MAKING IT WORK: A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF LIFE IN A GROUP
HOME
Brittany Carolonna Auernig
B.A, California State University, Sacramento 2008
THESIS
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
SOCIOLOGY
at
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, SACRAMENTO
FALL
2011
© 2011
Brittany Carolonna Auernig
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
MAKING IT WORK: A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF LIFE IN A GROUP
HOME
A Thesis
by
Brittany Carolonna Auernig
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Ellen Berg, Ph.D.
__________________________________, Second Reader
Cid Martinez, Ph.D.
___________________________
Date
iii
Student: Brittany Carolonna Auernig
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Amy Liu, Ph.D
Department of Sociology
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
MAKING IT WORK: A QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION OF LIFE IN A GROUP
HOME
by
Brittany Carolonna Auernig
A group home is a home for children who have experienced various types of abuse
and/or neglect by a parent/guardian and are for some reason unable to be maintained in
typical foster care placements. Group home life is complex and vastly understudied. This
qualitative study interviewed six female residents and four staff at a local group home to
investigate the informal structures, social orders and overall perception of group home
life. Multiple parallels were found between the experiences of the group home residents
and those of prison inmates, reinforcing that group homes operate in many ways as “total
institutions” and residents are often learning unhealthy behaviors from their peers.
Recommendations for a more effective group home program arose from the research and
are centered on making the group home environment feel more like “real life.” Residents
need a sense of family, support, caring, and trust which is difficult to create with staff
members who by necessity must enforce professional boundaries. Some possible steps to
address this seeming dilemma are proposed.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Ellen Berg, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
DEDICATION
I would like to dedicate this thesis to my amazing family members, each of whom
supported me differently but provided me what I needed to see it to its completion. I
would also like to separately acknowledge my grandfather, Willard Hinckley. He and I
shared many conversations over the years that both enlightened and motivated me. He
was an avid supporter of my educational goals and sadly passed away before he could see
me achieve them. His presence is greatly missed.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to acknowledge the inspirational instruction and supervision of Dr.
Ellen Berg. Dr. Berg has given me a deep appreciation and love for Sociology. Without
her guidance and support this would have been far more grueling than it was.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Dedication .......................................................................................................................... vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... x
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
Statement Of Research Question ............................................................................ 1
Significance Of The Study ...................................................................................... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................... 7
Pre-Placement ......................................................................................................... 8
While In Group Home .......................................................................................... 12
Post Group Home .................................................................................................. 19
Ideas For Change .................................................................................................. 21
3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 24
Location ................................................................................................................ 24
Participants ............................................................................................................ 27
Data Collection ..................................................................................................... 28
4. RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 32
Life In The Group Home Is Not Like “Real Life” ................................................ 32
Emotional Attachment Is A Part Of “Real Life” .................................................. 40
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix A Consent Forms.............................................................................................. 56
Appendix B Resident Interview Questions ....................................................................... 67
viii
Appendix C Focus Group Questions ................................................................................ 69
Appendix D Staff Interview Questions ............................................................................. 70
Appendix E Human Subjects Approval ............................................................................ 72
References ......................................................................................................................... 77
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Possible “Front Half” Work Schedule for Group Home Staff Member .............. 47
Table 2 Possible “Back Half” Work Schedule for Group Home Staff Member .............. 47
x
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Statement Of Research Question
Imagine what it would be like for a child to go to a place where there is no family, no
familiarity, and a significant amount of chaos. This child did nothing to deserve being
ripped out of his or her home, except be born into an unfit environment (i.e. unsafe
environment, abusive parents, etc.). Many children who have experienced maltreatment
in their lives are sent to live in a group home (sometimes called residential institutions).
A group home is a facility that offers 24-hour care by paid staff who attempt to provide a
therapeutic environment (Baker and Caldron 2004). The maltreatment these children
experience tends to come from a parent or guardian. There is an extensive process to this,
and usually a child ends up in a group home as a last resort (Ryan, Marshall, Herz, and
Hernandez 2008).
Once a case has been reported and accepted as factual, Child Protective Services will
attempt to intervene and give the family resources to help with the child. During the
intervention process, which usually lasts 12 months, Family Preservation and Support
Services will come into the home and help the family. These programs will assist the
family in identifying the problems that would result in losing their parental rights. These
programs will provide goals and timeframes for the parents to fix the identified problems.
If the family is still unable to support the child by filling his or her basic needs, the state
will take custody of the child (California Department Of Social Services 2007).
2
The maltreatment these children experience can be physical, emotional, sexual,
and/or neglect (Ackerman and Dozier 2005). Such maltreatments cause many children to
develop psychological problems, behavioral issues and/or physical impairments. These
mental and/or physical impairments leave children in need of counseling and behavior
management, sometimes requiring an extended group home stay. Also, many children,
prior to their group home placement lived in unsafe neighborhoods and in turn have gang
affiliations and have learned the rules of the street and how to survive on them.
Using the framework developed by Anthony Bottoms (2003) to understand
interactions in a prison environment this study focuses upon group home residents’
multiple interactions. Bottoms investigated the social order in prisons by focusing on the
multiple interrelationships between inmates, guards, and the environment. This research
focuses on the informal structures and social order within group homes. It also
investigates the interrelationships between residents, staff members, and the environment
from the perspective of the resident.
Bottoms suggests that it’s important to look at the inmates’ personal backgrounds and
individual characteristics. While this researcher is unable to take into account the
personal histories of the residents due to the subjects’ ages (being considered legal
minors), this study does take into account the general population’s history and
background. Bottoms looked at prisoners’ social orders, informal rules prisoners create,
and how policies affect the individual prisoner. From my own previous experience
working at a local group home, I observed residents creating their own informal rules and
structure regardless of what the policies are. This is comparable to what Bottoms (2003)
3
was investigating in the prisons. From what I have witnessed, the informal structures
created by the residents are geared towards socializing one another in order to create
interpersonal bonds. I have also observed how, at different stages of a group home
resident’s stay, he or she interacts with his or her staff and peers differently. Lastly, I
have noticed how the physical structure of the building affects the residents. I have heard
many residents say that the building alone makes them feel angry.
Group home life can be extremely stressful for a child. Not only are children living
with multiple deviant peers, but staff turn over rates are high and programs change
constantly. As a supervisor, I was dealing with staff members who were paid extremely
low hourly wages while often working 12-hour days in a challenging environment. Many
staff last less than one year because of these circumstances. Also, there were changes to
the program because nothing seemed to be working. These changes may be why the
children create their own structures, as a way to achieve some consistency. There are a
few questions associated with this thesis:
1) What are the informal structures and social order within group homes and how do
residents develop them?
2) What are the interrelationships between residents, staff and the environment from
the perspective of the resident? How do these interrelationships affect the
residents’ development and their socialization process?
3) Based on previous research and the results of this study, is it possible to create a
program that is successful? If so, what would it entail?
4
Through interviews and a focus group, the researcher found answers to why and how
group home residents create their own informal structures, how they view interactions
with staff members and peers, and how their living conditions affect them personally. To
uncover these informal structures and how they affect the children, a qualitative analysis
was particularly effective. Interviewing children from a local group home helped the
researcher understand the impact their living conditions have on the individual residents
from their own perspectives. A focus group was also used to see how the children interact
with one another. Since interaction is an integral part of group home life and a key factor
in child development (Akers and Sellers 2009), the focus group allowed the researcher to
observe the roles each resident played within her environment. The focus group also
provided a forum for free discussion and gave residents an opportunity to discuss issues
that had not necessarily been asked.
Discovering how these children view the informal structures within group homes
might give group home staff a better understanding of their residents’ needs. It’s easy to
point the finger at a problem but often much harder to find a solution. This researcher
will propose changes that will improve the environment and outcomes for group home
residents. These solutions will give current group home administrators a better
understanding of their residents’ needs and daily challenges, along with some ideas on
how to restructure their program in order to be more successful. “Success” can be defined
as residents moving out of a group home to a lower level of care such as a foster care or
lower-level group home.
5
Significance Of The Study
This research will aid in the development of successful group home structures and
raise awareness of the need for positive change. According to the Administration for
Children and Families (2010), in 2008 group homes/institutions served over 75,000
young persons in the United States alone. This is a large number, and there have been few
research studies on this population. If group home supervisors are aware of the informal
structures group home residents create and the interrelationships that affect them, the
supervisors might be better equipped to understand the true needs of the child.
Supervisors will ideally also become more understanding of the challenges these children
face being labeled a “group home child.” Children who have experienced group home life
have a lower probability of success because of the lack of support and guidance
(Gramkowski, Kools, Paul, Boyer, Montasterio, and Robbins 2009). Once aged out of the
system, success for former group home residents can be defined as simply not ending up
incarcerated, homeless and/or repeating the cycle of abuse and neglect with their own
children. This research will ideally give group home management a better explanation of
risk factors that contribute to residents’ difficulties, along with a program that will help to
limit these negative factors. In addition, this research will offer solutions and/or
informative tools to alleviate the drastic struggles that group home children face. The
questions asked in the interview will be geared towards how group homes affect residents
personally. The researcher came up with some recurring themes that will help in the
creation of a better program that takes the resident’s informal structures and social order
6
into account. This research will be a tool for group home supervisors to create a facility
that helps their residents create realistic and positive goals.
Previous research has focused on children living in group homes from a psychological
perspective or a sociological perspective but rarely both. Social psychology can be
defined as the study of relations between people and groups. This study is investigating
just that - the study of relations between residents and the group around them (i.e. peers,
staff members and the environment). Identity theory provides one relevant explanation of
the development process young people go through. According to Sandstrom, Martin and
Fine (2010) identity theory plays an essential role in explaining the negative selfidentities these children create because of their previous maltreatment. Identity theory can
also be used as a framework when discussing how these negative self-identities can lead
to negative peer interactions. Few researchers have had the opportunity to interview
group home residents to get a personal account of their living situations and their ideas
for change. Many researchers focus their study primarily on the solution without going
into any depth about the problem, while others focus on the problem and give no
solution. This study will hopefully bring a new perspective to this area of research by
locating the issues within the group home from the child’s perspective and then figuring
out a solution to lessen any future negative effects on the residents. Also, this research
will allow the children to assist in the creation of the program. This will be done by
asking them what they perceive current problems to be with group home programs, what
they feel their needs are, and which needs aren’t being met.
7
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Key steps of socialization happen during childhood and early adolescence.
Children who are removed from unhealthy homes have typically missed out on some of
these key steps. In some cases these children have not only missed out on these important
steps but also these steps are replaced by negative stimuli, such as abuse. When they
enter the group home, their situation just gets worse. They are out of the unhealthy home
environments but are put into a facility with similar youth who have their own unique
behavioral issues and developmental problems. If they are going to be helped it is
necessary to understand the several stages of their life in order to better understand how
each stage impacts the others. It’s important to recognize the importance of each stage so
that when investigating life in the group home, there is a foundation for what the children
have gone through prior to placement and, ultimately, how their group home experience
may affect their adulthood. Due to the many issues corresponding with group home
adolescents’ development, this literature review will use an integrative life-span approach
to understand the many experiences of group home children (Akers et al. 2009).
The first section of this literature review will cover the typical development of a
child, specifically focusing on the issues that foster youth face during their prime
developmental years. It will focus on social bonding theory emphasizing the relationships
with the parents and/or guardians prior to being taken into the system. The next section
will focus on group home life using social learning theory to analyze the
interrelationships between peers, staff, and the environment (both internal and external).
8
Labeling theory will also be used here to explain the negative self-image these children
develop due to their “group home child” label. Some research in this section will focus on
prison culture as corollary to group home life along with the similarities associated with
them both. The third section of this literature review will focus on strain theory and the
issues that arise after children leave a group home and foster care. The last section will
cover previous programmatic research from other group homes and institutions. This will
assist me in developing a new program along with giving the reader a better
understanding of how group homes currently operate.
Pre-Placement
Bottoms (2003) explains that it’s crucial to take into account the history and
background of the client when investigating his or her environment. While this research
doesn’t have the means to do that because the subjects are minors, a general analysis of
this population will lay the foundation for what these children typically have gone
through and the hardships they have faced.
Social Bonding Theory. According to Akers (2009), states that social bonding
theory has four primary “elements”–attachment, commitment, involvement, and beliefs.
Akers states, “the stronger the social bond with parents/guardians the more the
individual’s behavior will be controlled in the direction of conformity” (2009:219).
