cognitive, and psychological well-being for young adults (Love and Murdock 2004), including emotional regulation and adjustment (Cooper et al. 1998; Soucy and Larose 2000). Moreover, youth from abusive or foster care backgrounds are at greater risk of developing disorganized attachment relationships (Cicchetti et al. 2000).

For older youth in foster care, the impermanence in placement and with relationships are correlated with other risks, including failed reunification (McMillen and Tucker 1999) and decreased opportunities for adoption (Barth and Chintapalli 2009). The lack of placement stability also heightens risk for running away (Lin 2011), behavioral problems (Barth et al. 2007), and delinquency (Ryan and Testa 2005). Finally, the growing number of youth who ‘age out’ of the system without a permanent home or financial means to live independently have experienced poor educational, mental health, and employment outcomes (Pecora et al. 2010). Such consequences further underscore the urgency for policymakers and practitioners to introduce legislation and programs that address the lifelong needs of youth in care. A brief review of these influential practices and policies are discussed below.

Policies and Public Perceptions Affecting Older Youth in Care

Despite the best of intentions, federal policies do not always translate into expedient outcomes for adolescents when compared to younger children. For example, the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1997 led to an almost 73 % increase in adoptions within that decade, but youth ages 11–19 represented only 17 % of all children adopted in 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau 2011). Four years ago, Congress passed the 2008 Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which gives states an option to extend care for youth until age 21. It is premature to draw conclusions on the effect of this law given some ambiguity on how states have allocated or will utilize federal funding. The need to see results from such legislation is propelled by statistics showing a decrease in the likelihood of adoption each year a youth remains in foster care (Barth 1997) and the increased possibility of older youth re-entering foster care after reunification when compared to younger children (Wells and Guo 1999).

Whereas research has had a strong impact on child welfare policies and development of services to address the needs of older children in care (e.g., Foster Care Independence Act of 1999; Chafee Foster Care Independence Program; Fostering Connections Act of 2008), organizational and individual perceptions about older children in care (e.g., adoptability) can also influence the passage of laws and interventions and services offered to older children and their families. For example, the controversial issue of transracial versus same-race placement led to a series of practice and policy changes (e.g., Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994) regarding length of time children wait to be adopted, recruitment of foster and adoptive parents, and exclusion of potential parents based on race.

Another example of how perception can shape outcomes for youth in care is a 2007 adoption attitudes survey of 1,660 U.S. adults. Survey results revealed that nearly half of the individuals (45 %) believe that youth enter the system due to juvenile delinquency and over two-thirds (67 %) have concerns about a birth parent taking the child back following an adoption. These myths about adoption and foster care have implications for recruitment of adoptive families (e.g., willingness of individuals to adopt) as well as caseworker or agency practice (e.g., emphasis on recruitment process) (Harris Interactive and the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption 2007). Accordingly, the current study examines how caseworkers from diverse child welfare systems across the nation perceive older children on their caseloads and how they work with them to achieve permanency.

Caseworker Attitudes and Organizational Culture

Studies on the effects of policies and practices on outcomes for older youth offer valuable insight to the issue of permanency, yet another important area of inquiry involves personnel and organizational factors. For over four decades, industrial and organizational (I/O) researchers have provided extensive evidence on the relationship between worker attitudes, work environment, and performance (Organ 1988; Ostroff 1992; Vroom 1964).

