-
empirical and theoretical work. In conclusion, it is suggested
that there is a need for more studies
programme evaluation, there has been little reference to the
lack of theoretical
exploration (Courtney & Hughes, 2003).
Children and Youth Services Review
28 (2006) 422434
www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouthgrounded in theory.
D 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Young people; Care; Attachment theory; Focal theory;
Resilience; Empirical work; Social exclusion
1. Introduction
There is a substantial body of international research studies,
both quantitative and
qualitative, on young people aging out of care, but very few of
these studies have been
informed by theoretical perspectives. Also, whereas the weakness
of the empirical
portfolio has been highlighted, especially the need for more
outcome monitoring andYoung people aging out of care:
The poverty of theory
Mike Stein
Social Work Research and Development Unit, B Block, Alcuin
College,
University of York, York YO10 5DD, England
Received 9 March 2005; received in revised form 27 April 2005;
accepted 8 May 2005
Available online 5 July 2005
Abstract
Although there is a growing body of international empirical work
on young people aging out of
care, very few of these studies have been informed by
theoretical approaches. Set in the context of
social exclusion, this paper explores three perspectives that
may contribute to a greater
understanding of the main findings from empirical research:
attachment theory; focal theory;
and resilience. Each perspective includes a discussion of the
implications for practice in linking0190-7409/$ -
doi:10.1016/j.c
E-mail address: [email protected] front matter D 2005 Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.
hildyouth.2005.05.005
-
press; Chase, Knight, Warwick & Aggleton, 2003; Priestley,
Rabiee & Harris,2003).
Broad (1999), discussing the findings from his policy survey of
leaving care teams
in England, has argued that the problems of young people leaving
care were derived
from a mixture of dsocial justiceT issues (structural exclusions
and inequalities) dsocialwelfareT issues (poor parenting) and
dtechnical difficultiesT (skill deficits). Leavingcare workers
responding to his survey suggested that young people would
benefitThe purpose of this article is to explore potential
theoretical directions. Set in the
context of social exclusion, three different perspectives will
be introduced: attachment
theory; the focal modal of adolescence; and resilience. The
discussion will draw, where
available, upon the small number of studies that have engaged
these perspectives, as
well as discuss the links with the main empirical research and
the implications for
practice.
2. The social exclusion of young people aging out of care
International research has shown the high risk of social
exclusion for young people
aging out of care. They are more likely than other young people
to be homeless or
on the streets, be young parents, have poorer educational
qualifications, lower levels
of participation in post-16 education, higher levels of
unemployment, offending
behaviour, and mental health problems (Asquith, 1999; Biehal,
Clayden, Stein &
Wade, 1995; Bilson, Armstrong, Buist, Caulfield-Dow &
Lindsay, 2000; Broad, 1998,
1999; Cashmore & Paxman, 1996; Council of Europe, 1994;
Courtney, Piliavan,
Grogan-Kayor & Nesmith, 2001; Dixon & Stein, 2003;
Festinger, 1983; Harwin,
1996; Kelleher, Kelleher & Corbett, 2000; Morgan-Klein,
1985; Pinkerton & McCrea,
1999; Smit, 1995; Stein, 2004; Stein & Carey, 1986; Stein,
Pinkeron & Kelleher,
2000).
In European social policy discourse, social exclusion has come
to mean both
material disadvantage and marginalisation. Whereas the former is
usually associated
with low income and relative poverty, the latter refers to the
way groups may be
excluded, omitted or stigmatised by the majority due to
characteristics such as gender,
age, ethnicity, appearance or behaviour. Also, these two
meanings are often linked,
merging causes and outcomes such as unemployment and social
isolation (Hill,
Davis, Prout & Tidsall, 2004).
In this context, the international research evidence summarised
above, suggests
young people aging out of care are among the most excluded
groups of young
people in society. Many experience a cluster of problems both
whilst they are in
care, including stigma, especially at school, and after they age
out of care,
including dependency on benefits, mental health problems and
loneliness (Courtney
et al., 2001; Dixon, Lee, Wade, Byford & Weatherly, 2004;
Stein, 1994). Specific
groups of care leavers may face additional disadvantages: young
minority ethnic
people; young disabled people; and young parents (Barn, Andrew
& Mantovani, in
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
423from policies to address the former although they are usually
offered assistance with
the latter, especially after they leave care (Broad, 1999).