Children who have been maltreated have a poor social bond with their parents and thus
have a weaker ability to conform to social norms. Akers defines attachment as the
affection and admiration towards, and identification with others. Maltreatment can be
construed as being disliked or disapproved of by a parent or guardian. This leads to a lack
9
of affection and a void in admiration for parents and guardians, and an inability to
identify with him or her. Sandstrom, Martin, and Fine state, “If we believe others view us
negatively, we feel ‘mortified’ and develop low self esteem” (2010:122). This idea
explains how a child who is abused or maltreated can have a poor vision self image and
their identity. If a child has low self-esteem he or she may be more likely to partake in
high-risk behaviors and/or have a disregard for people of authority like a foster parent,
group home staff member, and/or guardian.
Stryker and Vryan (2003) further explain that the meaning of self is developed
through interaction and the location of oneself in socially recognized categories. Children
raised in a nuclear family are socialized through the continuous interactions with their
parents; they are able to create their self-identity by consistently learning different roles
from their parents. Maltreated children may learn to create their own structures because
it’s ultimately easier for them to live up to their own low standards than the expectations
of others (group home staff, foster parents, guardians, etc.). Understanding how these
children develop negative self identities early in their lives makes it easier to see why,
when surrounded by like peers, their interactions will be unhealthy and destructive.
Due to the maltreatment these children have experienced many residents have
faced multiple placements and a lack of parental involvement. Commitment and
involvement are the second and third elements that Akers (2009) discusses. Commitment
refers to an individual’s investment in conventional activities while involvement is said to
be the amount of time an individual spends doing these conventional activities. However,
because these children have been moved so many times, they are unable to participate in
10
conventional activities and thus, have little commitment to conventional activities.
Sandstrom et al. (2010) explains that when a child loses a significant person in his or her
life—such as a parent or guardian— or is removed from that individual’s care, the child
is likely to experience a significant sense of disruption and a loss of self. A child in a
group home may be incapable of grasping the concepts of commitment and involvement
because of the original maltreatment. Trickett (1993) further explains that it’s not simply
physical abuse that causes maladaptive behavior and maladjustment in the child, but also
rejection, lack of caring and involvement, verbal abuse, and a host of other factors that
add up to define what can be characterized as a poor, malfunctioning child-rearing
environment.
Belief is a final key element in children’s development (Akers 2009). Akers
defines belief as the “endorsement of general conventional values and norms”
(2009:130). According to Lutfey and Mortimer, “It is among families that children
develop physically, cognitively, and acquire the sense of social self and language skills
that are required for interaction with others” (2003:186-187). So, parents and/or
guardians are responsible for teaching children conventional values and norms. Children
who are maltreated and removed from the home miss out on this developmental stage.
When a child lacks attachment, commitment, involvement and/or belief it can reduce
conformity and ultimately lead to deviancy. Van der Kolk (2005) adds that children learn
to regulate their behavior through the responses of caregivers whom they trust. Again,
children who are abused and taken out of the home miss out on the understanding of
behavioral reactions.
11
Beidy (1977) broke down the difference in abused children versus neglected
children. He indicated that abused children are significantly more aggressive than nonabused children. Neglected children tended to be non-aggressive in unstructured
environments, but fail to learn the skills necessary to cope non-aggressively with the
provocations and frustrations inherent in more structured environments such as school.
Understanding what these children experience pre-placement is crucial to understanding
the importance of investigating what goes on in the group home. A group home is a home
for children that have experienced all kinds of abuse and neglect. Children come in to the
group home with their own individual issues, but since they are a member of the
collective whole, those issues become a part of the entire group home make up.
Biological Theory. According to Akers (2009), current biological theories have
utilized new ways of investigating biological causes for actions. Attention is now focused
on the interaction between biological factors and the social environment. For example,
Van der Kolk (2005) discussed children’s impairment from early complex trauma. He
defined complex trauma as chronic prolonged traumatic events that would remove a child
from a home. According to Van der Kolk, “Chronic trauma affects the neurobiological
development and the capacity to integrate sensory, emotional and cognitive information
into a cohesive whole” (2005:402). Van der Kolk makes a bold statement when he says
the entire criminal justice population has a history with childhood trauma. Van der Kolk
explains in depth how chronic exposure to trauma creates developmental issues that lead
to functional impairments. He states that when trauma occurs, this creates negative selfattribution, a distrust of caregivers, loss of trust in people associated with helping, lack of
12
recourse to social justice and future victimization. Van der Kolk states, “After a child is
traumatized multiple times, the imprint of the trauma becomes lodged in many aspects of
his or her makeup” (2005:407). Children who have experienced maltreatment in their
lives are predisposed to a number of developmental issues and eventual impairments.
These issues could be a precursor to criminality among children who have experienced
trauma such as continuous maltreatment. This is important to understand because
children living in a group home may have functional impairments and developmental
issues due to the chronic trauma they have experienced.
Cullerton-Sen, Cassidy, Murra-Close, Chicchetti, and Crick (2008) showed a link
between maltreatment and physical/relational aggression. These authors explained that
maltreatment could disrupt the internal development of a child. In other words, a child’s
view of his or her self-worth is altered negatively by abuse. Mistreated children carry this
negative internal representation into relationships with their peers. These children usually
misinterpret social cues and perceive threats from peers, which may result in an
aggressive response. Culletron-Sen et al. (2008) found that family systems that
experience maltreatment not only increase children’s physical aggression but also the
degree to which they relationally manipulate their peers. The maltreatment these children
experience becomes a part of their overall makeup. The maltreatment becomes a part of
who they are and ultimately how they will respond to various life circumstances.
While In Group Home
According to the Administration for Children and Families (2010), in 2008 there
were 170,143 youth ages 12-18 in the United States foster care system. Within the foster
13
care system, 16% (76,287) of all youth 20 years and younger were in group homes or
institutions. Of the entire American foster care population in 2008, 31% (142,502) of the
children were African American. The average age of entry into the system was eight
years old. The average length of stay for group homes and/or temporary placement was
21.8 months. According to Ryan et al. (2008), youth placed into group homes tend to be
older in age (12-18 years old) and non-Caucasian. They typically have a range of
behavioral and emotional issues often resulting in involvement with the juvenile justice
system. Ryan et al. (2008) found considerable evidence to show that victims of
maltreatment have an increased risk of juvenile delinquency. Of all arrests in the child
welfare system, 40% were associated with group home placement. Since my research is
unable to give the exact demographics of the population being studied—they are legal
minors—the aforementioned statistics will provide a framework for the overall
population.
According to the California Department Of Social Services (2009), group homes
are divided into 14 different levels depending upon the services that are provided to the
child and the intensity of treatment required. Since the agency in this study provides 24hour childcare and supervision, along with social work activities, and mental health
treatment, it would be classified somewhere between levels 12-14. Generally speaking,
the higher the level, the more behavioral issues the children have. This leads to more
high-risk interactions and negative socialization from peers.
Social Learning Theory. As a child ages the family becomes less of a primary
group for development and peers become more influential. Especially, as is the case for
14
group home adolescents, when the family network is completely removed and the peer
group surrounds the child all day, every day. According to Akers and Sellers (2009),
social learning theory is the idea that people learn through the interactions with others. In
terms of criminology and group home youth, there is continuous pressure from peers in
the group home to assimilate to a deviant lifestyle, thus the majority of children conform
to deviancy.
Group home adolescents are often surrounded by residents with psychological
problems, behavioral issues and/or physical impairments. Dupree (2008) proposed a
developmental model of how exposure to non-normative social contexts can help predict
future negative transitions. This grouping of disadvantaged children leads to negative and
high-risk interactions, such as, but not limited to, fighting, sexual activity, and/or drug
use. Residents want to feel socially connected with other residents, and in order to do that
they must interact with their peers. According to Gramkowski et al. (2009), adolescents’
perception of peers and their behaviors impact that child’s own behavior. So, if a child’s
peers at a group home are engaging in high levels of risky behavior, this will more often
result in the child partaking in similar disruptive behavior so that they can feel connected
and a part of the group.
Bottoms (2003) investigated the social interrelationships between inmates, guards,
and the environment. This system of analysis is a significant step in understanding group
home residents. Like a prisoner entering prison, an adolescent enters a group home. A
prisoner is surrounded my other prisoners charged with different crimes. A group home
resident is surrounded by peers with unique behavioral and emotional issues. Placing a
15
child in an environment where she/he is surrounded by deviant peers, especially those
who are sexually active is a key factor in predicting future negative behavioral patterns in
a child. Jahnukainen and Jarvinen (2005) discuss how social environment and identity are
interrelated, meaning that with different experiences comes different understandings.
Through different social context, individuals learn their own place in society.
Labeling Theory. Adams, Robertson, Gray-Ray, and Ray (2003) define labeling
theory as, “The perceived negative societal reactions (that) lead to the development of
negative self-conceptions and greater delinquent involvement.” Akers and Seller (2009)
explain that labeling theory clarifies the power of a social label. Negative factors
associated with the title “group home child” lead to depersonalization and a stigmatized
sense of self. Akers and Seller (2009) further states that individuals can become what
others think they are. If the outside community views foster youth as damaged, the
children view themselves in this same context. Since others view them as delinquents
and/or impaired due to their foster care status, the youth take on these same
characteristics because this is how they define themselves.
The construction of self has implications for how an individual views his or her
future. Kools (1997) explains that children begin to internalize all the negative labels
associated with being a part of the foster care program (or in this case group homes).
Self-identity, self-esteem, and self-concept are all affected negatively because of this
internalization of others’ negative labels. This negative self-outlook affects all the
resident’s relationships, both with other residents and with staff. These relationships
become unhealthy, and ultimately the entire group home structure may be affected
16
negatively because of the individual’s negative self-image. This self-image was
developed prior to placement but is still being perpetuated while in placement. Ryan et al.
states, “Youth in congregate residential settings, and specifically the prolonged exposure
to high risk peers, has the unintended effect of exacerbating deviance via positive social
relationships” (2008:2-3). Living in group homes according to Ryan et al. (2008), gives
residents a sense of social anxiety due to the continual increase of peer pressure.
Social psychologists focus on symbolic interactionism to define the role of
interaction between an individual and the rest of society. This is similar to what Bottoms
(2003) examined in his analysis of prison relationships. Bottoms investigated the
inmates’ interrelationship with the rest of the prison. Kools (1997) says that peer
interaction for foster youth can create stigmatized self-identity, which leads to low selfconfidence and lack of future orientation. This may lead group home adolescents to have
a skewed perception about the important factors in life. Since peers and staff members
surround group home children day in and day out, their self-identity and the interaction
with peers and staff members are interwoven.
The interrelationships play a large role in the overall development of a group home child.
These interrelationships may lead to more deviant behavior, academic problems and
placement instability. A larger study of 302 children ages 6-12 completed by Zima,
Bussings, Freeman, Yang, Belin, and Forness (2000) showed that 69% of children in
foster care exhibited behavioral issues, academic skill delay and/or school failure. Zima’s
et al. research found that children living in group homes had three times the odds of
repeating at least one grade. Also, placement instability was highly correlated to
17
academic skill delays. Ryan et al. (2008) explains that youth in group homes received Cs
or lower in their classes. Most of them are in remedial and low-level classes. Ryan et al.
states that these students lack opportunities to do extra-curricular activities and to
surround themselves with socially healthy peers. Surrounding a group home youth with
healthy peers would allow them to feel like they are healthy as well. Being a part of a
group labeled “healthy” would allow group home kids to feel healthy.
Prisons. Prison life is very similar to that of group home life. Group home
children are under constant surveillance by staff, surrounded by peers all day, and have a
very structured day. Prisoners lead relatively similar lives. They are under constant guard
supervision, are surrounded by other prisoners, and have structured days. Prison research
will be used here to give a better understanding of the issues these children face. Since
prisons are composed of many individuals, with relatively similar histories, living
together under constant surveillance from staff (guards). Garbedian’s (1963) study of
prisons can be correlated to what group home residents experience. Garbedian explains
that socialization of inmates happen at varying degrees and rates. Garbedian along with
several other researchers, broke down inmates’ prison sentences into three phases. The
first phase is the first six months of placement. During this time, Garbedian concluded
that the new inmates’ dominant process was isolation from other inmates and guards. The
second phase was known as the involvement phase. Garbedian believed that there were
internal pressures from other inmates to get involved. This was believed to be the case
because this was the point at the furthest point from the free community. Hayner and Ash
(1940) explained that inmates who want a favorable position within the social structure of
18
prisoners must adopt the patterns of behavior inline with the prison culture. Eventually,
prisoners in order to “fit-in” must assimilate to the prison culture. Jensen and Jones
(1976) explained that in the middle-phase inmates were more likely to take on contrary
views of official expectations in order to “fit-in.”
