The relationship between problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome in foster adolescents

Journal of Adolescence 1998, 21, 585–597 Article No. ad980180

The relationship between problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome in foster adolescents DEBORAH C. BROWNE Adolescence has been described as a period where normal developmental stresses are dealt with depending on past experiences and current demands. Foster care inherently brings with it many additional stresses which must be dealt with at a period where many young people find even normal developmental tasks overpowering. This study examines problem disclosure and coping strategies in 21 foster adolescents. Highly significant results indicate that teenagers who have experienced crisis foster placements were more likely to disclose concern over parent and authority control over their lives. Additionally, these young people seemed more likely to use non-productive coping strategies when dealing with everyday problems. © 1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

Introduction Adolescence has traditionally been characterized as an unavoidably difficult and strained stage of development (e.g. Hall, 1908; Freud, 1958). Research, however, has shown little evidence to support these theories (Coleman, 1995). It has been suggested that while the adolescent is “confronted with a complex set of developmental tasks and demands” (Lee et al., 1992, p. 495), these are merely stressful life events that are “a normal component of living” (Frydenberg and Lewis, 1993a, p. 254). As with other stressful issues, dealing with adolescent tasks is a subjective matter; one person may successfully resolve a task that another finds s/he cannot cope with. Researchers have pointed out that adolescence, therefore, may better be described as a period of coping (Lee et al ., 1992, p. 495; Frydenberg and Lewis, 1993a, p. 254) rather than a period of storm and stress (Hall, 1908, p. xiii). Young people may perceive that the developmental demands of a particular situation are beyond their capabilities, and the stresses of them may lead to psychological or behavioural problems. This paper is concerned with the particular stresses and problems of foster adolescents.

Difficulties of foster adolescents Behavioural problems of children in foster care tend to be of notably higher incidence than in the general population (Fanshel and Shinn, 1978; Colton et al ., 1991). Many such problem behaviours, such as bullying, meaningless lying, withdrawal and aggressive and violent behaviours, have been associated with attachment disorder (Cooke Parker and Forrest, 1993), childhood depression (Zimmerman, 1988) and eventual placement breakdown (Berridge and Cleaver, 1987; Thompson et al., 1994). Reprint requests and correspondence should be addressed to D. C. Browne, Dept. Applied Psychology, University College Cork, Ireland (E-mail: D. [email protected]). 0140-1971/98/050585+14/$30·00/0

©1998 The Association for Professionals in Services for Adolescents

585

586

D. C. Browne

Research has identified a profusion of issues that are associated with these problem behaviours in foster adolescents. Many studies (e.g. George, 1970; Fanshel and Shinn, 1978), for instance, indicate that the older a child is when they enter care, the more likely it is that s/he will already have formed an identity bond with his natural family, and/or will preserve a bond if contact with the birth family is maintained (Weinstein, 1960; Poulin, 1992). Regardless of any abuse sustained in this family, adolescents in care can remain very loyal to their family of origin (Doyle, 1990; Holdaway et al., 1992), and being expected to live with a new family can cause confusion and conflict of identity (Fanshel and Shinn, 1978; Cooke Parker and Forrest, 1993). The inconsistency of foster care makes it difficult to develop a secure identity (Triseliotis, 1983; Molin, 1990) and the conflicting attitudes that young people encounter in various institutions and foster care lead to confusion and uncertainty of their own beliefs. Additionally, many young people in care have had disturbing histories of neglect and/or abuse (Massinga and Perry, 1994), with some having past experiences that are similar to those who commit or attempt suicide (Charles and Matheson, 1991). A history of maltreatment is also likely to result in low self-esteem (Stern et al ., 1995) and confused identity (Doyle, 1990; Macaskill, 1991). The ensuing behaviour problems can be extremely difficult for foster parents and social workers to deal with and many researchers (e.g. Fahlberg, 1995) feel that it is impossible to undo the damage done by early stresses.

