Frost, Reihonna L.

Goldberg, Abbie E.

English

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst

AbstractAmong the adoptable children in US foster care, some are listed as part of a siblinggroup and many more are listed as individuals, with recommendations for continuedcontact with biological siblings. The Fostering Connections to Success and IncreasingAdoption Act mandates that agencies prioritize placing sibling groups togetherwhenever possible, however, there are many barriers to accomplishing this goalincluding difficulty recruiting adoptive parents who are willing to adopt multiplechildren at the same time (Waid, 2014). No known research explores how siblingrelationships and possible sibling group placements are presented in recruitmentmaterials. The current qualitative study aims to address this gap by exploring theways that siblings and sibling relationships are discussed in state photolistings ofadoptable children in foster care. Analyses focused on the profiles of adoptablechildren listed in five states (i.e. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Florida andArizona), representing each of the four major regions of the United States (UnitedStates Census Bureau, n.d.). Findings indicate that there is wide variation in howsibling relationships are described, ranging from only mentioning an imperative tomaintain visitation (e.g. “Parents must be willing to maintain contact with child’ssister.”) to postings that use descriptions of sibling relationships to illustratesomething about the child’s personality or to demonstrate how the child interacts in afamily. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.IntroductionThere are 100,000 adoptable children in foster care in the US at any given time (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 2015), and of those, an estimated 23%are listed for adoption as members of a sibling group (McRoy & Ayers-Lopez, 2014).Still, it is evident that even more sibling relationships exist among children who arenot listed together, because an estimated 65% of children in foster care have at leastone other sibling in care (Hegar, 2005). While keeping siblings together in adoptiveplacements is a goal, barriers to this goal persist, including adoptive parent'sreluctance to adopt multiple children at the same time (Waid, 2014). No knownresearch has focused on how adoptive families are recruited for sibling groups or howdifferent types of sibling relationships are explained to potential adopters.AdoptUsKids, an organization funded through the Children’s Bureau to supportadoptions from foster care, created a guide for improving photolistings of adoptablechildren (AdoptUsKids, 2017). They emphasized that the goal of photolistings shouldbe to “Interest families and help them feel a connection to the child, so they moveforward in learning more about adoption.” Further, this work encouraged socialworkers to write photolisting posts that are strengths-based and positive and thatillustrate who a child is in a way that allows families to imagine the child in theirlives. Finally, this work emphasized that photolisting are the most public part of arecruitment campaign and should not contain any sensitive information about thechild or other family members. Sibling-specific recommendations includedrepresenting how siblings relate to each other if they are listed in a sibling group andto note important family connections if those should be maintained after adoption.Research QuestionsLittle research to date has focused on the contents of adoption photolistings. Noknown research has focused on the presentation of sibling relationships inphotolistings. The current study addresses the following research questions:1. How are siblings and sibling relationships described in adoption photolistings?How is sibling contact described in photolistings?2. In what ways do descriptions of sibling relationships enhance or detract from thegoals of photolistings? How can descriptions of siblings be emphasized in orderto meet these goals?MethodParticipantsData from 5 states (i.e. Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Florida and Arizona),including listings for 1214 children were analyzed. Among these 1060 listings, 959individual postings and 101 sibling group listings were included (see Table 1 fordescriptions of listings by state). These listings were collected from the internetduring the month of February 2018. These five states were chosen because they (NewYork, Ilinois, Florida and Arizona) were the largest states available for downloadfrom each of the four major regions of the United States (United States CensusBureau, n.d.). Additionally, Massachusetts was included as it was the first state tocreate a photolisting services (Freundlich, Gerstenzang & Blair, n.d.). All availablelistings in each state were included in the project.Table 1Amounts and Types of Photolistings, by StateChild Reasons to Maintain ContactFor other listings (n=195), sibling contact recommendations were presented as based on the desires or needs of the child. In the simplest form, listings state that the relationship is important to them. For example, “[Child]’s relationship with his brother is very important to him and will need to be maintained.” For others, there is more elaboration about why the relationship is important or how maintaining the relationship would be beneficial. For instance, “[Child] and her sister have been through a lot together and find comfort in supporting each other. This relationship should be maintained after adoption.” Or “[Child] loves to play with her siblings and should be allowed to maintain a relationship with them.” Still other listings identify the choice to maintain contact as based on the request of the child. One representative posting read, “[Child] is open to any type of family as long as he can stay in touch with his sister!”In these types of postings, the recommendations for ongoing contact are coupled with descriptions of how the child interacts with family members and maintains relationships. While these