The last phase Garbedian (1963) discussed contains a process known as
anticipatory socialization, which means that prisoners go through a “change of heart”
where they re-conform to the rules placed on them by the guards. This phase is usually
the last six months of the sentence. Garbedian notes however that a large portion of
released inmates return for either parole violations or new offenses. This is important
because, at least from my own experience, many group home residents return to group
home life quickly after graduating the program.
While it may seem like an odd transition to go from group homes research to
regarding prison research, the similarities between the two are numerous. Jensen and
Jones (1976) make clear that younger inmates reported breaking prison rules more
frequently. Jensen and Jones also noted that age appears to be a key factor in
consequences for inmate behavior, reactions to behavior, and normative orientation
toward prison staff. What this means for the present project is that the younger the age of
the inmate the more behavioral issues and the quicker assimilation to prison norms.
Group home residents are at a prime age for behavioral disruption and quick socialization
to a negative culture.
From my own experience, I have noted that residents come into the group home
and isolate themselves from everyone. Slowly, they develop relationships with other
19
residents, staff members and their environment. The behaviors become noticeably more
negative and don’t seem to be conducive to the overall development of the child. In order
to be discharged, the youth must accept the rules and prove they have positively changed.
As stated in this section, the transitions that group home residents go through are similar
to those experienced by prisoners, with peer interactions playing a huge role in these
groups’ transitions.
Post Group Home
General Strain Theory. Akers and Sellers (2009) explains that strain can occur
when an individual is unable to achieve positive goals, when there is a removal of
positive stimuli, and when an interaction with negative stimuli occurs. When one or more
of these things happen, deviance can be the result in order to limit the amount of strain.
Currently, our country is facing a serious issue with youth who age out of the system,
especially group home youth. According to Reilly (2003), “Many of these (foster) youth
face serious problems (once aged out of the system), including homelessness, poverty,
incarceration, early pregnancy, and unstable employment” (p. 728). Reilly also explains
that educational achievement is low 34% not completing high school and health problems
rampant—44% have serious health problems. Courtney, Piliavin, Grogan-Kaylor, and
Nesmith’s (2001) Foster Youth Transitions to Adulthood study tracked 141 young adults
who aged out of the system in 1995 and 1996. Courtney et al. found that 10% of females
and 27% of males in his study were incarcerated at least once after aging out, and 14% of
males and 10% of females reported being homeless at least once since their discharge. A
quarter of respondents (22%) reported living in four or more separate places, while 40%
20
of females and 23% of males reported receiving some type of financial aid. Serious
victimization was reported by 25% of males and 15% of women. Though this was a small
sample, it gives a general idea of the issues with aging out of the system.
The National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (2010) presented a
study of 620 young adults who were reported as victims of some type of maltreatment.
The study investigated the well being of 18-21 year olds post-maltreatment. It showed
that mental health, academic achievement, sexual behavior, and income were all below
the national averages. According to the findings, 27.5% of young adults were in clinical
range of major depression, and 10.2% reported still experiencing posttraumatic stress. In
regards to education, maltreated youth scored substantially lower than norms on
standardized measures. Of the 37.4% of young adults with children, 61.8% were living in
poverty and 55.6% reported using corporal punishment to discipline their children. This
survey concluded that for maltreated youth their previous living conditions lead to more
challenges developmentally in adulthood.
According to ChildHelp.org (2010) in 2007,
Abused children are 25% more likely to experience teen pregnancy.
Abused teens are three times less likely to practice safe sex, putting them
at greater risk for STDs. Children who experience child abuse and neglect
are 59% more likely to be arrested as a juvenile, 28% more likely to be
arrested as an adult, and 30% more likely to commit violent crime.
Children who have been sexually abused are 2.5 times more likely to
abuse alcohol. Children who have been sexually abused are 3.8 times
21
more likely develop drug addictions. Nearly two-thirds of the people in
treatment for drug abuse reported being abused as children.
With these statistics, it’s easy to see how strained these aged-out youth are. When
aging out of the system these children aren’t given much to start their life off. As stated
earlier by Reilly (2004) academic achievement is extremely low which makes it difficult
to achieve any goals, immediate or future. Thus, these youth can become delinquent in
order to achieve their monetary or materialistic goals by any means necessary. For
children who were in a positive situation, such as a loving foster home or group home,
being asked to leave due to being too old can produce anomic feelings. As Reilly
explained, once aged out these youth experience many hardships, such as victimization,
homeless, poverty, etc. With most of these hardships comes a negative stimulus from
others. Due to their poverty status there is no way to escape these negative stimuli. This
leads to deviance—drug use, gang affiliations, etc. — as a coping and survival
mechanism.
Ideas For Change
There is a serious need for change in our current group home system. This is
evidenced by the numbers of youth who age out and are unsuccessful, ending up
incarcerated, homeless, and/or repeating the cycle of abuse and neglect. Hayner and Ash
explained that, “If the prisoner learns on the inside, that to fit in with the institutional
routine, he must walk close to the walls, this will not help him on the outside. In fact, it
might mark him as peculiar” (1940: 577). In other words, if group homes don’t teach the
children how to act in society, they won’t fit in and ultimately won’t succeed. In order to
22
offer new ideas for group home supervisors in developing their own unique successful
programs, research on previous programs is beneficial. Cook-Cottone and Beck (2007)
proposed and successfully implemented a program that used an actual life-story book.
This book is a compilation of a foster child’s past life experience, memories, personal
stories, pictures, and other personal documents. The children can use the life-story book
as a tool to assist them in understanding themselves cognitively and what their personal
role is in society.
Fyhr (2001) proposed two hypothetical residential institutions, the artificial family
and the professional. The artificial family institution was based on the idea that healthy
environments had a therapeutic effect on the residents. These types of residential
institutions had structure and routines that were comparable to a typical nuclear family
dynamic. Staff members were considered healthy adults who were capable of dealing
with psychological development of residents. The professional institution had trained
staff capable of producing institutional structure intended to support and protect residents.
These structures were in place to keep routines that would prevent regressive behavior.
The appropriate program depended on the severity of the child’s developmental and
behavioral issues: children with few behavioral issues would more than likely flourish
with a program like that of the artificial family but children with extreme behavioral
problems and/or psychological issues would probably do better in the professional
institution that promotes structure and protection for the residents.
Leathers (2006) discussed how foster parents’ involvement with the child is a key
factor in the child’s behavioral issues. The more emotionally involved a foster parent is
23
the fewer behavioral issues a child has. This emotional involvement may be used with
staff in a group home. Staff members can play a key a role in redirecting a child from
negative behavior to more positive endeavors. Therefore, if staff members can get
emotionally involved with the children of the group home, this might lead to less risky
behavior.
Chalmers and Townsend (1990) presented another possible solution, the training
of group home residents in social perspective taking. According to Chalmers and
Townsend, social perspective taking is the ability to manage one’s viewpoints when
making opinions of others. When she implemented this program with maladjusted girls,
she found that proper training in perspective taking could increase the understanding of
intrapersonal situations and reduce maladaptive behavior. This training was responsible
for the increase in social cognitive behaviors along with empathy and the acceptance of
differences. This notion accompanied by the ideas of previously mentioned researchers,
will enable this researcher to develop a thorough and well-developed program that will
hopefully positively change the lives of group home residents.
24
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Group home life is complex. Residents not only are missing out on having a “normal”
life but they are thrown into a world that inhibits their development. The integrative
propositional life span framework is extremely useful when explaining how the stages
foster youth go through can affect their overall development. Using different theories to
explain different stages of a child’s life can explain how each stage leads to lifelong
developmental challenges. With the many issues foster youth face it’s easy to see how
some type of deviancy and/or poverty is likely. From early maltreatment, to negative peer
influences and general strain, these youth are in for a long, hard life that more than likely
consist of some type of deviance (Akers and Sellers 2009). This study will contribute to
the existing research by tapping into true accounts of life in a group home. The researcher
will explore possible ways to meet the needs of group home residents and benefit
currently running institutions. Developing a better-informed program that accurately
meets the children’s needs could also give them a step up in society and hopefully better
prepare them for life after foster care.
Location
Participants for this study were recruited from a group home in Sacramento
County. This group home will be known as Hope’s Place for the remainder of the paper
in order to maintain confidentiality. Only one group home was chosen for this research
for several reasons. First, due to budgetary cuts within the state, in particular county
programs for foster youth, many group homes in the Sacramento area have closed.
25
Second, out of the few that are open the researcher was unable to use current employment
because it is considered a conflict of interest. Third, group homes are extremely difficult
to penetrate due to confidentiality. In order to gain access to Hope’s Place, the researcher
had to be recommended by an associate of the director. This meant the researcher had to
create a working relationship with the associate in order to be trusted and referred to the
director of Hope’s Place. Thus, because of my ties in the community this is a purposive
sample. A purposive sample will acknowledge the researchers prior experience and
special understanding of this group (Berg 2007).
A presentation was given to the board of directors at Hope’s Place in order to gain
their consent to study their clients. The presentation included the overall objectives of the
study, detailed analysis on how the data will be collected, and the contributions the
findings will have for Hope’s Place. Hope’s Place supplied the researcher with each
child’s social worker and parental contact information, including phone numbers,
physical addresses, and email addresses.
Hope’s Place is a level 12 facility, which means they offer 24-hour care, mental
health services and social work activities. At a level 12 facility there is a ratio of four
residents for every one staff. Level 12s are considered hands-on facilities, which means
that if children are harming themselves or someone else staff are required to restrain them
in order to maintain safety. Hope’s Place residents are ethnically diverse and a majority
of them come from Sacramento and surrounding counties. Hope’s Place has several
individual homes, but this researcher will be studying two homes that each house a
maximum of six female residents ages 12-18 years. The homes are spread throughout the
26
Sacramento area. Hope’s Place has a school on the property of each individual home,
ranging from one-room converted garages to separate buildings in the backyard that
resembles “in-law quarters.” A teacher comes to the house each day and the residents go
to the classroom and begin their daily instruction. The school was the location for all
interviews. The overall home looks very similar to an average multi-family home. There
are three bedrooms housing up to two residents each as well as two bathrooms. a family
room, a dining room, and a kitchen. The home has colorful posters on the walls meant to
remind residents of their individual and house goals. Previous experience working in a
group home environment gave the researcher a better understanding of the children
involved along with the structure of the programs at Hope’s Place.
Hope’s Place’s program is designed to meet the emotional, psychological,
psychiatric, and educational needs of its residents. Hope’s Place uses a point system that
emphasizes behavioral modification. The colors purple, red, orange, yellow, blue, and
green are used to represent a resident’s current level of behavior, her responsibilities, and
her privileges. Residents can earn points for showing positive and appropriate behavior.
Hope’s Place is a positively-based program whereby good behavior is rewarded by points
and negative behavior is penalized. Residents can earn a maximum of 40 points per day,
and each level advancement is a different point value. As an example, to be on blue level
a resident must maintain a weekly point value of 238 points (average of 34 points per
day). If points are not met per day and/or week, the level is dropped. The higher the level,
the more freedom and incentives a resident gets.
27
Participants
Each resident participant had permission from their social worker and/or legal
guardian in order to participate in the interview and focus group. All residents’ social
workers were contacted prior to the resident being asked to participate. After their social
worker signed the consent form, the legal guardians were then contacted and asked for
approval if parental rights were still in place (See Appendix A).
If both parties accepted the terms of participation the child was then contacted.
All resident participants were between 12-18 years old and have been a resident at
Hope’s Place for over two weeks. The first two weeks of placement are considered a
“welcome phase”. During this phase residents are watched especially closely for out-ofnorm behaviors and aren’t allowed to leave the grounds for outings or special events.
Each resident participant was asked to sign an assent form stating that their participation
was completely voluntary and that they were allowed to withdraw from the study at any
time (See Appendix A.). All residents had the same opportunity to participate, but only
those getting the necessary approval were allowed to do so. Prior authorization was
needed from social workers and parents (if applicable) before any form of contact was
made with the resident. Once approval was given from necessary parties, the assent form
was then given to the resident for her approval. Even if a child was 18 years of age, they
still had to have consent forms from the social worker, because they are still considered
wards of the state if they reside in foster care and/or a group home.
Staff participants were chosen by house managers based on staff scheduling and
availability. The only requirement for staff participants was that they had at least six
28
months of employment at the facility. Staff members who were interviewed were
required to sign a consent form (See Appendix A.).
Data Collection
Developing a Relationship. While the researcher did not take any field notes
during this step, it’s important to note that the director of Hope’s Place asked me to come
to the group home for two days prior to the start of resident interviews. Field notes were
not taken because the purpose of this research is to find what the interrelationships are
like between residents, staff and the environment from the perspective of the residents.
The director felt that the residents would open up more and answer questions
more honestly if some degree of rapport had been developed. The researcher visited each
house for one to two days (pending house availability) and participated with girls during
their daily activities. The staff introduced me as a student who is working on a project to
make group homes better using information gathered from residents.