Coping as an adolescent in foster care As with being an adolescent, being in foster care is not synonymous with turmoil, and many foster children grow up without experiencing serious complications. Explanation as to why so many young people develop problems in foster care while others do not can be found in adolescent developmental literature. Elkind (1984) postulated a “patchwork self” theory of coping behaviour in adolescents. He (1984, p. 166) suggested that “integrated” adolescents have developed a set of attitudes and beliefs with which they confidently identify, and which they use to deal appropriately with stressful situations. Teenagers with a patchwork self, on the other hand, have developed inconsistent attitudes and values. They tend to have poor self-esteem and mismanage stress “because he or she brings inner conflicts to the basic stress situation” (Elkind, 1984, p. 169). There is a strong resemblance between “patchwork self” teenagers and the inconsistent attitudes and poor self-esteem that have been already associated with young people in foster care. Hauser and Bowlds (1990, pp. 392–396) outlined two types of stresses to which adolescents are susceptible: normative stresses and non-normative stresses. Normative stresses include normal biological and social changes of adolescence. Hauser and Bowlds felt that non-normative stresses can be more problematic; these refer to additional “risk factors” encountered at this time (1990, p. 393), with family instability being the most significant. This last factor is of special relevance to teenagers in foster care, whose family instability probably caused their initial entry into care. Another relevant example of Hauser’s and Bowlds’ non-normative stress is a history of abuse, which has been associated with a series of behavioural and psychological repercussions (Levine, 1988; Thompson et al., 1994; Stern et al., 1995).

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

587

Unlike Elkind’s model, Hauser and Bowlds do not distinguish between anticipatory stresses and other stresses, but emphasize the importance of context. Hauser and Bowlds admit that “adolescents vary dramatically in how they cope” (1990, p. 391), but do not divide all adolescents into two distinct groups. Some teenagers may find certain problems more stressful than others and may respond particularly poorly to situations that involve them. This introduces the question of the types of problems that teenagers worry about. Porteous (1979, p. 307) describes a comprehensive investigation of the problems of the “typical” adolescent. A problem checklist consisting of 177 items was constructed using items derived from clinical observation, discussions with adolescents and previous problem lists and literature accounts (Porteous, 1979, p. 310). Items that the teenagers expressed most concern about included aspects of peer relationships, family issues, self-image, physical complaints and school. Whether concerns are problematic to individual young people seems to depend on certain situational factors (e.g. culture, see Porteous, 1985a). When looking at adolescents in foster care these situational factors include the issues already discussed (e.g. inconsistency of care, conflict of identity, history of abuse). It is likely that those who are finding normal adolescent concerns most complex are also those who have developed less adaptive “patchwork self” coping strategies. The present investigation attempts to look at differences in problem disclosure and coping strategies between foster adolescents who have experienced problem placements and those who have not. The most common symptom that foster adolescents are experiencing problems is that a placement is going through a crisis or breakdown.

Placement outcome The criteria for defining what constitutes a successful foster placement varies widely. Many researchers decided that placements were “successful” or “failures” depending on whether the placement lasted for the duration of the study or some other specified period (e.g. Trasler, 1960; George, 1970; Berridge and Cleaver, 1987). This is not very realistic, as there are many reasons why a placement may not last a certain period (e.g. a return to the birth parents or a death in the foster family). Additionally, placements that do last the specified period may not necessarily be entirely successful—the child may not be happy, or the foster family may be discordant about keeping the child. As Doelling and Johnson (1990, p. 97) point out, “workers need to judge the success of a placement by some criteria other than ‘breakdown’ or early termination of the placement.” Other studies tried to use more abstract definitions of success, such as changes in “social and personal adjustment” (Fanshel and Shinn, 1978) or how satisfying the relationship between the foster child and the foster parents was found to be (Triseliotis, 1980). It was felt that these later definitions were too conjectural for objective empirical analysis, and they do not always take the effects of the individual child into account. It was decided to distinguish between those who had experienced a previous placement breakdown or were currently undergoing serious (placement threatening) problems and those who had never experienced problems. The type of placement problems that are associated with breakdown, whether they are affiliated with recent or prior placement(s), have been shown to have effects on the child that can last for many years after the placement (see, for exam-

588

D. C. Browne

ple, Hughes, 1997). One of the more noticeable associations with placement breakdown, for instance, is the development of problems that endanger later placements (George, 1970; Fanshel and Shinn, 1978; Berridge and Cleaver, 1987). The criteria for deciding which category each young person fell into is described in the next section.