-
3. Theoretical perspectives and their implications for
practice
3.1. Attachment theory
Bowlbys groundbreaking theoretical formulations of the links
between early adversity
leading to later emotional and behavioural problems, and young
childrens attempts to
cope psychologically with the loss of a parent, combined with
Ainsworths classification
of attachment behaviour within a variety of distinct care giving
environments, laid the
foundations of attachment theory (Howe, 1995). Theoretical work
on attachment and loss
has documented the impact of actual or threatened separation on
young children and
patterns of behaviour produced by unsatisfactory interaction
with parents, as well as
separations per se (Ainsworth & Eichberg, 1991; Bowlby,
1973, 1982a,b).
Research has also explored how disturbances in attachment are
reflected in the way a
child sees the world and processes informationvia an internal
working modeland how
these processes may lead to enduring styles of relationships in
childhood, adolescence
and adulthood. It has been suggested that children develop one
of four basic internal
working models which give rise to distinct attachment styles:
secure attachment patterns
experiencing their caregiver as available and themselves
positively; ambivalent
patterns experiencing their caregiver as inconsistently
responsive and themselves as
dependent and poorly valued; avoidant patterns experiencing
their caregiver as
consistently rejecting and themselves as insecure but
compulsively self-reliant;
disorganised patterns experiencing their caregivers as either
frightening or frightened
and themselves as either helpless or angry or controlling. Each
pattern is associated with a
characteristic set of emotional and relationship behaviours
(Bretherton, 1991; Crittenden,
1992; Downes, 1992).
A consistent finding from research studies of young people aging
out of care, carried
out between 19802004, has been their experience of instability
and placement disruption
following their initial or later separation from their birth
families. In these studies between
3040% of young people had four plus moves and within this group
between 610% had a
very large number of moves as many as ten or more (Stein,
2004).
Qualitative studies have added to this picture. For the young
person dplacementmovementT often meant an abrupt end to a foster
care or childrens home placementaccompanied by a sense of failure,
guilt and blame, as well as changing carers, friends,
neighbourhoods, schools on several occasions (Biehal et al.,
1995; Dixon & Stein, in
press; Kelleher et al., 2000; Pinkerton & McCrea, 1999;
Stein & Carey, 1986).
Downes (1992) has carried out one of the very few studies of
care leavers grounded
within attachment theory. She draws on attachment theory to
offer a framework for
understanding adolescents reactions to the experience of being
fostered. Her work is
based on an intensive study of the interaction between fostered
adolescents and foster
family members in 23 time limited placements over a two and a
half year period.
Her findings show the difficulties many of the young people had
in accepting help or
committing themselves to close relationships, often because of
past difficulties, including
rejection in their birth families. They may become either highly
dependent on others or
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434424highly independent, keeping people who are important to
them at arms length. Unless this
is addressed, these patterns of relating may continue into
adulthood, thus denying them
-
satisfaction in personal relationships, and the help they may
need, especially during
transition (Downes, 1992).
Sinclair, Baker, Wilson and Gibbs (2005) in their study of the
outcomes of young
people leaving foster care found a strong attachment to at least
one adult was associated
with dgood outcomesT, (as defined by foster carers, young people
and a measure of well-being). Some young people were able to
establish and maintain good relationships with a
member of their birth family from whom they could get support,
or a sustained
relationship with their foster family, or have good
relationships with their partner and their
partners family. There were examples of formalising attachments
with foster carers within
the study foster carers being paid a retainer while a young
person was at university and
then full board when they returned.
3.2. Attachment theory: implications for practice
Attachment theory offers a perspective for understanding the
life stories of young
people aging out of care (Howe, 1995; Schofield, 2001). It
provides a framework for
exploring their separation from their families and the
circumstances surrounding it, their
care careers including placement disruption or stability, and
the legacy of these
experiences for their lives after care.
Assisting young people who are unable to remain with their birth
parents should begin
with a shared process of assessment, exploring attachment
behaviour through patterns of
interaction with significant adults and peers. The
identification of patterns of attachment
(as identified above) may guide the work to be undertaken by the
foster carers, their social
worker and the young person.
In general terms there is the need to provide young people with
stable foster placements
that can help them overcome their earlier problems and provide
them with a strong
emotional platform for their journey to adulthood. Young people
need to be able to
experience their foster carers as a secure base, to provide them
with opportunities and
active encouragement to explore and become confidant in the
adult world.