Interviews. The interview section for residents occurred first while the interviews
of staff took place after all resident interviews and focus groups had concluded. The
interviews for both residents and staff were semi-structured, meaning that the same
questions were asked to each child and staff with the researcher being allowed to ask
clarifying questions and ask for further elaboration on a particular response (Berg 2007).
The questions asked to residents in the interviews centered on the residents’ experiences
with other residents (i.e. trusting each other, feeling peer pressure, getting into arguments,
and following rules), experiences with staff, and feelings about the environment (See
Appendix B.). Questions in the focus group centered on group activities and social
29
interactions between residents. (See Appendix C.) The questions asked to staff focused
on staffs’ perception of residents’ interrelationships, their experiences as a staff, and their
feelings about the overall program and environment. (See Appendix D) Conducting
interviews gave the researcher an opportunity to focus on one subject at a time and give
undivided attention to each participant. Each interview lasted less than one hour.
Prior to each individual interview the nature, purpose and goals of the study were
explained to the interviewee. Resident participants were given a snack and a beverage
during the interview. Staff participants were given a $5 gift card to a local coffee shop
after the interview. Each interview was recorded using an audio recorder. The recordings
were transcribed and destroyed as soon as possible. Each resident was given a
pseudonym in order to maintain confidentiality. All interviews took place on Hope
Place’s property in a private classroom within the residents’ living quarters. This created
a safe environment and allowed the participants to feel comfortable. Questions weren’t
intended to bring up anything that would cause emotional or psychological distress;
however, the researcher offered to contact the resident’s therapist on grounds if the child
felt they needed to, however, no resident asked for a therapist. All children at Hope’s
Place have the same therapist on grounds, who was made aware of the project. The
researcher took field notes during and after the interview to indicate any special
characteristics or non-verbal nuances.
Focus Group. There was one focus group in each house consisting of all residents
who were involved in the interviews and who consented to participate. Staff members
were not involved in a focus group due to difficulty with scheduling and ability to get all
30
staff together at same time. The goal of the focus group was to see how the residents
interacted with their peers and see what additional topics arose. Previous research puts a
large emphasis on peer interaction as a key component in the development of a child’s
self and identity. Gramkowski et al. (2009), Dupere, Lacourse, Willms, Leventhal, and
Tremblay (2008), Kools (1997), and Jahnukainen and Jarvinen (2005) all discuss how
peer interaction is related to a child’s sense of self and identity and in turn the child’s
expressive behaviors.
The focus group was also conducted in a classroom on Hope’s Place’s property
and was audio-recorded. Food and beverages were also given during the focus group.
Each focus group lasted less than an hour. The researcher acted as the group facilitator,
posed the questions and allowed for open discussion. (See Appendix C.) Children were
again asked if they wanted to contact their therapist after the focus group, but no resident
did. The researcher took field notes during and after the focus group to explain any
special characteristics or non-verbal nuances.
Data. The purpose of the interviews and focus group was to find out what
informal structures the residents had created, the social order within the group home, and
their perceptions of their interactions. The researcher examined how group home
residents interact with each other, with staff members, and with their environment.
Research was done prior to data collection to gain a better understanding about group
home culture and the developmental process of children in group homes. Since there is
little research in this field, a grounded theory approach was used for this data analysis.
The grounded theory approach is done once coding is complete by generating concepts
31
through a series of steps (Berg 2007). Through open-coding the researcher searched for
common themes and/or topics. Focusing mainly on the type of factors discussed in the
interview and how these factors were discussed among peers in the focus group.
Once open-coding is complete, the researcher systematically found key categories
within the themes and/or topics. The last step was to describe the categories in terms of
properties and dimensions. While the researcher was unable to take into account the
individualized histories of each child, the focus is on the current living conditions,
structures and social orders associated with her.
32
Chapter 4
RESULTS
In order to find answers to the three main research questions, questions posed to
residents and staff members were geared to find opinions and perceptions on the informal
social structure, interrelationships, and program structure of group homes. Residents’ and
staffs’ perceptions of the contextual features of group home life, personal accounts, and
experiences led to the identification of one broad theme—life in the group home versus
reality. Staff and residents made it very clear that life in the group home is different than
“real life” and this difference is problematic for a number of reasons.
Life In The Group Home Is Not Like “Real Life”
The program: According to staff and residents, group home life is nothing like
“real life.” The differences between the group home and reality leave residents confused
and ultimately not ready to enter the real world when they are of age to leave. Group
homes have a strict program and structure in place, unlike reality. Thus, group homes
with program alone, are already at a disadvantage for not being like “real life.” Residents
and staff were asked several questions about the program in place at the group home.
“Program” can be defined as staffing, the level system used for rewarding positive
behavior, and the implementation of consequences, rules, and expectations of residents.
Both staff and residents were asked how the program and structure of the group home
was affecting residents’ lives. Staff Bill stated, “I don’t think they [the residents] can
really grasp the full concept of…the connection of program to real life, of what we’re
33
actually trying to teach them through what we do, and how it connects to being out there
(in the “real world”).
The residents gave more details on how their lives were different from what they
felt the “real world” was like. Resident Danielle said, “There’s a lot of restrictions, and a
lot less freedom [as compared to my home].” Resident Kelsey added, “It seems like
there’s a bunch of people just always by you, always asking you questions and … we’re
always here.” The main concern within the residents was the lack of privacy and the
inability to have alone time within the group home’s program. Resident Colleen explains
in more depth, “You can’t [escape] supervision unless … you’re taking a shower. That’s
the only time you’re not being seen.” Supervision can be defined as being watched by a
staff member. The only time residents are allowed to be out of supervision is when they
are in the bathroom, but they still have to ask to enter bathroom and they only get an
allotted amount of time. In the focus group one of the residents stated, “I feel like it’s …
not human, like you’re [being] brainwashed. When I [visit] home I’ll, like, ask my
parents, ‘Can I pass?,’ and they’ll [respond], ‘What are you talking about?’” All residents
agreed and nodded their heads and a couple said in unison, “I’ve done that too.” To pass
means that the residents have to ask permission to pass into a room. An example request
might be: “May I pass into the kitchen?” This allows staff to know where residents are all
the time. A resident must ask to pass any time they enter a room, move to another room,
or go in the hallway. Asking to pass is not “real life” but it becomes a part of them and
ultimately comes out when the residents are in “real life.”
34
A second reason why group homes have difficulty making it more “real
life” is that they can’t efficiently run without a system in place. At Hope’s Place they use
the level system. In a level system, positive behavior is rewarded and negative behavior is
penalized by deducting points and, ultimately, levels. Both staff and residents were asked
about their opinions on the level system. There were some concerns across the board.
Staff Bill stated that, if he could change anything, he would make it, “entirely more
educational and entirely more therapeutic.” Staff Robert believes that the level system
should, “Give them [the residents] a little more responsibility to trust [the residents] a
little more. It’s just letting them learn [and] figure it out at the same time.” Staff Robert
and Staff Bill explained how the program needs to prepare residents better through
education, therapy, and responsibility for real life. Anglin proposes that it is within the
realm of possibility that group homes can at least approximate real life:
While a group home is not a “normal” or “natural” living environment for
children in general, it is within the ability of a group home setting to offer
young people “transitional” and “approximating” experiences that will act
as a bridges back into full participation in “normal” and “natural” family
and community life (2002:124).
Residents of Hope’s Place, however, did not feel the level system, as currently
structured, was close enough to “normal life” to be beneficial to them in the way Anglin
envisions. Resident Cathy stated, “I just felt like I was doing my hardest and doing
everything I can, but still didn’t get the privileges that everybody else got.” Resident
Colleen explains more specifically:
35
We have to earn at least 32 points a day. But when we do something
wrong they take two points, not just one, it’s two points. I feel like there is
not enough points in the day. We don’t need that much pressure,
especially because we’re trying to deal with stuff in therapy. Say you, like
have a really, really bad morning, [and] you lose, like, all your [possible]
points. So that whole day is basically screwed. Because all you can earn at
most is 30 [points].
Resident Colleen further explains that, when earning the highest level, there
should be more “opportunity to go out with our friends and stuff. It’s frickin’ like jail.
Maybe we could do something outside of the group, like maybe go to a program where
we interact with other kids, or other kids from group homes.” Resident Colleen was very
spirited when discussing this. She was quite concerned with her lack of freedom and the
feeling of never being good enough to make points. Resident Colleen confirmed that she
felt very institutionalized.
Overall, resident and staff respondents seemed to like the general idea of the level
program that is in place. They would implement small changes to make the program
more efficient and more “real life.” In the focus group, resident respondents agreed on a
number of things that they would like to see changed. The strongest point residents
mentioned was that if they have a bad morning, their entire day was a waste because of
the high number of points lost and their subsequent inability to make their level. They
stated that they want to have incentives to get back on track for the rest of the day if they
have a bad morning, such as earning bonus points for doing something special. They also
36
mentioned having the day broken up. This way there would be an incentive to stay on
track for the remainder of the day if they had a bad morning.
Resident Colleen was extremely animated on the topic of program. She went as
far as to discuss her ideal program and how she would like it to be more “real life.”
Resident Colleen explains that she would like to see a “program where we interact with
other kids … [and] people outside of the group home.” Resident Colleen’s ideal program
would compare to what Ryan et al. (2008) explained about developing “healthy” peer
relations. Surrounding a resident with healthy peers allows her to feel like a healthy
person. Resident Colleen continues, “Kids don’t … usually, like, have to worry about all
these rules. It’s like frickin’ jail … [but without] TV.” All residents had concerns about
the lack of “real life” the group home offered. Staff felt that the program offered “real
life” instruction but that the residents had a difficult time making the connection. The
concern is that group homes are not “real life,” but more importantly, group homes are
not preparing the residents for “real life.” Resident Colleen felt like the group home
resembles prison more than “real life.”
The pecking order: The similarities between jail and the group home noted by the
residents are evident yet again when comparing the social order established by the
residents in the group home of the prisoners found in Bottoms (1999) work. Just like in
prison there is social order in a group homes. Social order can be defined as the fictional
hierarchy in place created by the residents. Residents tend to construct a social “pecking
order” in group homes. Certain residents have characteristics that place them as the leader
of the house. Staff Donna explains, “Typically a house does find a boss. Rarely you get a
37
positive boss. For some reason the bosses typically tends to be a little toxic.” She
continues, “Either it’s [that] they’re the more visibly, like physically bigger person. Or
they’ve been there the longest, or they’re the oldest.” Staff Robert agrees and adds,
“Sometimes it’s just being flat out rude to people and other girls might fear that, feel
some kind of fear, and then just follow that person.” Staff Bill expounds, “It’s whoever is
throwing the biggest hissy fit and has the biggest attitude.”
Violence or the threat of violence can be a key element in maintaining one’s power
within the pecking order of the group home. It’s also a powerful tool when a resident
feels her position has been usurped by a peer and she wishes to reassert her dominance.
This is identical to Bottoms’ (1999) findings regarding the use of violence by prisoners to
establish dominance over other prisoners..
When asked about the existence of a boss in the group home, four out of six residents
were quick to say they were the “boss.” The other two were timid to disclose whom they
felt was the boss for fear of retaliation from them. Resident Colleen however gave a
detailed description of a boss and what makes a good one in her opinion, “I would say
[the boss] probably me. They’re going to want to… get physical, and you don’t just…
start saying stuff, and then expect…to have staff come rescue you before it gets violent.
You’re supposed to be ready. If you’re going to say that, then be ready to act then.”
Resident Colleen was explaining how a boss is someone who will talk negatively but
can back it up physically if needed. She was comparing herself to a fellow housemate
who believed she was the boss too. Resident Colleen explained that she was more of a
boss because she backs up her words with action if need be and won’t hide behind a staff
38
member for safety. Every group home has a “boss” that will keep her title in spite of the
physical aggression needed to maintain it. The pecking order can create unhealthy
interactions between residents. As Kools (1997) explains, peer interaction for foster
youth can create stigmatized self-identity, which leads to low self-confidence and lack of
future orientation. If a resident learns within the group home that they must obey the
“boss,” she will be confused when she enters the “real world.” Upon entering the “real
world,” residents will be unable to develop healthy relationships, will have difficulty
standing up to bullies, and will succumb to individuals with power. This low selfconfidence and confusion upon entering the “real world” can lead to future victimization
(Courtney et al. 2001).