Method The results described in this paper are part of a larger study conducted in two community care areas and one fostering project in Cork city, southern Ireland. The larger sample was involved in an extensive study on factors influencing success in foster care (see, for example, Browne, 1996, 1997) and looked in substantial detail at 127 foster placements that included children of all ages.

Participants Thirty-four young people who had been fostered during a particular 3-year period were asked to participate in this part of the study. These were identified, with the assistance of the health board, on the basis that they were between 12 and 20 years of age and were still living within access of the city. Twenty-two young people (response rate of 66%) eventually agreed to participate in the study. Data for one subject was dropped, however, when it was realized he was younger than his social worker had recorded. The remaining 21 participants ranged in age from 12 to 19 (mean=15·5 years, S.D.=2·15). Seven of the sample are male, and 14 female; this ratio of 1:2 is a bit higher than the ratio of 2:3 that was found in the larger sample. None the less, a larger number of girls in comparison to boys was found in both groups. Using these results to conclude that more girls than boys are placed in foster care would, however, be premature. Colton (1988), for instance, found the distribution of his sample to be exactly the opposite, consisting of only one-third females. No research has been carried out on gender differences, but it is possibly related to fostering agency admission practices. There was not much ethnic diversity in the sample. One young person has one Asian birth parent. All of the 21 young people are Catholic. One of them was being fostered by parents who are Protestant.

Placement outcome In the larger study, social workers and foster parents completed questionnaires from which specific replies indicated whether the placement was successful (no problems reported or expected), ambiguous (one or two specific categories of uncertainty or problems were reported) or crisis (breakdown, imminent breakdown or three or more specific categories of uncertainty or problems reported). As it would be inappropriate to conduct analysis using three levels of placement status on a sample of only 21 young people, participants were divided into two groups: “non-crisis” teenagers were the successful placements who had never experienced breakdown; “crisis” included teenagers who were crisis placements in the previous study, or who had experienced previous placement breakdown(s). Thirteen of the adolescents had experienced a crisis placement, and only eight had not.

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

589

Procedure Participants were posted a letter explaining the purpose of the study and were asked to return a consent form signed by them and by their parents or guardians if they were under 18. The original letters were followed by up to five reminder letters at various intervals. At the interview the purpose of the inventories was clarified before they were introduced. The first inventory used was the Porteous Problem Checklist (PPC), and participants were taken through directions for completing it. The importance of honesty in replying was stressed and anonymity was assured. Elaboration was offered to individuals as it was required. After the subjects had completed the Porteous Checklist, they were shown the Adolescent Coping Scales (ACS). The procedure for completing the inventory was explained and the confidentiality of the study was emphasized again. Participants were asked to read the instructions on the first page of the ACS, after which any questions were answered. Following completion of the ACS there was a short discussion on how the subject felt about the inventories. The inventories usually took approximately 10 to 20 minutes each to complete, but many young people expressed a desire to discuss further aspects of their fostering experiences which lengthened some interviews to up to 2 hours (the material discussed in these interviews is not reviewed in this article due to space constraints).

Measures Various measures have been used to examine the problems young people deal with and how they cope with them (e.g. Shulman et al ., 1987; Lee et al ., 1992; Kearney et al ., 1993). Very little, if any research has been carried out on the problems or coping strategies of foster adolescents. The measures that have been used here were chosen because of their wide applicability to adolescents in general. Because a higher incidence of behavioural problems has been noted in foster children than in the general population (e.g. Fanshel and Shinn, 1978; Rowe et al., 1984; Colton et al., 1991) foster adolescents may be considered a more clinical population than other samples. Despite this, the current study was only concerned with finding differences between young people who had experienced problem placements and those who had not and it was hoped that the former would show noticeably different ways of dealing with problems than the feasibly more normal “non-crisis” teenagers.