Over the last decade, application of I/O concepts to human services has provided a unique perspective to understanding outcomes in child welfare. Specifically, studies examining the association among caseworker characteristics, agency culture and climate, and youth outcomes highlight the importance of developing a quality child welfare workforce and favorable work environments (Glisson and Hemmelgarn 1998; Nunno 2006; Ryan et al. 2006). For example, a qualitative study of over 500 caseworkers from private and public agencies revealed a general negative view of the child welfare system, which had direct implications for practice and implementation of policies designed to protect children (Zell 2006). Moreover, a recent study by Ryan et al. (2006) showed that higher turnover and lower education levels of caseworkers were associated with longer lengths of stay in foster care for youth. A similar result was found in a study in Milwaukee County (Flower, McDonald, and Sumski, Flower et al. 2005), which demonstrated that youth who had more than one caseworker were less likely to achieve timely permanency (as stipulated in ASFA). In a study of organizational climate and children’s services systems, Glisson and Hemmelgarn (1998) found that psychosocial functioning was positively related to work environment, suggesting that factors such as job satisfaction, role clarity, and minimal case overload enable caseworkers to provide quality services for youth. All of these studies highlight the need for further examination of the relationship between child welfare organizational factors (e.g., climate and culture) and child outcomes.

With regard to child welfare practices, numerous researchers have examined the importance of early and ongoing discussions about permanency for youth in the foster care system. For example, a study by Children’s Rights (2009) demonstrated the complexity of achieving legal permanency for youth who have been in the foster care system for two or more years due to a pervasive lack of agency accountability and insufficient resources. Freundlich et al. (2006) provided insight into the potential barriers the term permanency itself can have when working with youth and families, as well as recommendations for improving communication between the child welfare system and individuals they serve. Additionally, the types of foster care programs or services geared toward older children, especially those 16 and older, have generally emphasized independent living skills—that is, preparing youth for self-sufficiency after leaving the system. Less consideration, however, has been placed on assisting youth in making the important familial or adult connections to support them across a lifetime or on the developmental needs of older adolescents (Avery and Freundlich 2009). Accordingly, program and organizational factors have a significant impact on permanency planning and timely exits. Results of these studies demonstrate the urgency agencies must place on finding permanent placements for the longest-waiting children and on identifying catalysts for successful outcomes.

Study Objectives

This study aimed to broaden the understanding of factors that influence permanency for older youth in care, particularly from the perspective of those individuals who work directly with them. Given their critical impact on youth outcomes, we examine the attitudes and perceptions of caseworkers toward working with older youth in APPLA. Questions posed were related to staffs’ view of their organization, relationship with legal professionals, and their impressions of agency support. An impetus of this qualitative study was also to engage frontline staff from participating agencies (e.g., caseworkers) in sharing their ideas to improve current practices and policies. The current study is unique in that it was initiated by a partnership between a large child welfare foundation and five child welfare agencies with a shared goal to increase legal permanency outcomes (i.e., reunification, adoption, guardianship) as well as positive lifelong connections for this population.

Method

Participants

Five county child welfare agencies located within the West, Midwest, and Southeast regions and representing both rural (population <50,000 residents) and urban cities were invited to take part the study. These agencies had partnered with the researchers’ organization in the past and expressed interest in continuing collaboration and concentrating on improving outcomes for older youth with APPLA as a case designation.

A total of 52 caseworkers participated in one of the five focus groups. Caseworkers’ years in their current position ranged from less than 1–23 years, with an average of approximately 4 years. Number of years in the child welfare field ranged from one to 40 years, with an average of 6 years. Racial and ethnic background of participants included 40.4 % African American, 7.7 % Latina/o, 50 % White, and 1.9 % Other. Caseworkers’ current number of youth with APPLA on their caseload ranged from zero to 46, with an average of six.

Measures

Demographic Form

This form was developed to gather background information for each participant. Questions included, race and ethnicity, age, gender, number of years in current position, years of experience within the child welfare field, and number of youth with an APPLA designation on caseload.

Focus Group Questions

Focus group questions were designed to address five areas of caseworkers’ experiences and attitudes toward working with youth with APPLA. The areas included (a) the meaning of permanency when working with youth with APPLA, (b) current practices used with older children with APPLA, (c) jurisdiction strengths in working with adolescents and young adults in out-of-home care, (d) challenges and service gaps for older children, and (e) potential strategies to improve permanency outcomes and services for older children.