Similar to how social order is created among the residents is how peer influences
affect residents. A resident’s social placement in the fictional hierarchy can give her more
power to pressure and influence her peers. When questioned about peer pressure residents
were quick to say peers don’t pressure them. But when probing questions were asked,
residents would admit to succumbing to the pressure from their peers to go “off
program.” (Off program means that a resident breaks a rule that results in being dropped
to the lowest level. In other words, she is not following the program.) Residents stated
that often the older or more physically intimidating girls have the most say in what goes
on in the house. Resident Colleen summed up her opinion of peer influence as follows:
“Believe it or not, when you’re here, and you live with [other residents] 24/7, [and] you
do everything with them, it affects [you]. … You start getting their behaviors on top of
the things that you’re trying to work on.” This comes back to “real life” versus group
39
home life. In real life there are breaks from peers, there are times of privacy, but this is
not the case in a group home. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week these residents
are surrounded by their peers.
The group home is in most regards a “total institution.” Bottoms explains, “Prisons
are, in common with other organizations such as boarding schools, mental hospitals,
barracks, monasteries, and total institutions. That is to say, in such institutions people
(residents) regularly sleep, eat, work, and play on the same premises in a process that
might be described as ‘batch living’” (1999:207). Such “batch living” can be particularly
detrimental when co-residents are troubled or exhibit negative behaviors. Staff Donna
said, “A big part of it is like these girls have extremely low self-esteem, so peer pressure
is very easily done. You can have some great one-on-one clients who are great by
themselves, and work really great one-on-one with staff, but if they get around that
certain peer, suddenly they are a terror.” Staff Robert stated, “They all come from
different walks of life, different backgrounds. I’ve seen a girl that hasn’t really been
diverse with nationalities, so coming here, you know, everybody’s, you know, mixed, so
the way she had to talk and act changed.” Peer influence seems to have a negative impact
on residents in group home life. Resident Colleen insightfully shared that she believes
assimilating to the group home culture has a negative effect on the individual. This
insight is reinforced by Bottoms (1999) who found that in order to fit in and ultimately
survive, prisoners must assimilate to the prison culture. Group home residents do the
same thing—assimilate in order to get through. The group home removes their “real life”
40
understanding and “real life” behaviors and replaces them with the culture of the group
home.
After interviewing residents, it became clear that residents are well aware of the
impact their peers and staff have on them, but there is little they can do about it. Akers
and Sellers (2009) explained that social learning theory shows how people learn through
their interactions with others. When a resident is constantly surrounded by peers with
various negative behaviors, the resident may take on some of these behaviors to fit in. In
particular to be accepted by the “boss,” the resident must assimilate to the group home
culture. This is problematic because when the resident is ready to enter the “real world”
she will have to abandon her learned group home identity and try to assimilate back into
“normal” society. If this transition does not happen quickly and efficiently it will leave
the resident ill-equipped to survive in society. This could be why the majority of former
group home residents end up incarcerated (ChildHelp.org 2010).
Emotional Attachment Is A Part Of “Real Life”
Residents’ needs: Emotional attachments to others provide important social
supports in “real life.” In “real life” most children get this emotional attachment from a
parent. Akers and Sellers (2009) define attachment as the affection towards others, the
admiration towards them, and the fact that a person identifies with them. A group home
resident is stripped from her family and the emotional attachment the family gives her.
Residents instead are placed in a facility where they are surrounded by staff and other
residents and therefore attempt to form emotional attachments to them. Bottoms (1999)
investigated the social interrelationships between inmates, guards, and the environment
41
and how it affected the individual inmate. In Bottoms’ analysis he explained that these
interrelationships within prison play an integral part in a prisoner’s social development
and, after being released, how they function in the outside world. Bottoms’ description of
these interrelationships closely mirrored to the interrelationships in a group home which
both residents and staff characterized as different from those in “real life.”
The key issues that appear to reduce opportunities for healthy, emotional
attachments are: 1) that many peers are more likely to form unhealthy attachments due to
past traumas or emotional and psychological difficulties, and 2) that staff members are in
a professional position that requires a certain amount of emotional distance from
residents. Staff specifically cited the difficulty of striving for a “family atmosphere”
while also maintaining appropriate boundaries. When discussing this issue, three out of
four staff stated that residents have struggled with boundaries and they have had to
remind residents that they are staff and not family. Staff Donna says, “Every once in a
while [residents will] kind of like bring up that I’m a sister or something like that, and I
definitely take steps to … squash that style of thinking.” Staff Carol stated that since she
is a mom, she has a mothering nature about her and thus the residents see her as a mother
figure. However, she does not allow them to call her “Mom.” It seems that this
“squashing” of family thinking at Hope’s Place is contrary to Anglin’s (2002) proposal
that the ideal group home would have a “family feel.” This is problematic because
residents are not only missing out on having a normal family but they are being deprived
of any feelings that a family would offer them.
42
Residents are well aware of this important element missing from their lives.
Residents stated that they wanted to be closer with staff but they would get in trouble for
having poor boundaries. Resident Colleen explains that group home life is difficult not
just because of all the rules, but because the residents are missing out on a crucial part of
‘real life’. Resident Colleen stated,
You want to hug them [the staff], or sometimes you just want to say, hey,
you know, I like you [as a friend]. You have to see them like staff. Where
do you get your, like that, caring feeling when you need it?... I have a
family, but I can’t imagine [where] other people [get it]. Like, there’s one
girl, she doesn’t have any family, so where does she get her, you know,
care from?
Resident Colleen’s explanation was showing how there is no one there to give the
love “normal” children get from their families. She was quite concerned about where this
“love” is supposed to come from because it’s not coming from staff due to the boundary
issues.
Leathers (2006) explained emotional involvement and how a resident needs to
have emotionally involved caregivers in order to develop good behavior and coping
skills. Leathers (2006) explained that the more emotionally involved caregivers are the
fewer behavioral issues a child has. So, when a resident has no caregiver who is
emotionally involved the child is missing out on an essential tool for coping with extreme
behaviors. Three out of six residents stated that there was no relationship with the staff
except for a resident to staff coexistence. The other three residents stated their
43
relationships with staff were similar to a friendship. Mention was made in the focus
group that since the residents don’t live with their families, they want to be able to get
closer with staff. However, they get in trouble if they do. So, residents are not only
missing out on a family, or the feeling of family, but are receiving negative feedback for
trying to fill the family void with staff.
Residents discussed that since they can’t get close with staff, they often find
solace with other residents. Residents used the term “sisters” for their best friends in the
group home and this term was considered one of high regard. According to the residents,
there is a sense of responsibility between “sisters” and they protect each other in times of
trouble. The term “friend” was used when residents were discussing a person with whom
they had fun and felt a sense of trust. The term “acquaintance” was used for girls who
could not be trusted or with whom the resident often argued. “Acquaintance” was
essentially a euphemism for someone who is disliked, yet still worthy of certain respect.
The creation of sister-like bonds in the group home is yet another point of
departure from a “real life” family. This is problematic because group homes are not
permanent placements. If a “sister” leaves, it can bring up issues of abandonment for the
resident who is staying. When talking with the residents, there was a sense that group
home residents wanted a “family feel” to their home. They wanted to be closer with staff
and often wanted other residents to be considered siblings. Residents attempted to
construct a family to replace the one they lacked, however the structural constraints of the
group home setting make this particularly difficult. .
44
Not only are residents stripped of “family” experiences, but, according to the
residents, they are also stripped of a childhood. In the focus group, the girls said the staff
members treat them like adults, even though they are kids. One of the residents in the
focus group stated, “We’re on our way to [adulthood], but we’re not adults. Even adults
don’t have to deal with this, and this is a lot. I mean, we’re still kids.” All residents in the
focus group nodded in acceptance of this statement. An emphasis in the focus group was
being a kid and wanting to experience being a kid. This again is challenging for the
residents who feel like they are required to be adults even though they have been
deprived a family (or family environment) and coping skills to move into such a role.
The staff dilemma: Anglin (2002) related that the ideal group home would not
have emotional baggage brought in by staff. Staff should and need to keep their personal
lives out and be able to maintain a healthy environment for residents. When asked whom
the residents trusted more, staff or peers, the majority of the residents stated they trusted
their peers more. This is perplexing, because residents are well aware that their peers
reside in a group home for emotional and psychological issues. It would seem logical to
have more trust in staff than in a peer with severe instability. Resident Kelsey stated,
“The staff, they’ll write it in the communication log and then they’ll go to Franklin (the
house manager) and then Franklin will make a huge deal.” The communication log is a
tool used by staff to communicate between one another because they all work different
shifts and are unable to verbally communicate face to face. After each shift, staff will
write any important information in the communication log for incoming staff. Resident
Mia said, “Well, you don’t trust nobody in here.” Resident Cathy added, “I’ll tell my
45
therapist something. …She tells all the staff, and it’s supposed to be confidential. And
then eventually one of my peers from [another] house will say something to me and I’ll
find out that way. I don’t like that.”
The girls seemed extremely frustrated with the lack of confidentiality between
residents and staff. Not only is there a lack of confidentiality but of professionalism as
well. The focus group also brought up the girls’ perceptions that staff members seem to
enjoy gossiping and talking about the residents. Thus, the residents don’t feel like they
can trust the staff with anything. One of the residents stated in the focus group, “[The
staff are] just trying to be nosey. They just like the drama. … They don’t talk about it
[professionally], they laugh. … They make it like a joke. You want to tell one staff
something, but then every other staff knows about it [from the] communication log.”
The question of professionalism seemed to bring up several issues with residents.
In addition to not being able to trust the staff, residents explained that there is also a huge
issue with favoritism. Resident respondents reported that staff members treat each
resident differently. Resident Colleen explains, “They just need to try to, you know, to
level it out, balance it out, because it’s just not fair when you’re getting in trouble for
something that another person doesn’t get in trouble for.” Staff didn’t believe they treated
residents differently or with favoritism. They mentioned that assorted other staff treat
resident different but none took the blame themselves. Staff Donna explained,
“[Sometimes] if you don’t have consistency amongst the staff, meaning, like they all
remain professional, it’s very easy for that cool staff to gain a lot of sway of [with] the
girls, and it [creates divides]. Staff Bill reported that the number one reason residents
46
argue among themselves is because of little annoyance like, “You always get staff’s
attention. Their views are that they want as much from staff as they can get, whereas all
the other girls are getting in the way of it.” Staff seemed to think it was the residents’
perception of what they believe to be favoritism but it wasn’t actually favoritism. An
example of this is when a staff might be giving a resident who is acting out attention to
try to calm them down. Another resident might view this as favoritism but its just
diffusing a situation. All staff interviewed believed they were not showing favoritism.
There is difficulty finding dedicated and capable employees because of the
hardships within the job. When I questioned staff about their job experiences, almost
every staff complained about the physically and mentally exhausting, 14-hour weekend
shift. Dealing with children with extreme behavioral issues is challenging enough to
begin with but doing it for 14 straight hours is grueling. There are two different shifts a
staff can choose to work, the “Front Half” or the “Back Half”. If a staff member is
working “Front Half” they start their workweek with the14-hour shift. If a staff member
is working a “Back Half” they end their workweek with the 14-hour shift. So, sometimes
staff members have already worked 26 hours the three nights prior, or they are starting
with the 14-hour day leaving them tired for the rest of their workweek. Tables 1 and 2
show an example of the scheduling for such shift.
47
Table 1
Possible “Front Half” Work Schedule for Group Home Staff Member
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
8am-10pm 2pm-11pm 2pm-11pm 2pm-10pm
14 hours
9 hours
9 hours
OFF
OFF
OFF
8 hours
Table 2
Possible “Back Half” Work Schedule for Group Home Staff Member
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
OFF
OFF
OFF
Friday
Saturday
2pm-10pm
2pm-11pm 2pm-11pm 8am-10pm
8 hours
9 hours
9 hours
14 hours
Staff Robert agrees, “The Saturdays kill you, the 14-hour shifts.” Staff Carol
contributes, “Definitely [better] pay and benefits would be nice.” Pay for a residential
counselor is $8.75 -$10.75 per hour depending on education and experience. Staff Bill
described the challenges of the job, noting that staff must have,
Compassion, understanding, open-mindedness, willingness to learn. [You
must be] able to hold your ground, stick to program and do your job
regardless of tears, crying, whining, [or] complaining. You’ll get personally
attacked here, physically attacked even, and if you don’t hold your ground
that’s what makes a weak staff, and it makes the job harder, and the girls
don’t respect you.
48
Staff discussed the other major issues as when one staff is over lenient and gives
in too much, and how it creates challenges for the staff enforcing the rules because they
are being undermined by their co-worker. This creates instability and confusion for the
residents who can do something with one staff but not another. Staff Carol added that
another challenge is “never taking anything personal. Always realizing that just because
[residents] say something really horrible to you doesn’t mean they hate you. Actually, it
can mean the opposite sometimes.” This idea was stated by all of the staff. When staff
members take things personally it can be extremely draining emotionally for them.