Problem disclosure The Porteous Problem Checklist (PPC) was “designed to help those who work with adolescents to understand the nature of adolescents’ problems, and to enable young people and adults to communicate on the subject of adolescent worries” (Porteous, 1985b, p. 1). It is a self-report inventory, containing 68 statements of common adolescent concern. The teenager indicates whether this problem bothers them a lot, sometimes, or never, by ticking the appropriate box. The 68 items of the check list can be divided into nine “problem sets”. These items are parents (worries about his/her relationship with parents), peers (fears about peer relationships), employment (concerns about abilities to obtain employment), authority (negative feelings toward adult interference or authority), self-centred concerns (e.g. dejection, insecurity, or physical complaints), boy–girl (concerns with relationships with the opposite sex), oppression (worries about not being allowed independence), delin-

590

D. C. Browne

quency (high scores indicate trouble with the police or at school, or deprived backgrounds) and image (concerns about a negative self-image). The only changes made to the Porteous Problem Checklist—with the consent of the check list’s author—were that the words “parent”, “mother” and “father” were preceded with the word “foster”.

Coping strategies The second instrument used in the study was the Adolescent Coping Scales (ACS) by Frydenberg and Lewis (1993 a ). The ACS is also a self-report inventory designed to examine coping behaviour . The teenager decides, on a scale of 1 to 5, whether s/he uses each of 79 items never (1), very little (2), sometimes (3), often (4), or a great deal (5). As in the Porteous Problem Checklist, the 79 items of the ACS can be divided into smaller subscales. Eighteen different coping strategies include social support (share problems and look for support from others), focus on solving the problem (tackle the problem systematically), work hard and achieve (industry and commitment), worry (worry about future or present events), invest in close friends (friendship relationships), seek to belong (what other people think of them), wishful thinking (hope or daydream that things will work out), not coping (inability to cope with problems, which may manifest in psychosomatic symptoms), tension reduction (release tension in order to cope, including crying, smoking, drinking or taking drugs), social action (using the social community), ignore the problem (consciously block out the problem), self-blame (tendency to see themselves as at fault), keep to self (keeping problems to themselves, by withdrawing from others), seek spiritual support (using religion as a coping strategy), focus on the positive (concentrate on the optimistic alternatives), seek professional help (ask a qualified person for advice), seek relaxing diversions (more time on leisure activities) and physical recreation (sport and health activities).

Results Non-parametric tests were used with these data because of the small sample size and because the data were not normally distributed. As Mann-Whitney U tests are used it is inappropriate to describe differences between the groups in terms of mean scores for each of the items looked at. The most pertinent illustration of differences between the groups is through use of the mean rank scores obtained from the statistical analysis.

Problem disclosure The first notable feature of Figure 1 is that the crisis group scored higher mean rank scores than the non-crisis group on all problem sets. Only two of these differences appear negligible (employment and boy–girl relationships), although the difference on peer concerns also appears small. The differences for all of the remaining six problem sets seem more appreciable. What is of particular interest to the foster status of these adolescents is that crisis adolescents seem to have reported that they worry about parent, authority and oppression concerns far more frequently than the non-crisis group. There is also a large difference between the scores for delinquency, even though high scores on this factor are unusual (Porteous, 1985b). The statistical significance of these differences is outlined in