Design and Procedure

The current study involved three phases, including question development, sample selection and implementation of focus groups, and sharing general and site-specific findings with the participating agencies. Development of the focus group questions involved gathering feedback from agency leaders to ensure applicability and usefulness to their stakeholders. Specifically, after questions applicable to each of the five areas were developed (e.g., Could you describe your experience working with guardian ad litems and/or attorneys on APPLA cases?), we asked agency representatives, including caseworkers and supervisors, for suggestions on wording and clarity. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants wherein agency leaders invited all caseworkers and supervisors who have experience and youth with an APPLA case designation on their caseloads. Upon identification of potential participants, consent forms, information about the focus groups, and a demographic questionnaire were sent to all potential participants via agency liaisons.

The focus group was selected as a method of interviewing, as it invites dialogue among participants and generates data through their verbal and non-verbal interactions (Kitzinger 1994). Although facilitators prompt participants with specific questions, the discussion evolves more ‘naturally’ through responses to each other’s comments. Researchers are also able to observe nuanced processes (e.g., jokes, tone, innuendos), which enhance both content and process knowledge about the topic of interest. As such, questions for this study were open-ended in nature and intended to engender a dynamic exchange of ideas and opinions.

Each of the five focus groups was semi-structured, 90 min in length, and adhered to the same study protocol (e.g., facilitators read the statement on the purpose of the study and reviewed confidentiality information). Based on responses to formal questions, facilitators asked follow-up questions and encouraged individuals to elaborate or clarify answers. For example, participants were often asked to describe jurisdiction specific programs geared toward older youth and to expound on why they found these programs beneficial. The facilitators were also free to reiterate questions when discussions appeared to move away from the specific topic (e.g., “We seem to be moving in a new direction. I’d like to ask the original question in a different way.”) or to highlight the group’s process (e.g., “Several of you have strong reactions to this topic. How do others feel?”). All discussions were digitally recorded and supplemental notes were typed during the focus groups by one of the two co-facilitators. Food was provided at each focus group. Caseworkers were not monetarily compensated for their participation.

Data Analysis

Following each focus group, notes were immediately re-typed using digital recordings to complete notes with missing information (e.g., quotes, acronyms). This resulted in approximately 150 pages of data. Using grounded theory methods developed by Strauss and Corbin (1998), researchers first utilized open coding procedures. This process involved identification of concepts, grouping concepts into categories, clarifying dimensions of categories, and identifying patterns. Next, axial coding was employed to uncover the relationships between categories and linking them to subcategories. Finally, researchers used selective coding techniques to develop larger ideas to refine and integrate identified categories.

Two doctoral level researchers coded focus group data and developed initial themes independently. Both researchers then re-evaluated and discussed coding schemes to determine mutual definition of codes until consensus was reached. A third researcher reviewed the codes before the scheme was finalized.

Results

The themes that emerged from focus groups with caseworkers are presented with representative examples and quotes below. They included (a) perceptions of youth/family factors that explain or result in APPLA designation, (b) the intensity of the caseworkers role in serving this population, (c) worker perceptions concerning the lack of system and agency support, (d) lack of focus/practice on achieving legal permanency for older youth, and (e) the desire/default to focus on providing and improving independent living services for this population. The dynamic of the interrelationships among these themes in terms of how they create or define a permanency-oriented culture (or lack thereof) has implications for the type(s) of practice strategies that were recommended as part of this multi-site project to improve legal permanency outcomes for older APPLA youth.

Perception of Youth and Family Factors that Result in APPLA Designation

Caseworkers have many experiences with youth and their families that inform their perceptions and attitudes about why youth are placed and remain in care with an APPLA designation. According to focus group participants, the predominant individual-level factors include youth factors such as resistance to adoption and challenging mental health and behavioral issues, including juvenile delinquency and teen pregnancy. Focus group participants generally seemed to agree that the age of these youth, combined with their extreme behaviors and poor family situations (discussed next), contributes to their “unadoptability.” Some caseworkers even see the youth as deserving of the APPLA designation, as suggested in the following quote: “Kids earn the goal of APPLA through their bad behavior.” A counter and more optimistic perspective was present, though spoken less frequently. For example: “It’s not that caseworkers stop looking for [adoption] options” and “just because they’re APPLA doesn’t mean they can’t be adopted.”