However, knowledge of attachment patterns may also point to more
specific aims and
interventions. Downes (1992) gives a number of examples. The aim
in interaction with
anxiously attached young people is to increase their confidence
in the availability and
reliability of attachment figures, as evidenced by young people
increasing their distance
range from foster parents and other significant adults, but
without losing the capacity for
closeness. By contrast the aim of work with emotionally detached
young people is to
encourage and enable them to test themselves out in less
distanced interactions, to move
closer to their foster carers. Foster carers may also support
young peoples efforts to
reappraise their relationships with parents and other
significant attachment figures. It is
through the achievement of what Downes calls these dpsychosocial
tasksT that youngpeople are able to make progress in negotiating
the transition to adult life: dthe tasks ofthe placement is to
enable adolescents to negotiate the transition to adult life
successfully. They will be helped in doing so if they are able
to increase their capacity
for making trusting relationships with adults and peers and to
manage more flexibly the
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
425way they regulate physical and emotional distance between
themselves and othersT(Downes, 1992, p147).
-
3.3. The focal model of adolescence and transitions
Focal theory or the dfocal model of adolescenceT is concerned
with how young peoplecope with changes in their lives. It was
developed by Coleman partly in response to the
sharp divergence between the dempiricalT view of adolescence,
derived from research, andthe dclassicalT view, derived from
psychoanalytical and sociological perspectives (Cole-man, 1974,
1978, 1979, 1980). Coleman has argued that a wide range of research
provides
little support for psychoanalytical or sociological theories
which misrepresent adolescence
as a time of either great psychological disturbance or deviant
behaviour.
The model grew out of a study of normal adolescent development
which tested large
samples of young men and young women at the ages of 11, 13, 15
and 17, and elicited
from them attitudes and opinions about a wide range of
relationships. Data was gathered
on self-image, being alone, sexual relationships, parental
relationships, friendships, and
large group situations. The material was analysed in terms of
the constructive and negative
elements present in these relationship situations, and in terms
of the common themes
expressed by the young people involved in the study.
The findings showed that attitudes to all relationships changed
as a function of age, but
more importantly the results also indicated that concerns about
different issues reached a
peak at different stages in the adolescent process. For example,
conflict with parents
peaked at 17, fears of rejection from peer group peaked at 14,
and anxiety over sexual
relationships peaked at 11 years of age. The model suggests that
at different ages particular
sorts of relationship patterns come into focus, in the sense of
being the most prominent,
but that no pattern is specific to one age only. Thus the
patterns overlap, different issues
come into focus at different times, but simply because an issue
is not the most prominent
feature of an age does not mean that it may not be critical for
some individuals.
Coleman argues that the focal modal differs from developmental
stage theory in three
respects: first, the resolution of one issue is not seen as a
sine qua non for tackling the next
stage; second, the model does not assume the existence of fixed
boundaries between stages
and, therefore issues are not necessary linked to a particular
age or developmental level;
third, there is nothing immutable about the sequence involved
(Coleman & Hendry, 1999).
The model has been tested empirically and received support
through large research
studies carried out in Scotland, the United States and New
Zealand (Hendry, Shucksmith
& McCrae, 1985; Kroger, 1985). In addition, Simmonds and
Blythe tested the proposition,
contained within the focal model, that those who adjust less
well during adolescence are
likely to be those who have to face more than one interpersonal
issue at a time (Simmonds
& Blythe, 1987). The authors documented the life changes
occurring for the young people
in their study, and related the number of changes to outcome
measures such as self-esteem
and academic performance. They concluded that among boys and
girls, those who
experienced a greater number of life changes were at greater
risk in terms of the outcome
variables.
3.4. The focal model: implications for practice
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434426How might this perspective apply to young people aging out
of care? A consistent
finding from studies of care leavers is that a majority move to
independent living at just 16
-
or 17, whereas most of their peers remain at home well into
their twenties, and for many of
these young people, leaving care is a final event, there is no
option to return in times of
difficulty. Also, they often have to cope with major status
changes in their lives at the time
of leaving care: leaving foster care or their childrens home and
setting up a new home,
and for some young people starting a family as well; leaving
school and finding their way
into further education, training or employment, or coping with
unemployment. In short,
their journey to adulthood is both accelerated and compressed
(Stein, 2004). They are
denied the psychological opportunity and space to focusor to
deal with issues over time
and are expected to undertake their journey to adulthood, from
restricted to full
citizenship, far younger and in far less time than their peers
(Lister, 1998).
Also, as youth transitions have become more extended in post (or
late?) modern
societymore risks and opportunitiesthe family plays an
increasing role in providing
financial, practical and emotional support (Beck, 1992; Giddens,
1991; Joseph Rowntree
Foundation, 2002). But for many care leavers their family
relationships at this time may be
missing or problematic rather than supportive (Biehal &
Wade, 1996).