According to Miles and Stephenson (2002) residential institutions are generally run by
caring adults committed to children, which ultimately creates a family environment. This
is where the problem is for many staff. They care about the children and are invested in
them to an extent that it is easy to take their misbehavior personally.
Resident Colleen said, “Over here it just seems like [the staff are] just doing their
job, even though they say we’re not doing our job.” She was attempting to explain how
she feels the staff members are just there for their paychecks and not because they want
to make a difference in the residents’ lives. Resident Colleen ended her statement with, “I
mean, you can totally feel it.” Anglin (2002) states that it is crucial for staff to not show
or feel that this is “just a job.” If this feeling becomes apparent to the child it can have
life-long implications and affect the child’s development and experiences. Anglin also
explains that a staff’s behavior is a moral and ethical issue. When Resident Colleen stated
she felt like staff didn’t care, she was probably feeling the effects of the job on staff.
Since staff work long hours for low wages, these frustrations can leak over when dealing
49
with residents. Again, herein lies the problem for staff: it’s challenging to be invested and
keep good boundaries, yet not take anything personally. This is compounded by the long
work hours and unfair compensation. These things are very contradictory. To be invested,
one has to care. But care too much and there are boundary issues. A staff has to care and
invest but they can’t take residents’ actions personally. If staff take every action done by
residents personally, they will be disappointed a majority of the time. Staff members are
required to work a 14-hour day in an exhausting environment and make very little money
doing it. Group homes are setting their staff up for burnout and failure.
In the focus group, residents seemed saddened by the staff’s unprofessional
behavior. Heads were dropped during discussion, voice tones changed to be more
dramatic, and a look of worry came across their faces. Staffs’ unprofessionalism is a
problem for several reasons. First, the lack of professionalism by staff can remind
residents of their previous maltreatment. If staff members are gossiping about a resident’s
personal issues, this might remind the resident of past trauma like when a parent was
teasing them or making fun of them. Secondly, if a staff is unprofessional it can make
residents lose trust and respect for people of authority. Lastly, the poor behavior of staff
can ultimately destroy what could have been a healthy environment for a resident.
Residents want to be emotionally attached to someone, especially if they are taken
away from their family. In the group home, residents connect with unhealthy peers due to
the fictional hierarchy in place and the total inclusion of peers in their life. Residents then
try to attach to staff, but are reprimanded for having poor boundaries and are embarrassed
50
by the unprofessionalism of staff. It seems that residents are being set up to fail because
they are not being allowed to experience “real life” emotions.
51
Chapter 5
DISCUSSION
The present study examined residents’ experiences within the confines of a residential
institution. Residents and staff members were interviewed at a local group home. The
sample is representative of youth and staff who have lived and/or worked in a group
home. However, their perceptions and opinions might not reflect those who have lived
and/or worked in different institutions and it is beyond the scope of this study to go to
other facilities. Further research should be done to investigate life in the group home.
There is very little research on this topic from a qualitative standpoint. Many studies
make conclusions based on the numbers without talking to the residents living day in and
day out in the group home to get their perspectives.
The goal of this study was to answer three major questions from the standpoint of the
residents: 1) what are the informal structures and social order within group homes and
how do residents develop them? 2) What are the interrelationships between residents,
staff and the environment from the perspective of the resident, and how do these
interrelationships affect the residents’ development and their socialization process? And
3) Using previous research along with what the results of this study, is it possible to
create a program that is successful, and what would it entail?
Previous research on residential institutions shows that residents have numerous
challenges to face. The findings of this study would agree. When there is a lack of
structure or break in structure, residents either create their own or act out in order to fix it.
As an example, when staff members don’t uphold the same expectations from resident to
52
resident, there is a backlash from residents. When a resident feels she isn’t receiving the
same privileges as a peer, she gets into arguments with that peer and/or the staff in order
to attempt to fix the situation. When structure fails, residents will attempt to fix the
structure in any way they can, often leading to negative behaviors.
These unhealthy relationships affect the residents in more ways than one. The goal of
the group home is to create a family-feel. But the “family” in place at the group home is
full of individuals with extreme behavioral and emotional issues. It’s almost impossible
to create a healthy family with unhealthy individuals. Not only do these residents have
challenges with their peer relationships, they must also deal with staff members who are
unable to be emotionally involved due to expectations of professional boundaries. Anglin
(2002) explains that this can have devastating results on a child’s development. A child
needs to feel that the staff are invested and truly care. According to the residents at
Hope’s Place, it feels that some of the staff members are just there for the paycheck.
This study should not be interpreted to mean that group homes are all bad or the
sole problem in the foster care system. Group homes serve a vital role in foster care and
offer a relatively safe place to live during chaotic times. They offer services that these
children would not be getting in an unsafe family environment or on the streets. Group
homes offer medical support that can help control medication for conditions such as
depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, anger, etc. Group homes also offer
therapy, which allows the children to work through their issues and move beyond their
maltreatment. Group homes give connection with outside programs like Wrap
Services/Therapeutic Behavioral Specialist that help children transition to lower levels of
53
care or even reunification if possible. And lastly, group homes create groups that educate
the residents and teach them skills they might otherwise not have learned.
Keeping this in mind, there is clearly room for improvement in the group home
setting to best meet residents’ needs. From the responses of both residents and staff, some
possible changes to the program at Hope’s Place emerge. Focusing on staff first, I believe
hiring staff who are seeking work experience of this type in order to advance in their
careers to social workers, facilitators, child advocates, etc. would be ideal. Staff would be
required to have a degree in the field of sociology, psychology, social work, or other
related social science field. Such a structure would also create a motivation for staff to
work efficiently since they will need to keep their job for experience and would hope to
receive strong recommendations for future advancement. This would also result in staff
being invested in their job, which is what the residents requested.
A second recommendation would be providing specific trainings and meetings for the
people working with the residents. There should be weekly trainings for residential staff
to educate them on the population and program goals. In addition, the entire team
together should be assembled at least once a month for a professional discussion of
residents’ individual needs, current issues, and future goals. Therapists, education
liaisons, residential staff, and parents would ideally be involved so that everyone is on the
same page. These meetings would allow the people who are continuously working with
the resident to thoroughly know what the individual resident’s needs and goals are. These
meetings would also allow for open discussion with team members. Residents felt that
staff members were gossiping about them unprofessionally. Hopefully these open
54
discussion team meetings would limit outside gossiping among staff. Staff surround the
resident a majority of the day so they should all be aware of what the child is working on
in therapy, in school, and at the group home. This is important because the staff need to
know what the goals of the therapist are so that the goals are being executed throughout
the day and not just during the hour or two of weekly therapy sessions. This will make
the resident accountable throughout the day and not just when a certain staff or team
member is present.
As for program, the level system seemed to be most desired by the residents
interviewed. This consists of the child gaining points for appropriate behavior and
meeting her daily goals. Each level requires a certain number of points, and the higher the
level, the more incentives given and freedom earned. If a child acts out negatively by
cursing excessively, assault residents, leaving the premises without permission, etc., they
lose points and may drop a level. According to the residents, they felt the level system
was clear and concise, which allowed them to know what they needed to do in order to
move up levels. However, it was stated that they would like to have the day broken up
into sections so that their whole day isn’t a waste if they have a bad morning. So, a new
system might be to divide the day into three parts: morning, school, and evening.
Residents need to achieve at least two out of three parts in order to not drop a level. If
they achieve two out of three they can’t move up but they don’t drop a level for not
making total points.
The residents stated that they felt very institutionalized and that they wanted more of
a “real life.” While it is difficult to make an institution feel less “institutional,” an
55
improvement to the program might be to allow time on the weekend for the residents to
feel like a “normal child.” Residents might be allowed to go to a friend’s house, go out on
a date, etc. pending the resident’s level status.
Residents would perhaps also feel more empowered if community meetings were
held with all residents in order to allow them to speak openly with one another and
express concerns with house issues or with other residents. Community meetings could
also allow residents to come up with activities they would like to do individually or as a
group. Through community meetings, residents will learn to speak appropriately and to
speak up about issues they feel require attention. Allowing residents to work together to
come up with “real life” activities will ideally help them feel more normal and teach them
to work together despite differences.
This research had a very small sample size. Having ten respondents can’t give a
representation of the overall population. Doing a larger scale study would be extremely
useful for group homes as well as giving more validity to the findings. Indeed, using only
one group home limits the study because another group home likely has different
strengths and weaknesses. Group homes and foster care are interrelated so a study
interviewing residents who have stepped down to a lower level of care (i.e. moving from
a group home to a foster home) might also be helpful to better understand group home
life and how youth are able to “make it work” or not after leaving.
56
APPENDIX A
Consent Forms
Assent Form For Residents
You are being asked to participate in research, which will be done by Brittany
Auernig, graduate student in Sociology at California State University, Sacramento. The
study, Making it Work: A Qualitative Exploration of Life in a Group Home, is focused
on your experiences living in the group home. The study will involve as many of the
residents as agree to participate (approximately 8-10).
If you agree to participate, you will be interviewed one-on-one and also
participate in a focus group with your group home peers. In both the interview and the
focus group, questions will be geared towards your relationships with other residents,
with staff, and with the group home environment. You do not have to participate if you
don’t want to. You can also choose to participate in one, but not the other. The interviews
are anticipated to last from 45 minutes to an hour each, and the focus group may last from
1 to 2 hours.
Some of the questions could make you feel sad or angry because they might bring
up issues from past experiences or current issues you might be dealing with. You are free,
however, to not answer any questions you do not wish to answer, stop the interview or
leave the focus group at any time. If you experience any feelings of uneasiness (sad,
stressed, mad, etc…) during the study, and want help at that time or any time after
completing the research, you will be allowed to call your own personal therapist.
Anything you say to me during this time will not be considered in anyway related to your
57
program. However since I am a mandated reporter, if you bring up any past or current
abuse, I am still obligated by law to report it for your safety.
This research will hopefully assist me in understanding how the residential
program might better fit your needs. While you may not benefit personally from this
research, the hope is to make you a part of the positive change within group home
structure and life. The information you provide may help group home staff to better
understand how the residents really feel about group home life along with what their true
expectations are.
In any written notes or transcripts, participants will be identified by a fake name
that only the researcher will know. All research records, including these assent forms;
will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. No individuals will be
identified in any of the reports or publications that may result from this study. Your
responses from the interviews will not be included in your records at the group home.
Events that are unique and might be identifiable to people involved will not be reported
in detail, or details may be altered to protect individual identity.
Each participant will be given a snack and beverage at both the interview and
focus group. However, no other compensation will be offered.
If you have any questions about this research please feel free to ask at anytime. If you
have questions at a later time, you may contact Brittany Auernig by e-mail at
XXXX@XXXX.com, or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Ellen Berg, at XXXX@XXXX.edu.
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may decide at
anytime to not participate or stop participation in this study without any consequences.
58
Your social worker (and/or parent) has already been asked if you can do this research,
however if you don’t want to, no one will be upset with you. Your signature below
indicates that you have read and understood this form and agree to participate in the
research.
________________________________
Signature of Participant
____________________
Date
_________________________________
Please print your name here
I agree to have the interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have the interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I agree to have the focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have the focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
If permission is not granted to be audiotaped the researcher will hand write notes on
responses.
59
Consent Form for Social Worker
You are being asked permission to have
(name of resident)
participate in a
research study that will be conducted by Brittany Auernig, graduate student in Sociology
at California State University, Sacramento. The study, titled, Making it Work: A
Qualitative Exploration of Life in a Group Home, is part of my work toward a Masters
Degree in Sociology. The study is focused on the residents’ experiences living in the
group home. The study will involve as many of the residents as consent to participate
(approximately 8-10 participants).
If you agree to let
(name of resident)
participate, they will be interviewed
one-on-one and also participate in a focus group with their group home peers. Questions
will be geared towards the resident’s relationship with other residents, with staff, and the
group home environment. They do not have to participate if they don’t want to.
The interviews are anticipated to last from 45 minutes to an hour each, and the focus
group may last from 1 to 2 hours.
If you give your consent, I will fully explain the purpose of the research to
(name of resident)
beforehand, and ask for their consent. They will be given a consent
letter similar to this one, and I will fully explain the letter before they actually decide to
participate themselves. I will let them know that some of the questions could make them
feel sad or angry because it might bring up issues from past experiences or current
underlying problems. They are free; however, to decline to answer any questions they do
not wish to answer, stop the interview or leave the focus group at any time. A copy of the
interview and focus group questions are enclosed for your review. If they experience any
60
psychological uneasiness during the study, and want help at that time or any time after
completing the research, they will be allowed to call their own personal therapist. I am
still a mandated reporter, so if the child brings up any past or current abuse, I am still
obligated by law to report it.