Family-level factors contributing to the use of the APPLA designation were described by focus group participants as birth parents being unable or unwilling to reunify; difficulty locating relatives; and, when kin are located, their hesitancy to become involved in the system. Caseworkers expressed strong attitudes about the failure of birth parents to assume responsibility for their children. One caseworker remarked, “Parents have given up. They can’t take the behavior or deal with the issues of hard-to-manage teens. No relatives will take them either.” Another agreed, “Parents with kids who have behavior issues often flip-flop between wanting to keep kids or not; they often end up in and out of care.” Participants observed that the APPLA designation lets parents off the hook. For example, one caseworker complained, “[APPLA] enables the legislature not to be harder on parents.” Yet another expressed her exasperation: “Parents need to be held accountable! [Parents] feel like they have a place to leave their kids during the tough years. It’s not acceptable to let [parents] just take their kids to intake and have the state deal with them.” Caseworkers lamented the use of APPLA and its effect on youth, saying that it “just keeps kids in a state of limbo” where “the kids feel unwanted.” They have seen many of these youth “get lost in the shuffle.” One caseworker bemoaned that often these youth “no longer have the light you saw in them as kids.”

Despite frustrating experiences with individual youth and families, caseworkers acknowledged that sometimes APPLA is appropriate and beneficial for youth. Many contended that “every case is unique” and that “permanency must be considered on a case by case basis.” For instance, one respondent explained, “For older youth in care (15 or 16 years old), I prefer APPLA over adoption because APPLA doesn’t close all contact with birth family.” Others concurred that APPLA works for certain youth, depending on their age (e.g., “it works for kids 16–17 years old” and “some kids who’ve been in since age 9 or 10”), especially those who are mature and capable of handling themselves (i.e., “some kids thrive when given independence and support”).

Highly Intensive Caseworker Role: “Everything from Mom to Mortician”

Caseworkers across sites described work with older APPLA youth as more intensive than work with younger and/or non-APPLA youth, given the mental health and behavioral issues described above. Caseworkers in one of our focus groups explained that 90 % of their caseload consists of older youth with APPLA case goal; participants from another site stated that there were 108 APPLA youth for six people in the unit. The formula of having youth with high-intensity needs comprise a majority of a worker’s caseload was summarized as “unrealistic” and as an “overreliance on caseworkers who are stretched beyond capacity.”

Caseworkers were asked about the role they play in the lives of youth with APPLA as a case goal. Given the combination of the nature of where this population of youth is in their development, their often longstanding stays and unstable placements in the system (typically in group home environments), and their lack of meaningful connection to reliable adults, caseworkers assume a heavy load of responsibility. “We’re everything to these youth” was a common response across groups. One worker described the caseworker’s role as “life support for these kids.” A veteran caseworker summed it up this way: “The responsibility falls on us for pretty much everything from mom to mortician.”

Other workers concurred with the notion that the nature of their work with older APPLA youth requires that they assume a parental role. “I’ve had kids [on my caseload] for 7+ years with APPLA. We are the most consistent people in their lives. You end up becoming the mom.” Many caseworkers take the responsibility very seriously. “I try to treat my kids like my mom treated me, so I go to soccer games and things like that. I just make the time.” As with parenting, a caseworker’s job doesn’t necessarily end when a youth reaches legal adulthood. “Many of these kids still call caseworkers after they turn 18 to share news, check in, ask for advice and support,” remarked one participant. Another explained, “Many kids keep in touch with caseworkers, because we’re all they have.”