In addition, whereas the process of social transition has
traditionally included three
distinct, but related stages: leaving or disengagement;
transition itself; and integration into
a new or different social state, for many young people leaving
care there is the expectation
of instant adulthood (Hart, 1984). They often miss out on the
critical preparation stage,
transition itself that gives young people an opportunity to
dspace outT, provides a time forfreedom, exploration, reflection,
risk taking and identity search. For a majority of young
people today this is gained through the experience of further
and, especially, higher
education but many care leavers, as a consequence of their
pre-care and care experiences,
are unable to take advantage of these educational opportunities
(Jackson, 2001; Social
Exclusion Unit, 2003). Their journey to adulthood or full
citizenship is, in effect, a
conflation of these three stages into the final stage.
In summary, the focal model points to the need for more
recognition of the nature and
timing of young peoples transitions from care. This will include
the opportunity for more
normative transitions, giving young people the emotional and
practical support they will
need into their early twenties, providing them with the
psychological space to cope with
changes over time, as well as recognising the different stages
of transitions, including the
significance of the middle stage, transition itself.
3.5. Resilience
The origins of resilience as an empirical and theoretical
construct were derived from
the evidence that many children of schizophrenic mothers thrived
despite their high risk
status (Garmezy, 1974; Masten, Best & Garmezy, 1990).
Werners ground breaking
studies of children in Hawaii led to the expansion of resilience
research to include
multiple adverse conditions such as poverty, parental mental
illness, maltreatment, chronic
illness and catastrophic life events (Luthar, Cicchetti &
Becker, 2000; Werner, Bierman &
French, 1971).
Resilience can be defined as the quality that enables some young
people to find
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
427fulfillment in their lives despite their disadvantaged
backgrounds, the problems or
adversity they may have undergone or the pressures they may
experience. Resilience is
-
about overcoming the odds, coping and recovery. But it is only
relative to different ages
and cultures, and risk experiencesrelative resistance as
distinct from invulnerabilityand
is likely to develop over time (Masten, 2001; Masten &
Powell, 2003; Rutter, 1999;
Schofield, 2001).
Luthar and colleagues have identified three theoretical
perspectives as guiding
resilience research: first, a triarchic framework identifying
the risk and protective
processes in relation to children and young people, their
families and their wider social
environments; second, ecological theory exploring the influence
of different contexts
varying in proximity to the individual child; and third a
structuralorganisational
perspective, grounded in the belief of continuity and coherence
in the unfolding of
competence over time, and the importance of individual choice
and self-organisation
(Luthar et al., 2000). The main thrust of empirical work has
been to identify the risk and
protective factors in relation to children and young people,
their families and their wider
social environments.
The resilience of young people from very disadvantaged family
backgrounds has been
found to be associated with: a redeeming and warm relationship
with at least one person in
the family or secure attachment to at least one unconditionally
supportive parent or
parent substitute; positive school experiences; feeling able to
plan and be in control; being
given the chance of a dturning pointT, such as a new opportunity
or break from a high-riskarea; higher childhood IQ scores and lower
rates of temperamental risk; and having
positive peer influences (Rutter, Giller & Hagell,
1998).
A research review of the international literature on resilience
factors in relation to
the key transitions made by children and young people during
their life cycle has added
to this picture. As well as the first three factors identified
above, the authors conclude
that children and young people who are best equipped to overcome
adversities, will
have: strong social support networks; a committed mentor or
person from outside the
family; a range of extra-curricular activities that promote the
learning of competencies
and emotional maturity; the capacity to re-frame adversities so
that the beneficial as
well as the damaging effects are recognised; the abilityor
opportunityto make a
difference, for example, by helping others through volunteering,
or undertaking part-
time work; and exposure to challenging situations which provide
opportunities to
develop both problem-solving abilities and emotional coping
skills (Newman &
Blackburn, 2002a,b).
As suggested at the beginning of this article, many young people
leaving care have
very poor life chances compared to their peers, but not all do.
Research studies
completed since the 1980s suggest that in broad terms young
people leaving care fall
into one of three groups: young people dmoving onT who are very
resilient and ableto manage well after care; dsurvivorsT who are
just about coping but whose resilienceis closely linked to the
professional and personal support they received; and dvictimsT who
are very disadvantaged and need sustained support (Biehal et al.,
1995; Dixon
& Stein, in press; Pecora et al., 2004; Sinclair et al.,
2005; Stein, 1990; Stein & Carey,
1986).
What are the links between empirical research on care leavers
and the resilience
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434428promoting factors identified above? Why do some young
people leaving care, against all
odds, cope well and what are the implications for practice?