listings do present requirements for after the adoption, they also provide ideas about the benefits of such a task. In addition, these more elaborate postings sometimes tied the contact recommendations to other information about child’s interpersonal style or behavior, allowing the posting to represent more about the child.Sibling Relationship ContentIn addition to mentioning contact planning for the future, some listings (n=144)provided elaborated descriptions of the relationships between siblings. Descriptions of sibling relationships occurred both in singleton listings (n=94) and in sibling group listings (n=50). How the descriptions were used in context varied considerably, with different types of relationship content shared. Visitation DescriptionsSibling relationships were often elaborated on when describing the child’s current visitation schedule. That is, when a child listed as a singleton or as a sibling group has some regularly scheduled visitation with a sibling, this was mentioned. Often, this visitation was described solely based on the scheduling, including statements like, “[Child] has monthly visits with her sister who is in a separate placement.” When those siblings are not listed together, some postings elaborated on the reason for this using statements like, “[Child] enjoys visits with her brother who has already been adopted” or “[Child] enjoys regular contact with his sister, who he cannot be placed with.” Often, descriptions like these were paired with recommendations for future contact. “[Children] visit with their two brothers regularly and these visits will need to continue after placement.”When visitations were described in sibling group listings, these statements indicated is the siblings currently lived together or how often they visited each other. In addition, these types of listings included discussions of visits with other siblings as appropriate. “These brothers enjoy monthly visits with their two sisters who are placed separately.” In this way, discussions of sibling visitations served to demonstrate important relationships in the life of the child or children. Further, these descriptions provide information about the types of experiences the child currently has in foster care.Sibling InteractionsA minority of posts included descriptions of sibling relationships that went beyond descriptions of visitations or contact recommendations. These types of listings included discussions of activities that children enjoy together, qualities they share or ways that they help each other. That is, these listings used elaboration to describe what was important about the sibling relationship or how the relationship functioned in the life of the child. For example, “[Child] enjoys reading to her siblings and helping with their care.” Other postings used descriptions of the sibling relationship to highlight characteristics about the child’s personality or the ways that the child behaves in a family. For instance, “[Child] and her sister enjoy being active together and visiting the park.”These descriptions were present in singleton listings and sibling group listings, butwere more common in sibling group listings. When used with sibling groups, thesetypes of relationship descriptions served to illustrate the characteristics of the siblinggroup. Sibling groups were often described as a “bonded pair” or a “close set ofsiblings.” Other content focused on describing how the children interact when theyare together. For instance, listings might emphasize that one child is “the talkativesibling” while another “takes a while to warm up.” These descriptions help toillustrate how the children interact with each other and, perhaps, how they would actin an adoptive home.For some sibling group listings, this type of description of the group made up the majority of the listing, with little or no discussion of the children as individuals. Interestingly, there was a subset of sibling group listings that did not mention the relationships between the siblings and focused only on describing them as individuals. These types of sibling group descriptions give no indication of the type of sibling relationship shared by the group. This may make it difficult for a prospective adoptive family to imagine how the children would be as members of their family.Prospective Sibling RecommendationsInterestingly, many photolistings (n=283) made suggestions about the preferred family configurations for adoption, including any adoptive siblings. Many listings specified that homes without other children would be preferable for the adoption. For example, a representative posting stated, “The social worker believes that [Child] would do best in a family where she is the youngest or only child within the family.” Still, other listings suggested that this factor was less salient. “He will do well in a family of any constellation, with or without other children in the home.” There were also listings that stated a preference for placing the child with other children, usually because this was seen as important to the child. For example, “She would do best in a home where she has older siblings as she enjoys being with older children.” The prevalence of these types of recommendations makes it clear that children’s interactions with other children as seen as important predictors of their success in a new family. ConclusionWhile many photolistings of single children do mention siblings in their life, aminority of the listings use these relationships to enhance the description of the listedchild in a way that helps a potential adopter to view them as a member of a family.Further, sibling group listings often missed the opportunity to elaborate on siblingrelationship characteristics in ways that could motivate adopters to keep siblingstogether. From the minority of photolistings that did use these tactics, it is clear thatsibling relationships can be used to demonstrate a child’s behavior in a family and toillustrate their ability to make and maintain close relationships. Further, siblingrelationships