Of course, not all caseworkers enjoy the role, and some resist it: “I don’t want to be their mother,” stated one caseworker. Further testimony to the intensity of the work and how it can feel overwhelming and burdensome to caseworkers was the sentiment from a number of caseworkers that they “feel relieved when [the youth] turn 18” and the confession that they sometimes feel similarly when youth are in juvenile justice custody “because at least you know where they are and that they are safe, not on the street.”

Perceived Lack of System/Agency Support

Considering the important, intensive, and difficult responsibility that caseworkers tend to shoulder with respect to serving APPLA-designated youth on their caseloads, it might be expected (or at least hoped) that they feel adequately prepared and supported by their agencies to practice in the most effective way possible. However, caseworkers across sites reported receiving inadequate support in their work efforts with older youth in care overall. Indeed, caseworkers’ comments about strengths and support were sparse. One semi-bright spot across jurisdictions emerged: in three of the five counties, caseworkers reported having supportive supervisors. As one worker described, “I feel like when I put myself out there, my supervisor and director have allowed me to be creative. For example, I spent the entire day with one youth on his 18th birthday. Devoted all day to him, even though I didn’t really have that time. I bought him pots and pans. He was so grateful for the extra time, attention, and support.”

But largely, the focus group conversations with caseworkers about the support they are provided for casework conducted with APPLA youth were brief, unless the focus group turned into a “group therapy session” (as one caseworker ultimately described the focus group as she left) and/or resulted in a laundry list about the ways they do not feel supported. Across all five focus groups, this question about strengths often served mainly as a prelude to or preview of gaps and challenges. In more than one site, no strengths or supports were noted.

Caseworkers discussed agency- and system-level barriers such as inadequate quantity and quality of foster care placements, including challenges with foster parents who “don’t do what they can and should to help us.” Focus group participants described too few independent living services, criticized the inconsistent quality of those services that do exist, and complained that “Everything falls on the [caseworkers]. [Agencies] don’t offer enough [independent living] services before youth age out. They rely on us to prepare kids. That’s not part of our job and can’t be done on a regular basis—not for every youth!”

Caseworkers described feeling overburdened, stretched thin, tense, and burned out. They blamed an “increased” and “unreasonable” amount of paperwork and lack of any administrative support for less time to spend on “the real work” with youth. According to a caseworker at one site, “It’s sad these kids are in care, but it’s all paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. There is no quality [of care]. A lot of what we have to do is pushing us away from the real job.” Others agreed: “The paperwork has at least tripled,” said one caseworker. “Now there’s no time to even read case files.” Another added, “My briefcase comes home with me every night.” Lastly, one observed, “The better [work] you do, the more they give you.”

Across sites, caseworkers do not feel particularly supported by their agency administrators or the court system. At more than one site, focus group respondents described agency leadership as being out of touch with the realities of frontline work: “The only communication is highly critical—not constructive. Morale is zero. I don’t think leadership really understands what we have to deal with when working with [APPLA] kids.” One worker further described the toll that the work—and feeling unsupported in it—can take: “We (caseworkers) get secondarily traumatized… I go to work and get punched, kicked, and beat up (figuratively) and the pattern just repeats itself.” Regarding system support from the court, these quotes exemplify the experiences and attitudes across sites:

“[Judges] don’t support what we [caseworkers] recommend.”

“There’s no respect by the courts. You’re perceived as a troublemaker if you advocate for your youth.”

“We’re being set up for failure—particularly in court. We’re unprepared (because there’s no time) and we look like idiots… You go into court with a plan… and then the GAL comes in and argues against your plan.”