-
3.6. Promoting resilience: implications for practice
Young people who experience stable placements providing good
quality care are more
likely to have positive outcomes than those who have experienced
further movement and
disruption during their time in care. Stability has the
potential to promote resilience in two
respects. First, by providing the young person with a warm and
redeeming relationship
with a carer or as detailed above, in the account of attachment
theory, a compensatory
secure attachment which may in itself reduce the likelihood of
placement breakdown
(Rutter et al., 1998). Second, and not necessarily dependent on
the first, stability may
provide continuity of care in young peoples lives, which may
give them security and
contribute to positive educational and career outcomes (Jackson,
2002, 2003; Jackson &
Thomas, 2001).
Helping young people develop a positive sense of identity,
including their self-
knowledge, their self-esteem and self-efficacy, may also promote
their resilience (Gilligan,
2001). And although not explicitly recognised as a variable in
the research literature on
resilience, identity could be seen as connected to, as well as a
component of, key
associations: feeling able to plan and be in control; the
capacity to re-frame adversities so
that the beneficial as well as the damaging effects are
recognised; personality or lower
rates of temperamental risk (Newman & Blackburn, 2002a,b;
Rutter et al., 1998).
Helping care leavers develop a positive identity is linked to
first, the quality of care and
attachments experienced by looked-after young people a
significant resilience
promoting factor discussed above; second, to their knowledge and
understanding of their
background and personal history; third, to their experience of
how other people perceive
and respond to them; and finally, how they see themselves and
the opportunities they have
to influence and shape their own biography.
Having a positive experience of school, including achieving
educational success is
associated with resilience among young people from disadvantaged
family backgrounds
and young people living in care (Newman & Blackburn,
2002a,b; Rutter et al., 1998;
Sinclair et al., 2005). Research studies completed on young
people leaving care since the
beginning of the 1970s show low levels of attainment and
participation beyond the
minimum school leaving age. However, good outcomes are
associated with placement
stability, gender (young women do better than young men, as
reflected in national data), a
carer committed to helping the young person and a supportive and
encouraging
environment for study. This may also include the foster families
own children providing
help and acting as role models (Biehal et al., 1995; Jackson,
Ajayi & Quigley, 2003).
There is also evidence that young people who have had several
placements can achieve
educational success if they remain in the same school and this
also meant that they were
able to maintain friendships and contacts with helpful teachers.
Also, late-placed young
people who may have experienced a lot of earlier placement
disruption, can succeed in
foster care, although this was seen by young people and their
foster carers as more of a
service relationship than a substitute family (Jackson et al.,
2003).
School or care itself may also provide turning points (Rutter et
al., 1998), open the door
for participation in a range of leisure or extra-curricular
activities that may lead to new
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
429friends and opportunities, including the learning of
competencies and the development of
emotional maturity and thus promote their resilience (Newman
& Blackburn, 2002a,b).
-
Indeed, resilient young people had often been able to turn their
negative experiences at
home, or in care, into opportunities, with the help of
others.
Preparation for leaving care may also provide young people with
opportunities for
planning, problem solving and the learning of new competencies
all resilience
promoting factors (Newman & Blackburn, 2002a,b; Rutter et
al., 1998). This may include
the development of self-care skills personal hygiene, diet and
health, including sexual
health; practical skills budgeting, shopping, cooking and
cleaning; and interpersonal
skills managing a range of formal and informal relationships.
Preparation should be
holistic in approach, attaching equal importance to practical,
emotional and interpersonal
skills not just, as in the past, ddomestic combat coursesT for
young people to manage ontheir own at 16 (Stein & Carey, 1986;
Stein & Wade, 2000).
As the discussion of focal theory and transitions suggests, many
young people leaving
care have compressed and accelerated transitions to adulthood
which represents a barrier
to promoting their resilience. They are denied the psychological
opportunity to focus to
deal with changes over time which is how most young people are
able to deal with
problems and challenges. Also, as discussed above, they may
often be lacking the range
and depth of family support of their peers and they may be
denied the opportunity to
dspace outT a period of risk taking, reflection and identity
search.The resilience of young people after leaving care, is
closely associated with their care
experience and the support they may receive. As suggested above
three doutcome groupsTcan be identified from research studies.
First the dmoving onT group are likely to have had stability and
continuity in their lives.They have welcomed the challenge of
independent living and gaining more control over
their lives often contrasting this with the restrictions imposed
while living in care,
including the lack of opportunities to make or participate in
decisions, which affected their
lives. They have seen this as improving their confidence and
self-esteem. In general, their
resilience has been enhanced by their experiences after care and
they have been able to
make good use of the help they have been offered, often
maintaining contact and support
from former carers (Schofield, 2001; Sinclair et al., 2005).