This research will hopefully assist the researcher in creating a program that will
better fit the residents’ needs. While they may not benefit personally from this research,
the hope is to make them a part of the positive change within group home structure and
life. The information they provide may help group home staff to better understand how
the residents really feel about group home life along with what their true expectations are.
In any written notes or transcripts, participants will be identified by a pseudonym
that only the researcher and participant will know. All research records, including these
consent forms; will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. The
participants’ responses from the interviews will not be included in their records at the
group home. No individuals will be identified in any of the reports or publications that
may result from this study.
Each participant will be given a snack and beverage at both the interview and
focus group. However, no other compensation will be offered.
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Brittany Auernig by email at XXXX@XXXX.com or you can contact my faculty sponsor, Dr. Ellen Berg, at
XXXX@XXXX.com.
61
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent
form and agree to allow
(name of resident)
to participate in the research (pending
their consent to participate as well).
________________________________
Signature of Social Worker
____________________
Date
__________________________________
Please print name
I agree to have the resident’s interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have the resident’s interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I agree to have the resident’s focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have the resident’s focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
If permission is not granted to be audiotaped the researcher will hand write responses.
62
Consent Form for Parent
You are being asked permission to have
(name of child)
participate in a
research study that will be conducted by Brittany Auernig, graduate student in Sociology
at California State University, Sacramento. The study, titled, Making it Work: A
Qualitative Exploration of Life in a Group Home, is part of my work toward a Masters
Degree in Sociology. The study is focused on the residents’ experiences living in the
group home. The study will involve as many of the residents as consent to participate
(approximately 8-10 participants).
If you agree to let
(name of child)
participate, they will be interviewed one-
on-one and also participate in a focus group with their group home peers. Questions will
be geared towards the resident’s relationship with other residents, with staff, and the
group home environment. They do not have to participate if they don’t want to.
The interviews are anticipated to last from 45 minutes to an hour each, and the focus
group may last from 1 to 2 hours.
If you give your consent, I will fully explain the purpose of the research to
(name of child)
beforehand, and ask for their assent. They will be given a consent letter
similar to this one, and I will fully explain the letter before they actually decide to
participate themselves. I will let them know that some of the questions could make them
feel sad or angry because it might bring up issues from past experiences or current
underlying problems. They are free, however, to decline to answer any questions they do
not wish to answer, stop the interview or leave the focus group at any time. A copy of the
interview and focus group questions are enclosed for your review. If they experience any
63
psychological uneasiness during the study, and want help at that time or any time after
completing the research, they will be allowed to call their own personal therapist. I am
still a mandated reporter, so if the child brings up any past or current abuse, I am still
obligated by law to report it.
This research will hopefully assist the researcher in creating a program that will
better fit the residents’ needs. While they may not benefit personally from this research,
the hope is to make them a part of the positive change within group home structure and
life. The information they provide may help group home staff to better understand how
the residents really feel about group home life along with what their true expectations are.
In any written notes or transcripts, participants will be identified by a pseudonym
that only the researcher and participant will know. All research records, including these
consent forms; will be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. The
participants’ responses from the interviews will not be included in their records at
the group home. No individuals will be identified in any of the reports or publications
that may result from this study.
Each participant will be given a snack and beverage at both the interview and
focus group. However, no other compensation will be offered.
If you have questions about this research, you may contact Brittany Auernig by email at XXXX@XXXX.com, or my faculty sponsor Dr. Ellen Berg at
XXXX@XXXX.com.
64
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understand this consent
form and agree to allow
(name of child)
to participate in the research (pending their
consent to participate and social worker’s consent to participate as well).
________________________________
Signature of Parent/Guardian
____________________
Date
__________________________________
Please print name
I agree to have my child’s interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have my child’s interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I agree to have my child’s focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have my child’s focus group audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
If permission is not granted to be audiotaped the researcher will hand write responses.
65
Consent Form for Staff
You are being asked to participate in research, which will be done by Brittany
Auernig, graduate student in Sociology at California State University, Sacramento. The
study, Making it Work: A Qualitative Exploration of Life in a Group Home, is focused
on the residents’ experiences living in the group home.
If you agree to participate, you will be interviewed one-on-one. In the interview,
questions will be geared towards your perception of the relationships between residents,
your relationship with the residents, and your opinion about the program and building.
You do not have to participate if you don’t want to. You can also choose to participate in
one, but not the other. The interview is anticipated to last from 45 minutes to an hour.
I don’t foresee any feelings of uneasiness (sad, stressed, mad, etc…) during the
study, however, you are free to not answer any questions you do not wish to answer, or
stop the interview at any time. Everything you say will be kept completely confidential,
and your participation will in no way impact your job.
This research will hopefully assist me in understanding how the residential
program currently works and whether there are possible ways to better fit the residents’
needs. While you may not benefit personally from this research, the hope is to make you
a part of the positive change within group home structure and life.
In any written notes or transcripts, participants will be identified by a fake name
that only the researcher will know. All research records, including this consent form; will
be stored in a locked file cabinet in the researcher’s home. No individuals will be
identified in any of the reports or publications that may result from this study. Your
66
responses from the interviews will not be included in your employee file at the group
home. Events that are unique and might be identifiable to people involved will not be
reported in detail, or details may be altered to protect individual identity. Each participant
will be given a $5 gift card to a local coffee shop.
If you have any questions about this research please feel free to ask at anytime. If
you have questions at a later time, you may contact Brittany Auernig by e-mail at
XXXX@XXXX.com, or my faculty sponsor, Dr. Ellen Berg, at XXXX@XXXX.com.
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may decide at
anytime to not participate or stop participation in this study without any consequences.
Your signature below indicates that you have read and understood this form and agree to
participate in the research.
________________________________
Signature of Participant
____________________
Date
_________________________________
Please print your name here
I agree to have the interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
I do NOT agree to have the interview audio taped.
________________________________________
Signature
If permission is not granted to be audiotaped the researcher will hand write notes on
responses.
67
APPENDIX B
Resident Interview Questions
Relationships With Other Residents
1) How well do you get along with your housemates?
2) How would you describe your relationship with them?
3) How often do you get into physical fights and who are they normally with?
4) What things do you normally fight about?
5) In what ways do you trust your housemates?
6) Are there ways that you don’t trust your housemates?
7) What things do you argue about and why?
8) What happens if your housemates don’t do what you ask?
9) Under what circumstances do you take matters into your own hands rather than tell a
staff or supervisor?
10) Have you ever felt pressured by peers to do things you wouldn’t normally do?
11) Who would you say is the boss of the cottage and why?
12) Who do you go to for advice and why? (Staff or other residents)
Relationships With Staff
1) What are your relationships like with the staff?
2) What qualities and characteristics do you think a good staff has?
3) What kinds of things do you like doing with staff at the group home?
4) Describe what type of things staff do to make you mad?
5) When and what do staff do to calm you down?
68
6) Who do you trust more, the staff or the other residents? Why?
Overall program and physical space
1) How is this living situation different from other places you’ve lived?
2) What do you think about the program that’s in place here?
3) What do you think about the rules of the group home? What would you change and
why?
4) What does this building remind you of?
5) What would you change about the building?
6) What would you change about your current living conditions?
7) Would you rather play outside on grounds or off grounds?
69
APPENDIX C
Focus Group Questions
1) What are your favorite things to do together?
2) What happens if you or a housemate breaks a rule, like going AWOL?
3) What kind of things do you talk about with your peers?
4) Are there rules/consequences that you have created on your own or were already in
place when you got here? If so, what are they and how did you become aware of
them?
70
APPENDIX D
Staff Interview Questions
Perceived Relationships Between Residents
1) How would you say the residents get along with each other?
2) How would you describe their relationships with one another?
3) What things do you think residents argue about most and why?
4) What happens if your housemates don’t do what you ask?
5) Do you think residents feel pressured by peers to do things they wouldn’t normally do?
6) Do you think there is one resident who would be considered the boss of the cottage
and why do you think they are?
7) Who do you think residents go to for advice and why? (Staff or other residents)
Relationships With Staff
1) What are your relationships like with the residents?
2) How do you think they perceive your relationship?
3) What qualities and characteristics do you think a good staff has?
4) What activities do you do with the kids?
5) Do you know what certain things make kids mad? Do you ever purposefully “blow
them out” and for what reason?
6) When and what do you do to calm residents down?
7) Who would you say the residents trust more, the staff or the other residents? Why?
Overall Program and Physical Space
1) Have you worked at other group homes? How does this one compare?
71
2) What do you think about the program that’s in place here?
3) What do you think about the rules of the group home? What would you change and
why?
4) What does this building remind you of?
5) What would you change about the building?
6) What would you change about your current working conditions?
7) How often do you go off grounds with residents? What activities do you normally do
with them?
8) How do you think the residents understand the program? Do you think they no what
their individual goals are and the time frame in achieving them?
72
APPENDIX E
Human Subjects Approval
Protocol Number 09-10-114
Request for Review by the Sacramento State
Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects (Revised 09/2009)
Submit 11 copies of this form and any attachments to the Office of Research
Administration,
Hornet Bookstore, Suite 3400, mail code 6111. Please type your responses or use a word
processor.
Handwritten forms will be returned without review.
Project Title: ______Making it Work: A look into group home life_____________
Funding Agency (if any): ______________________________________________
Name(s) and affiliation(s) of Researchers: ____Brittany Auernig_______________
Mailing address (or Department and campus mail code): _XXXX., Sacramento CA
XXXXX___
___916-XXX-XXXX __XXXX@XXXX.com____ ____May 1, 2010________
Telephone and e-mail address for researcher
Anticipated starting date
______Dr. Ellen Berg__
Name of faculty sponsor (for student research)
1.
__XXXX@XXXX.com_
E-mail address of sponsor
Who will participate in this research as subjects (e.g., how many people, from what
source, using what criteria for inclusion or exclusion)? How will you recruit their
participation (e.g., what inducements, if any, will be offered)? How will you avoid
any conflict of interest as a researcher?
Participants for this study will be female residents ages 12-18 from a residential
institution (group home) in Sacramento, CA. This residential institution has two separate
homes that can each hold a maximum of 6 residents, however there are typically 4-5 girls
in each home. The average stay is 6 months, but can be up to several years. The
researcher wants residents to be aware of the customs and the norms of the group home
73
before interviewing them, so any of the 8-10 residents living there longer than two weeks
are eligible for participation, if the resident, county social worker, and/or parent/guardian
give consent. The researcher will obtain consent from the county social worker and
parent (if required) first (process described in question #2 below).
The researcher will be introduced to the residents by the director or lead staff during a
normal and typical cottage meeting. The director has requested that prior to the
interviews the researcher comes for two days for a couple of hours after school to
“hangout” with the girls. The director feels that the girls need to get to know the
researcher so that they will feel more comfortable answering questions. The researcher
will introduce herself and explain that the researcher will be conducting a project about
life in a group home. Researcher at this point will express that this is voluntary and there
will not be any ramifications whatsoever on their program if they choose not to
participate. The researcher will also state that there is no benefit or punishment of any
kind for participation. In the next few weeks following the cottage meeting, the
researcher will meet with each youth (for whom consent was obtained from social
worker/parent) individually and privately to set up a time to do the interview. The
interview will be done in a classroom at the school were all the residents attend. The
researcher will again explain the purpose, procedures, and importance of confidentiality.
Snacks and drinks will be offered during both interviews and the focus group, but there is
no other compensation for this project.
The researcher does not anticipate any conflict of interest, because the researcher does
not work at this particular group home. The researcher will explain to participants that all
aspects of the research will be conducted on the researcher’s personal time, and that she
is not to be considered a staff. However, since the researcher is a mandated reporter, if
the youth does bring up any past or current abuse, the researcher is still obligated by law
to report it for the youths’ safety.
2.
How will informed consent be obtained from the subjects? Attach a copy of the
consent form you will use. If a signed written consent will not be obtained, explain
what you will do instead and why.
Approval has already been given to the researcher by the Program Director at the group
home. A draft of the letter of approval is attached as Appendix D. The signed letter can
be obtained and submitted to the HSC once conditional approval is given of its contents.