Lack of Focus On/Practice to Support Legal Permanency

Across sites, caseworkers had a difficult time describing strategies for finding legal permanency for older youth given many of the individual-, agency-, and system-level factors (barriers) described above. One of the most striking findings across focus groups was the fact that, when pressed, caseworkers could not specify or discuss many strategies used in their practice for trying to secure legal permanency for older youth in care. There were a few exceptions, including Education and Training Voucher funds for host homes for youth 16 and above and multidisciplinary permanency staffings and hearings. In addition, caseworkers in one site reported the strategy of “exploring all family/relatives before the case goal becomes APPLA.” Though this is a promising strategy, as the conversation continued, one worker at this site admitted that once this search was conducted up front, it was not necessarily repeated. “Have I ever gone back to revisit family or friends who originally said no to taking the kid in? No. But I leave my name and number. They might call back if their reason for saying no was logistics and their situation changes. They won’t call back if they were just uninterested.”

Focus group facilitators repeated the question—“What are the general strengths of your agency in terms of how you currently work to find permanency opportunities for youth with an APPLA case goal? In other words, what are your most effective strategies?”—multiple times and in different ways thinking that the intent of the question was somehow unclear. Time after time, caseworkers had nothing to discuss—instead they seemed only able to talk about independent living programs and services. Overall, the lack of discussion was an important finding that reflected both attitudes and practices across sites that have not been “permanency oriented” with respect to older youth in care with APPLA case goal.

Focus on Providing and Improving Independent Living Skills and Services

As mentioned above, instead of wanting or being able to talk about strategies their agencies use to find legal permanency for older youth, caseworkers focused on the need for more and better independent living services since, in their experience, this population of youth is most likely to age out of care. Caseworkers demonstrated clear concern that youth are not prepared with the life skills they need upon emancipation. One caseworker likened the reality of foster youth aging out of the system to a game of chance: “At age 18 we throw them out in the street, and they either run past the bus or get hit by it.” Given their lack of experience finding successful permanency options for many of these youth, it is understandable that caseworkers would want to see more and better independent living services in the hopes of better preparing youth for adulthood.

The clear focus on independent living was further reflected in the feedback caseworkers wanted planners to take into consideration for strategy selection. “We’re not providing what’s needed for these youth” (i.e., group homes, independent living skills). “Resources would be best spent on IL (independent living) and other supports for youth” to “ensure youth are well-prepared before leaving care.” Caseworkers recommended that specialized independent living units be maintained, reinstated, and/or established, depending on the site. They proceeded to give examples of special programs in their states that “cater solely to kids aging out” such as “weekly visits from a life coach” and special programs that “provide a car and insurance to kids aging out.” Others suggested youth enrichment resources and supports such as “mentoring,” “bringing the kids together to be their own support group,” providing “more events like a Christmas dance,” or “taking the kids to 5–6 apartment complexes.”

Across sites, the tone of focus groups with caseworkers could be described as bleak and frustrated, which speaks to the intensive role they play serving older APPLA youth on their caseload and the responsibility they feel for their well-being. Reflections of caseworkers on their practice with older youth in care who have APPLA as a case designation cannot be described, overall, as particularly strengths-based or permanency-oriented. Despite the fact that several focus group questions directly inquired about strengths of practice and worker supports, discussions with caseworkers predominantly focused on gaps and weaknesses at the individual, family, agency, and system levels. Caseworkers described older APPLA youth as a relatively difficult and high-needs population that require intensive time and effort. This, coupled with a perceived lack of agency support in providing resources to adequately respond to highly intense needs, appears to lead to attitudes and practices that are not particularly permanency-oriented.

Discussion

Although past studies have highlighted the importance of focusing on older youth in care, only recently have researchers begun to look at the intersection of individual, organizational, and systemic factors that impact permanency outcomes (e.g., Ellett et al. 2007). This study extends research in this area and offers some insight into the complexities of planning for a youth’s future while in and after leaving the child welfare system. Data collected from focus groups emphasized the important relationship between a caseworker, a youth, the family, and the child welfare agency. Moreover, we draw particular focus to caseworkers’ perspectives and experiences given their significant influence on the lives of youth and their families.