The second group, the dsurvivorsT, had experienced more
instability, movement anddisruption while living in care than the
dmoving onT group. What made the difference totheir lives was the
personal and professional support they received after leaving
care.
Specialist leaving care workers, key workers, as well as mentors
the latter identified in
the international review as a resilience promoting factor
(Newman & Blackburn, 2002a,b)
and different family members, or some combination of support
networks, could help them
overcome their very poor starting points at the time of leaving
care and thus promote their
resilience (Biehal et al., 1995; Clayden & Stein, 2002;
Dixon & Stein, 2003; Marsh &
Peel, 1999).
The third group, the dvictimsT, was the most disadvantaged
group. They had themost damaging pre-care family experiences and,
in the main, care was unable to
compensate them, to help them overcome their past difficulties.
After leaving care they
were likely to be unemployed, become homeless and have great
difficulties in
maintaining their accommodation. They were also highly likely to
be lonely, isolated
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434430and have mental health problems. Aftercare support was
unlikely to be able to help
them overcome their very poor starting points and they also
lacked or alienated
-
with non-experimental designs, that is evaluated interventions
with no random allocation
adulthood. PhD Thesis, University of York Library, York.Barn,
R., Andrew, L., Mantovani, N. (in press). Life after care: A study
of young people from different ethnic
groups. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London7
Sage.or pre-intervention matching of groups, most often without a
comparison group (Courtney
& Hughes, 2003; Stein, 2004). In addition to these single
project evaluations there are
examples of user studies, surveys and cohort studies but far
fewer studies with
experimental or quasi-experimental designs (Stein, 2004). The
state of empirical
knowledge is predominantly descriptive rather than
evaluative.
Second, and central to the rationale of this paper, most of
these studies are detached from
theory in terms of context, conceptual exploration or theory
building. This paper has
presented three different perspectives and attempted to link
these with selected empirical
findings: attachment as an example of theory; the presentation
of the focal model of
adolescence as an example of a theoretical model; and resilience
as an example of a concept.
But these are not the only theoretical possibilities. Baldwin
(1998) and Horrocks (2002), for
example, have applied life course theory to explore transitions.
Also, the relationship
between developmental perspectives, including a life span
approach, and the three selected
approaches remains contested are they conceptually and
theoretically integrated or
distinct? (Coleman & Hendry, 1999; Luthar et al., 2000).
Finally, it is recognised that this paper is very much a
beginning, derived from selected
theoretical approaches and perspectives. But it does demonstrate
in a small way that
linking empirical and theoretical work has the potential to
enhance our understanding of
aging out of care issues, as well as the theoretical foundations
of practice.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Eichberg, C. (1991). Effects on
infant mother attachment of mothers unresolved loss of
an attachment figure, or other traumatic experience. In C. M.
Parkes, J. Stevenson-Hinde, & P. Marris (Eds.),
Attachment across the life cycle. London7 Routledge.Asquith, S.
(1999). Street children, children in the street in Central and
Eastern Europe. Belgium7 King Baudouin
Foundation.
Baldwin, D. (1998). Growing up in and out of care: An
ethnographic approach to young peoples transitions topersonal
support. But it was important to these young people that somebody
was there
for them.
4. Conclusion
This paper began by suggesting that the main body of
international research on young
people aging out of care has been largely empirically driven as
distinct from theoretically
based. This observation merits further discussion.
First, although there is both quantitative and qualitative
research in this field, recent
reviews carried out in the US and UK identifies the main bulk of
empirical work as studies
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
431Biehal, N., Clayden, J., Stein, M., & Wade, J. (1995).
Moving on: Young people and leaving care schemes.
London7 HMSO.
-
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434432Biehal, N., & Wade, J. (1996). Looking back, looking
forward: Care leavers, families and change. Children and
Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 425445.
Bilson, A., Armstrong, C., Buist, M., Caulfield-Dow, A., &
Lindsay, M. (2000). A safe launch, Scottish
throughcare and aftercare in a European context. Centre for
Europes children, Scottish throughcare and
aftercare forum. Glasgow7 Scottish Throughcare and Aftercare
Forum.Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss. Separation: Anxiety
and anger, vol. 2. London7 Hogarth.Bowlby, J. (1982a). Attachment
and loss. Attachment, vol. 1. London7 Hogarth first published
1969.Bowlby, J. (1982b). Attachment and loss. Loss: Sadness and
depression, vol. 3. London7 Hogarth.Bretherton, I. (1991). Roots
and growing points in attachment theory. In C. M. Parkes, J.