can be described in ways that emphasize the importance of keepingsiblings together in adoption.ReferencesAdoptUsKids. (2017). Creating effective narratives for children waiting to be adopted. Retrieved from https://www.adoptuskids.org/_assets/files/AUSK/Publications/AUSK_CreatingEffectiveNarratives_Booklet_final-web-508.pdfBraun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.Freundlich, M., Gerstenzang, S. & Blair, E. (n.d.). Lasting impressions: A guide for photolisting children. Retrieved from http://adoptuskids.org/_assets/files/NRCRRFAP/resources/lasting-impressions.pdfHegar, R. L. (2005). Sibling placement in foster care and adoption: An overview of international research. Children and Youth Services Review, 2(7), 717-739.McRoy, R., & Ayers-Lopez, S. (2014). Ad hoc report: Characteristics analyses of children and youth photolisted with siblings on the AdoptUSKids website and prospective adoptive families registered on the AdoptUSKids and open to adopting two or more children. The University of Texas at Austin, Center for Social Work Research. United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). Census regions and divisions of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/gtc/gtc_census_divreg.htmlU.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2015). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2014 estimates as of July 2015 (22). Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/afcarsreport22.pdfWaid, J. (2014). Sibling foster care, placement stability, and well-being: A theoretical and conceptual framework. Journal of Family Social Work, 17, 283-297.“Siblings wish to be adopted together”: An Exploratory Study of Descriptions of Sibling Relationship in State PhotolistingsReihonna L. Frost & Abbie E. GoldbergProcedurePhotolistings for each state were collected from all websites used by that state for thispurpose. Collected listings were imported into NVivo 11 and coded for siblingcontent by first author and a trained undergraduate student. Data was analyzed usingthematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).Analysis focused on content related to the listed child(ren)’s siblings who were listedwith them or were not part of the posting. Specific attention was paid to discussionsof sibling relationships, contact recommendations, and reasons for placement choices.In addition, instances of other types of sibling relationships were coded includingrecommendations for possible other children in an adoptive home.ResultsAmong adoption photolistings, sibling relationships and sibling-related contentappeared in several ways. Broadly, sibling relationships were described in terms ofsibling’s relationships with each other, in relation to plans for ongoing contactbetween siblings and when describing recommendations from future adoptivesiblings. Here we describe the specific ways that siblings and sibling relationships aredescribed, with special attention to the roles of sibling relationships in different typesof photolistings.Among singleton and sibling-group listings, some patterns of discussing siblingrelationships were common. Those included recommendations for future siblingcontact, sibling relationship content and prospective sibling recommendations.Table 2Types of Sibling Content, by Listing TypeSpecial thanks to May Feynman and Alex Frost-Calhoun for help with data collection, technical support and coding.Massachusetts New York Illinois Florida Arizona Total sample Total Children 292 205 40 602 75 1214Total Listings 226 199 30 533 72 1060Singleton 182 193 25 490 69 959Sibling Group (group size)44 (2-6 kids)6 (2 kids)5 (2-5 kids)43 (2-6 kids)3 (2 kids)101Singleton(n; % of n = 959)Sibling Group (n; % of n = 101)Total sample (n; % of n = 1214 )Sibling Contact Recommendations 237 (24.7%) 46 (45.5%) 283 (23.3%)Imperative 79 (8.2%) 18 (17.8%) 97 (8.0%)Child Reasons 159 (16.6%) 36 (35.6%) 195 (16.1%)Sibling Relationship Content 94 (9.8%) 50 (49.5%) 144 (11.9%)Prospective Siblings 251 (26.2%) 32 (31.7%) 283 (23.3%)Sibling Contact RecommendationsOne common way siblings were mentioned (n=283) was in recommendations forongoing contact. In both individual and sibling group listings, siblings were oftenlisted in order to describe how relationships would need to be maintained after anadoption. In individual listings, sibling contact recommendations could be for othersiblings in foster care, children placed in another setting or for children who livedwith their biological family. In sibling group listings, the sibling contactrecommendations may be about the siblings in the group, articulating the need toadopt the group together, or the recommendations could be for additional childrenoutside of the sibling group. Still, the ways that these sibling contactrecommendations were made varied significantly.Imperative to Maintain ContactFor some (n=97) listings, sibling contact recommendations were stated asrequirements that parents would need to fulfill, often in addition to otherrequirements in the adoption (e.g. ongoing contact with other family, maintainingsupport services, engaging schools). In these instances, no mention of the the child orchild’s preferences were made and listings contained no references to the importanceof this relationship in the life of the child. For example, “[Child] has a brother whohe will need to maintain contact with after adoption.”In these instances, sibling relationships serve as another demand or task faced byprospective adoptive parents, with no presented benefits. Further, in these instances itis not possible to imagine the type of relationship these children have or to imaginethe role they would play in the child’s life.

“Siblings Wish to Be Adopted Together”: An Exploratory Study of Descriptions of Sibling Relationship in State Photolistings

https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=rudd_conf

“Siblings Wish to Be Adopted Together”: An Exploratory Study of Descriptions of Sibling Relationship in State Photolistings

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UMass Amherst