The impetus of this study was to solicit input from caseworkers and identify potential strategies to accelerate permanency for youth with APPLA. Focus groups revealed valuable information that confirmed findings from other studies on permanency (e.g., Freundlich et al. 2006) as well as enhance current knowledge about factors related to older youth. Specifically, the five themes derived from the focus group participants also serve as recommendations for improving current practices and developing policies to fit the needs of older youth in care.

Involving Youth and Families: A Systems of Care Approach

Caseworkers in our study described how the APPLA case designation is partly determined by youth and family perceptions and behavior. For example, participants confirmed past findings on how factors such as mental health and behavioral problems often result in foreclosure of adoption or reunification options for older youth (Madden et al. 2012; Wells and Correia 2010). They also expressed frustration toward parents who are viewed as uninterested or unwilling to work with caseworkers on permanency planning, pointing to a perceived lack of ‘accountability’ by family members. These responses related to youth and family factors echo previous research findings about difficulties experienced by older youth in care (e.g., Courtney et al. 1998; Geenen and Powers 2007), but also implicate the wider set of social problems affecting their families. For example, life stressors including poverty, single-parent households, disabilities, substance abuse, and mental illnesses contributed to reunification failure (Teare et al. 2001). For many of our longest-waiting youth, it is these set of variables that thwart timely exits and increase the risk for re-entry (Courtney 1995; Fuller et al. 2001). Indeed, the confluence of these individual and societal level factors on youths’ case designations and permanency options must be considered simultaneously.

The systems of care (SOC) philosophy provides a valuable framework for improving practice related to older youth in care (DeCarolis et al. 2007). SOC is based on a premise that youth serving agencies can better address the needs of its constituents when working in coordination (Knitzer 1982), which decreases fragmentation among services and bolsters the support network for youth and families. Under this framework, service planning and coordination include family and youth in meaningful ways and foster interagency collaboration (Hodges et al. 2007). One successful example of the SOC approach is the Reclaiming Futures (RF) project based at Portland State University, involving 10 demonstration sites across the United States. Under the RF model, juvenile courts, probation officers, substance abuse treatment providers, and community organizations work as an alliance to assist adolescents in the juvenile justice system who are also struggling with drug and alcohol problems. As a result of the RF initiative, the majority of participating counties have observed significant changes, including increased treatment effectiveness, systems integration, family involvement, youth pro-social behaviors, and agency collaboration (Butts and Roman 2007). From this SOC effort, we can identify critical factors to improve permanency outcomes for older youth in the child welfare system. In addition to utilizing a team-based approach, service coordination and implementation are (a) guided by youth and family members who provide input on treatment decisions and planning at every stage and where discussion centers around their strengths versus pathology, (b) community based by drawing upon the available resources within the individual’s cultural context (e.g., church, tribe), and (c) individualized to address a youth’s specific needs and promote successful completion of required treatment (Begich et al. 2007).

Protecting Our Protectors: Caseworkers are the Most ‘Precious Resource’

This study further confirms the fact that frontline workers are child welfare agencies’ most “precious resource” (Pecora et al. 2009, p.327), possessing a wealth of knowledge and ideas to improve practice and policy. Implications derived from results include how agencies can support child welfare workers by understanding how and what they think about permanency, how these attitudes are translated into practice, and the congruence between knowledge, skills, and awareness.

The frustration expressed by caseworkers across agencies was not a surprise given the literature on burnout and retention in child welfare. For example, a workforce study by Cyphers (2001) found that the first 3 years of employment as a child welfare caseworker are the most tenuous, yielding the highest rate of turnover due to job-related dissatisfaction. Similarly, a study on stressors among clinical social workers (Um and Harrison 1998) demonstrated that role conflict, or the discrepancy between expectation about the job and actual role, is related to burnout. For example, some caseworkers’ intentions toward seeking permanency were often thwarted by competing demands, including lack of youth and family involvement, intensive and large caseloads, and pressures to focus on independent living skills and/or preparation for emancipation.