Stevenson-Hinde, & P.
Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle. London7
Routledge.Broad, B. (1998). Young people leaving care: Life after
the Children Act 1989. London7 Jessica Kingsley.Broad, B. (1999).
Young people leaving care: Moving towards djoined upT solutions?
Children and Society, 13(2),
8193.
Cashmore, J., & Paxman, M. (1996). Wards leaving care: A
longitudinal study. New South Wales7 NSWDepartment of Community
Services.
Chase, E., Knight, A., Warwick, I., & Aggleton, P. (2003).
Pregnancy and parenthood among young people in and
leaving local authority care. Report for the Department of
Health. London7 Thomas Coram Research Unit.Clayden, J., &
Stein, M. (2002). Mentoring for care leavers, evaluation report.
London7 Princes Trust.Coleman, J. C. (1974). Relationships in
adolescence. London7 Routledge and Kegan Paul.Coleman, J. C.
(1978). Current contradictions in adolescent theory. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 7, 131141.
Coleman, J. C. (Ed.). (1979). The school years. London7
Methuen.Coleman, J. C. (1980). Friendship and the peer group in
adolescence. In J. Alderson (Ed.), Handbook of
adolescent psychology. New York7 John Wiley.Coleman, J. C.,
& Hendry, L. (1999). The nature of adolescence. London7
Routledge.Crittenden, P. M. (1992). Childrens strategies for coping
with abuse and neglect: An interpretation using
attachment theory. Child Abuse and Neglect, 16, 329343.
Council of Europe. (1994). Street children. Co-ordinated
research programme in the social field, SO-COORD.
Strasbourg7 Council of Europe.Courtney, M. E., & Hughes, D.
(2003). The transition to adulthood for youth daging outT of the
foster care system.
Chicago7 Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of
Chicago.Courtney, M. E., Piliavan, I., Grogan-Kayor, A., &
Nesmith, A. (2001). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: A
longitudinal view of youth leaving care. Child Welfare, 6,
685717.
Dixon, J., Lee, J., Wade, J., Byford, S., & Weatherly, H.
(2004). Young people leaving care: An evaluation of
costs and outcomes. Report to the DfES. York7 University of
York.Dixon, J., & Stein, M. (2003). Leaving care in Scotland:
The residential experience. Scottish Journal of
Residential Child Care, 2(2), 716.
Dixon, J., & Stein, M. (in press). Leaving care, throughcare
and aftercare in Scotland. London: Jessica Kinsley.
Downes, C. (1992). Separation revisited. Aldershot7
Ashgate.Festinger, T. (1983). No one ever asked us: A postscript to
foster care. New York7 Columbia University Press.Garmezy, N.
(1974). The study of competence in children at risk for severe
psychopathology. In E. J. Anthony, & C.
Koupernik (Eds.), The child in his family: Children at
psychiatric risk, vol. 111 (pp. 457). New York7 Wiley.Giddens, A.
(1991).Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late
modern age. Cambridge7 Polity Press.Gilligan, R. (2001). Promoting
resilience: A resource guide on working with children in the care
system. London7
BAAF.
Hart, A. (1984). Resources for transitions from care. Leaving
care where? Conference report. London7National Association of Young
People in Care.
Harwin, J. (1996). Children of the Russian state. Aldershot7
Avebury.Hendry, L. B., Shucksmith, J., & McCrae, J., (1985).
Young peoples leisure and lifestyles in modern Scotland.
Department of Education, University of Aberdeen and Scottish
Sports Council, Edinburgh.
Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A., & Tidsall, K. (2004). Moving
the participation agenda forward. Children and
Society, 18(2), 7796.
Horrocks, C. (2002). Using life course theory to explore the
social and developmental pathways of young peopleleaving care.
Journal of Youth Studies, 5(3), 325335.
-
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 422434
433Howe, D. (1995). Attachment theory for social work practice.
London7 Macmillan.Jackson, S. (Ed.). (2001). Nobody ever told us
school mattered. London7 BAAF.Jackson, S. (2002). Promoting
stability and continuity of care away from home. In D. McNeish, T.
Newman, & H.
Roberts (Eds.), What works for children? Buckingham7 Open
University Press.Jackson, S., Ajayi, S., & Quigley, M. (2003).
By degrees: The first year, from care to university. The Frank
Buttle
trust, London. Jones, G., Wallace, C. (1992) Youth, family and
citizenship. Buckingham7 Open UniversityPress.