To obtain permission for each individual resident to participate, the researcher will fax
the consent form to the residents’ county social worker and have them fax signed form
back. Each youth’s social worker and parent(s) have different legal rights, so the
researcher will first consult with the youth’s county social worker to determine who has
authority to approve participation. In cases where parents retain rights, or even partial
rights, the researcher will arrange to meet with each youth’s parent(s) and verbally
explain project and have them sign the consent form. Parents typically visit their
daughters, so a face-to-face meeting to explain the consent form will be possible. It will
be stressed to parents that their child’s participation is entirely voluntary. All consent
forms for parents and social workers will have the interview/focus group questions
74
attached to them. If all required parties agree, the researcher will talk to the residents as a
group, and explain the project. The researcher will sit down privately before the actual
interview with the resident and go over the consent form and answer any questions they
might have. Researcher will stress that participation is voluntary, which means residents
can stop at any time during either the interview or focus group. [Copies of all consent
forms are attached as Appendix C].
3.
How will the subjects’ rights to privacy and safety be protected?
Pseudonyms will be given to each participant to keep their identity unknown, for use on
any written records or transcripts. The researcher will keep all research materials locked
in a filing cabinet in researcher’s home. Audio tapes will be immediately destroyed upon
transcription, and kept no longer than 1 year. Researcher has been trained in the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which provides federal
protections for personal health. Researcher will use the standards of HIPAA for all
information shared by the participants to ensure privacy.
With the participants themselves, the researcher will stress that confidentiality be kept to
avoid any harm or embarrassment. Especially in the focus group, the researcher will
emphasize the importance of confidentiality, and will remind the girls that they aren’t
supposed to talk about what is discussed in the focus group with anyone. The focus group
questions have been developed to focus on more general topics, and the questions where
participants might refer to specific incidents involving other residents are confined to the
individual interviews (See appendices A and B for interview and focus group questions)..
If any resident experiences any emotional discomfort, the residents’ personal therapist is
on grounds and will be made aware of this research study and can talk with the child if
needed. Researcher will only use material gained from this research for academic
purposes. Individual-level data will not be shared with anyone under any circumstances.
No identifying information will be included in the final report.
4. Summarize the study’s purpose, design, and procedures.
This research is being done as an essential part to the researcher’s master thesis. Using
Anthony Bottoms’ work on prison culture as a framework, this case study will analyze
group home culture. The research will focus on the informal structures within group
homes and the relationships between resident and resident, resident to staff and resident
to environment. The researcher will use one-on-one interviews and one focus group.
Interviews will be done individually in a private classroom on grounds at the group
home. Interviews can last up to two hours but will average about 45 minutes. The focus
group will also be done in a private classroom and will consist of all participants who
consent to participate. The focus group is projected to last anywhere from 1-2 hours. The
researcher will lead the discussion with questions for both interviews and the focus
group.
Interviews, both individual and focus group, will be recorded on an audio recorder and
transcribed as soon as possible then destroyed (this will occur within one year’s time at
the longest). Qualitative analysis of transcripts will be conducted.
75
5.
Describe the content of any tests, questionnaires, interviews, etc. in the research.
Attach copies of the questions. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved
in their use?
The questions asked in the interviews center on the residents’ experiences with other
residents (trusting each other, feeling peer pressure, arguments, and following rules),
experiences with staff, and feelings about the environment (please see Appendix A for a
complete list of interview questions). The questions in the focus group will primarily
focus on the day-to-day topics of conversation, rules that the residents have developed on
their own and how they become aware of pre-existing norms and rules (See Appendix B).
In assessing risk of harm or discomfort, it is important to take into account that the topics
specifically selected for the focus group are typical of the normal conversations in a
group home environment. The residents even discuss far more personal and sensitive
issues on a daily basis. The researcher realizes however, that the interview or focus group
environment is out of the ordinary, and the audio recorder may cause a minimal level of
discomfort and may put an added level of stress on the participants.
Since the researcher has been working with this type of population for over a year,
researcher has a good understanding of the group homes’ normal behaviors and behaviors
when residents are in distress. Although it is not anticipated that any serious discomfort
will occur, the researcher will remind the participants that if they do feel at all distressed,
they are able to discontinue participation and can meet with the on-site therapist if
needed.
6.
Describe any physical procedures in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm,
if any, is involved in their use?
There are no physical procedures in this research.
7.
Describe any equipment or instruments and any drugs or pharmaceuticals that will
be used in the research. What risk of discomfort or harm, if any, is involved in their
use? (The committee will seek review and recommendation from a qualified oncampus medical professional for the use of any drugs or pharmaceuticals.)
No equipment, drugs, or pharmaceuticals will be used in this research.
8.
Taking all aspects of this research into consideration, do you consider the study to
be “exempt,” “no risk,” “minimal risk,” or “at risk?” Explain why.
This research is assessed to be “at risk” because the youth are minors (ages 12-18). Also,
as stated in the CSUS policy handbook, under Social and Economic Harm, “some
invasions of privacy or breaches of confidentiality could result in embarrassment or harm
to a participant’s reputation within his or her business or social group, a loss of
76
employment, or criminal prosecution.” There is a slight chance that a participant might
divulge something in the focus group that would harm her reputation, however, again the
topics to be discussed are quite typical for the group home environment.
The remote possibility that youth might divulge their own victimization, either child
abuse, or other criminal act done to them, also warrants the “at risk” determination. Since
the researcher is a mandated reporter, she has the obligation (by law) to report any child
abuse. This is made clear in the consent form and will be stressed prior to the interviews
and focus group.
It is understood that “for protocols approved as “at risk”, the researcher is required to file
a quarterly report with the committee that describes the recruiting of subjects, progress on
the research, interactions with the sponsor, and any adverse occurrences or changes in
approved procedures. In addition, the committee reserves the right to monitor “at risk”
research as it deems appropriate.”
________________________________
Signature of Researcher
____________________
Date
________________________________
Signature of Faculty Sponsor
(for student research)
____________________
Date
Signature of your department or division chair confirms that he or she has had an
opportunity to see your human subjects application.
________________________________
Signature of Department/Division Chair
____________________
Date
Questions about the application procedures for human subjects approval may be
directed to the Office of Research Administration, (916) 278-7565, or to any member of
the committee. Questions about how to minimize risks should be directed to a committee
member. Applicants are encouraged to contact a committee member whose professional
field most closely corresponds to that of the researcher. See
www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/ for a list of committee members and the current
year’s due dates for submitting an application.
77
REFERENCES
Ackerman, John and Mary Dozier. 2005. “The Influence of Foster Parent Investment on
Children’s Representations of Self and Attachment Figures.” Applied
Developmental Psychology. 26: 507-520
Adams, Mike, Craig Robertson, Phyllis Gray-Ray, and Melvin Ray. 2003. “Labeling and
Delinquency.” Adolescence. 38(149):171-187
Administration of Children and Families. “Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and
Reporting System (AFCARS) FY 2008 data”. (October 1, 2007 through
September 30, 2008) Retrieved May 18, 2010, from
(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report16.htm)
Akers, Ronald and Christine Sellers. 2009. Criminological Theories: Introduction,
Evaluation, and Application, 5th Edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
Anglin, James. 2002. “Developing A Sense of Normality: The Primary Goal for
Residents.” Child and Youth Services. 24(1/2): 123-131
Baker, Amy and Patricio Caldron. 2004. “The Role of Group Homes in the Child Welfare
Continuum of Care.” Residential Treatment For Children and Youth. 21(4): 39-58
Beidy, Thomas. 1977. “The Aggressive Characteristics of Abused and Neglected
Children.” Journal of Clinical Psychology. 33(4): 1140-1145
Berg, Bruce. 2007. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, 6th Edition.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon
Bottoms, Anthony. 1999. “Interpersonal Violence and Social Order in Prisons.” Crime
and Justice. 26:205-281
California Department Of Social Services. 2007. “Child Protective Services”. Retrieved
August 16, 2010, from http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/PG93.htm
California Department Of Social Services. 2009. “Foster Care Rates Bureau and
Overview of the Group Home Rate Classification Levels”. Retrieved January 21,
2011, from
http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cfsweb/Res/pdf/overviewClassificationLvls.pdf
Chalmers, Jennifer and Michael Townsend. 1990 “The Effect of Training in Social
Perspective Taking on Socially Maladjusted Girls.” Child Development. 61:178190.
ChildHelp.org. 2010. “National Child Abuse Statistic”. Retrieved November 3, 2010
from http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics
78
Cook-Cottone, Catherine and Meredith Beck. 2007. "A Model for Life-Story Work:
Facilitating the Construction of Personal Narrative for Foster Children.” Child
and Adolescent Mental Health. 12(4):193-195
Courtney, Mark, Irving Piliavin, Andrew Grogan-Kaylor, and Ande Nesmith. 2001.
“Foster Youth Transitions to Adulthood: A Longitudinal View of Youth Leaving
Care.” Child Welfare League Of America. 80(6):685-718
Cullerton-Sen, Crystal, Adam Cassidy, Dianna Murray-Close, Dante Chicchetti and
Nicki Crick. 2008. “Childhood Maltreatment and the Development of Relational
and Physical Aggression: The Importance of a Gender-Informed Approach.”
Child Development. 79(6):1736-1751
Dupere, Veronique, Eric Lacourse, J. Douglas Willms, Tama Leventhal and Richard
Tremblay. 2008. “Neighborhood Poverty and Early Transition to Sexual Activity
in Young Adolescence: A Developmental Ecological Approach.” Child
Development. 79(5):1463-1476
Fyhr, Gurli. 2001. “Residential Institutions Requesting Supervision: A Theoretical
Analysis of an Empirically Studied Problem.” Child and Family Social Work.
6:59-66
Garbedian, Peter. 1963. “Social Roles and Processes of Socialization in the Prison
Culture.” Social Problems. 11(2):139-152
Gramowski, Bridget, Susan Kools, Steven Paul, Cherrie Boyer, Erica Monasterio and
Nancy Robbins. 2009. “Health Risk Behaviors of Youth in Foster Care.” Journal
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing. 22(2):77-85
Hayner, Norman, and Ellis Ash. 1940. “The Prison As a Community.” American
Sociological Review. 5(4):577-583
Jahnukainen, Markku and Tero Jarvinen. 2005. “Risk Factors and Survival Routes: Social
Exclusion as a Life-Historical Phenomenon.” Disability and Society. 20(6):669682
Jensen, Gary and Dorothy Jones. 1976. “Perspectives on Inmate Culture: A Study of
Women in Prison.” Social Forces. 54(3):590-603
Kools, Susan. 1997. “Adolescent Identity Development in Foster Care.” Family
Relations. 46(3):263-271
79
Leathers, Sonya. 2006. “Placement Disruption and Negative Placement Outcomes
Among Adolescents in Long-term Foster Care: The Role of Behavior Problems.”
Child Abuse and Neglect. 30:307-324
Lutfey, Karen and Jeylan Mortimer. 2003. Pp. 183-202 in Handbook of Social
Psychology, edited by J. DeLainater. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenuim
Publishers.
Miles, Glenn and Paul Stephenson. 2002. “Children in Residential Care and Alternative.”
Tearfund. Retrieved November 11, 2011, from
http://tilz.tearfund.org/webdocs/Tilz/Topics/CareENG_full%20doc(1).pdf
National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being. 2010. “Adolescents Involved with
Child Welfare: A Transition to Adulthood”. Retrieved November 2, 2010, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/reports/adolescents_i
nvolved/adolescents_involved.pdf
Office of Research Administration. 2009. Policies and Procedures of the Committee for
the Protection of Human Subjects California State University, Sacramento.
Retrieved November 15, 2009 from
http://www.csus.edu/research/humansubjects/HumSubMan.pdf
Reilly, Thom. 2003. “Transition From Care: Status and Outcomes of Youth Who Age
Out Of Foster Care.” Child Welfare. 82:727-746
Ryan, Joseph, Jane Marshall, Denise Herz, and Pedro Hernandez. 2008. “Juvenile
Delinquency in Child Welfare: Investigating Group Home Effects.” Children and
Youth Services Review. doi; 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.02.004
Sandstrom, Kent L., Daniel Martin, and Gary Alan Fine. 2010. Pp. 111-144 in Symbols,
Selves, and Social Reality. New York. Oxford University Press.
Stryker, Sheldon and Kevin Vryan. 2003. “The Symbolic Interactionist Frame.”
Handbook of Social Psychology. 3-28
Trickett, Penelope. 1993. “Maladaptive Development of School-Aged, Physically Abused
Children: Relationships With the Child-Rearing Context.” Journal of Family
Psychology. 7(1):134-147
Van der Kolk, Bessel. 2005. “Developmental Trauma Disorder.” Psychiatric Annals.
35(5):401-408
80
Zima, Bonnie, Regina Bussings, Stephanny Freeman, Xiaowei Yang, Thomas Belin, and
Steven Forness. 2000. “Behavior Problems, Academic Skill Delays and School
Failure Among School-Aged Children in Foster Care: Their Relationship to
Placement Characteristics.” Journal of Child and Family Studies. 9(1):87-103