Child welfare agencies must recognize the significance of caseworker morale and attitudes, and their impact on outcomes for youth and families. Many caseworkers enter into the field with ideals of promoting social justice and change for under-served populations, most often aware of the emotional and physical challenges associated with the job. However, these noble attitudes are at risk for shifting into despondence when not buffered with collegial and agency support. Some examples of support include staff training and professional development for caseworkers working with older youth (e.g., seminars led by permanency planning experts; participation in older youth permanency think tanks with other counties or states), self-care workshops designed to help caseworkers manage burnout and compassion fatigue, and increased and ongoing dialogue between frontline workers and administration about what caseworkers are observing in the field. (Pecora et al. 1985).

Creating a ‘Culture of Permanency’ for Older Youth in Care

As past studies have suggested (e.g., Freundlich et al. 2006), identifying what it means for an older youth to achieve permanency is complex and often depends on who is being asked. It is also important to question how these definitions and attitudes are translated into action. Broadly, how does what one thinks influence what one does? Two consistent and related themes heard across all focus groups, were the heavy emphasis placed on approaches to independent living and lack of focus on relational or legal permanency for older youth with APPLA. As highlighted in the results, caseworkers found it easy to come up with practices related to enhancing life skills, but not with ideas to assist youth with achieving permanent relationships. The content and patterns of these conversations reveal deep-rooted attitudes toward older youth in which preparation for adulthood includes just as its name suggests—“independent” living skills. According to Webster-Merriam’s dictionary (2012) a definition of independence is “not relying on someone or others (as for care or livelihood).” Caseworkers and inevitably the youth they serve are immersed in a culture where self-sufficiency is rewarded and that focuses on education and/or employment outcomes. Yet, what many youth may not hear as frequently is that they also need positive lifelong relationships with adults and that it is okay to rely on others.

The interplay between legislation (e.g., Foster Care Independent Act of 1999), programs (e.g., Chafee Foster Care Independence Program), and practice was most apparent with caseworkers’ continued emphasis on increasing funds and services to enhance independent living services and related programs. Missing from the discussion was whether the existing independent living services produced the sustained effect intended or any positive effect at all (Georgiades 2005). The perhaps unconscious partiality toward independent living services underscores the need for agencies to evaluate the ‘culture of permanency’—or lack thereof—and its impact on practice. What messages are agency leaders sending to staff about older youth in care? At what point do conversations about permanency with youth begin and end? How are youth and families involved in the permanency planning? What types of training do caseworkers receive in permanency planning? What types of tasks are valued and reinforced within an agency—the prompt completion of paperwork or the pursuit of permanency? Through professional development and technical assistance opportunities, these questions may be adequately addressed. Moreover, the very process of engaging in dialogue about permanency generates agency consciousness and enables stakeholders to clarify values and articulate strategies that reflect these values such as concurrent planning, intensive reunification services, and open adoption policies.

Limitations

Limitations of this study include the method of recruitment, the relatively small sample size, and lack of generalizability of the findings. Given the restraints in resources (e.g., staff, time, budget), the latitude to conduct more purposive sampling strategies such as maximum variation (Patton 1990) was not possible. Ideally, a larger and more diverse group of caseworkers would have provided a broader range of experiences on working with older youth in care. Follow-up interviews with caseworkers with a high number of cases closed through reunification, adoption, and guardianship would also have offered more insight into factors associated with permanency outcomes. The study’s findings may not reflect the experiences of caseworkers without youth with APPLA on their caseloads. These limitations, however, do not diminish the utility of this study to the participating agencies, policy makers, and researchers.

Overall, this study challenges individuals and organizations working with older youth to consider the numerous factors influencing youth trajectories within foster care. Caseworkers’ perspectives offer valuable insight into the effect of the work environment and organizational culture on practice as well as their attitudes toward permanency and ideas for youth services that span beyond traditional strategies and programs.