Jackson, S., & Thomas, N. (2001). What works in creating
stability for looked after children? Barkingside7Barnardos.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation. (2002). The youth divide.
Foundations. York7 Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Kelleher, P.,
Kelleher, C., & Corbett, M. (2000). Left out on their own,
young people leaving care in Ireland.
Dublin7 Focus Ireland.Kroger, J. (1985). Relationships during
adolescence: A cross national comparison of New Zealand and
United
States teenagers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 8, 4756.
Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship on the margins: Citizenship,
social work and social action. European Journal of
Social Work, 1, 518.
Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The
construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines
for
future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543562.
Marsh, P., & Peel, M. (1999). Leaving care in partnership:
Family involvement with care leavers. London7 TheStationery
Office.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in
development. American Psychologist, 56,
227238.
Masten, A., Best, K., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and
development: Contributions from the study of
children who overcome adversity. Development and
Psychopathology, 2, 425444.
Masten, A. S., & Powell, J. L. (2003). A resilience
framework for research, policy and practice. In S. S.
Luthar (Ed.), Resilience and vulnerabilities: Adaptation in the
context of childhood adversities (pp. 125).
New York7 Cambridge University Press.Morgan-Klein, B. (1985).
Where am I going to stay? Edinburgh7 Scottish Council for Single
Homeless.Newman, T., & Blackburn, S. (2002a). Transitions in
the lives of children and young people: Resilience factors.
Interchange, vol. 78. Edinburgh7 Scottish Executive.Newman, T.,
Blackburn, S. (2002b). Transitions in the lives of children and
young people: Resilience factors,
Report for the Scottish Executive Education and Young People
Research Unit, Edinburgh (www.scotland.
gov.uk /library5/education/ic78-00.asp).
Pecora, P. J., Williams, J., Kessler, R. J., Downs, A., OBrien,
K., Hiripi, E., et al. (2004). Assessing the effects of
foster care: Early results from the Casey national alumni study.
Seattle, WA7 Casey Family Programs http://www.casey.org
Pinkerton, J., & McCrea, R. (1999). Meeting the challenge?
Young people leaving care in Northern Ireland.
Aldershot7 Ashgate.Priestley, M., Rabiee, P., & Harris, J.
(2003). Young disabled people and the dnew arrangementsT for
leaving care
in England and Wales. Children and Youth Services Review,
25(11), 863890.
Rutter, M. (1999). Resilience concepts and findings:
Implications for family therapy. Journal of Family Therapy,
21, 119144.
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial
behaviour by young people. Cambridge7 CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Schofield, G. (2001). Resilience and family placement: A
lifespan perspective. Adoption and Fostering, 25(3),
619.
Simmonds, R., & Blythe, D. A. (1987). Moving into
adolescence. New York7 Aldine de Gruyter.Sinclair, I., Baker, C.,
Wilson, K., & Gibbs, I. (2005). Foster children, where they go
and how they get on.
London7 Jessica Kinsley.Smit, M. (1995). Preparation for
discharge from residential care: A report from the Netherlands. In
V. E. Mech, &
J. R. Rycraft (Eds.), Preparing foster youths for adult living.
Washington7 Child Welfare League of America.Social Exclusion Unit.
(2003). A better education for children in care. London7 The
Stationery Office.
Stein, M. (1990). Living out of care. Barkingside7
Barnardos.
-
Stein, M. (1994). Leaving care, education and career
trajectories. Oxford Review of Education, 20(3), 349360.
Stein, M., & Carey, K. (1986). Leaving care. Oxford7
Blackwell.Stein, M., Pinkerton, J., & Kelleher, J. (2000).
Young people leaving care in England, Northern Ireland, and
Ireland. European Journal of Social Work, 3(3), 235246.
Stein, M., & Wade, J. (2000). Helping care leavers: Problems
and strategic responses. London7 Department ofHealth.
Stein, M. (2004). What works for young people leaving care?
Barkingside7 Barnardos.Werner, E. E., Bierman, J. M, & French,
F. E. (1971). The children of Kauai Honolulu. University of
Hawaii
Press.
M. Stein / Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006)
422434434
Young people aging out of care: The poverty of
theoryIntroductionThe social exclusion of young people aging out of
careTheoretical perspectives and their implications for
practiceAttachment theoryAttachment theory: implications for
practiceThe focal model of adolescence and transitionsThe focal
model: implications for practiceResiliencePromoting resilience:
implications for practice
ConclusionReferences