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

591

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Image

Delinq

Oppres

BoyGirl

Self

Autho

Employ

Peers

Parent

Figure 1. Differences in mean ranks of Porteous Problem Checklist scores between crisis ( ) and non-crisis ( ) groups. Image=image; Delinq=delinquency; Oppres=oppression; BoyGirl=boy–girl; Self=self- centred concerns; Autho=authority; Employ=employment; Peers=peers; Parent=parents. Table 1. Because some of the differences were very small, only those with a probability of less than 0·3 are reported in the table. The probability level itself is only reported for scores that fell below a 0·05 level of statistical significance. The problem sets that the crisis teenagers score highly on are particularly interesting. The most significant difference (U=10·5, p<0·003) is seen for parent concerns, where the mean rank score for adolescents who had experienced a crisis placement is 14·10, in comparison to only 5·81 for non-crisis adolescents. It will be remembered that the check list was slightly adjusted to ensure young people answered in relation to their foster parents. These young people, therefore, worried about issues relating to feelings of mistrust and unhappiness in relations to their relationship with foster parents (e.g. “Not being trusted by my foster parents is something that troubles me”). Additionally, Porteous (1985 b , p. 4) noted that parent concerns are most related to scores on oppression and self-centred concerns, both of which also show highly significant differences between the groups. Oppression scores show that the young person worries about “parental rules and unreasonableness. The young person feels that the parents are being too dictatorial and Table 1 Differences between crisis and non-crisis groups on Porteous Problem Checklist scores Problem set Image Delinquency Oppression Self-centred concerns Authority Parents

Mean rank — crisis 12·62 13·62 13·88 13·77 14·04 14·10

Mean rank — non-crisis 8·38 6·75 6·31 6·5 6·0 5·81

U 31 18 14·5 16 12·5 10·5

p n.s. 0·02 0·007 0·009 0·005 0·003

592

D. C. Browne

not permitting growth and responsibility” (Porteous, 1985b). This facet of normal adolescent concern is something that is naturally accentuated by being in foster care. Foster teenagers tend to be more aware of the control that foster parents—who are not their “real” parents—have over their lives, as well as the input of the social welfare agency— something that is not experienced by other teenagers. It is possible that the highly significant difference (U=14·5, p<0·007) noted between the groups on this item reflects that crisis teenagers are more aware of their fostering status than non-crisis young people. The second problem set that is most related to parent concerns is also reported significantly (U=16, p<0·009) more frequently by the crisis group. Self-centred concerns are reported when the young person is “feeling dejected, physically poorly off, lonely and insecure, or having physical complaints” (Porteous, 1985b), which fits the crisis adolescent profile. Interestingly enough, Porteous (1985b ) reported that self-centred items have a lower response rate than other items, and that “high scorers in self-centred concerns are making unusual and significant disclosures.” Crisis placement teenagers in this study report these items highly significantly more often than non-crisis teenagers. It is interesting to note that Porteous (1985b ) found a similarity between self-centred concerns and image concerns, and although the difference was not statistically significant, the latter is also reported in Table 1. Authority concerns are related to “negative feelings which some adolescents hold towards what they perceive as unwarranted interference in their life by adults” (Porteous, 1985 b ). The difference between the two groups on authority (U =12·5, p <0·005) shows crisis teenagers significantly more likely to disclose that they were bothered by these types of problems. Authority concerns are most closely related to oppression and delinquency scores (Porteous, 1985b). The final problem set that is reported here is delinquency, for which there was also statistically significant differences between the two groups ( U =18, p <0·02). Porteous (1985 b ) maintained that “high scorers may be having trouble with the police or at school, or may come from deprived backgrounds.” This factor, in Porteous’ analysis was related to social and physical neglect and deprivation, both of which have been found to be associated with foster care (O’Higgins, 1993; Massinga and Perry, 1994; Fernandez, 1996).

Differences in coping strategies The second question addressed by this study examined whether there were any differences to be noted between the two groups in the coping strategies they use to deal with stress. Figure 2 shows the mean rank ACS scores. These figures clearly indicate a difference in scores on the ACS between adolescents who had experienced a crisis placement and those who had not. Some of the differences, such as professional help, relaxing and physical recreation appear quite small, followed closely by worry, wishful thinking and seeking spiritual support. Of the categories that appear to have larger differences, the non-crisis adolescents seem to show a preference for socially-orientated and positive action coping strategies. These include investing in friends and social support, and working on solving the problem. Only some of the scores were significantly different, however. Table 2 shows those scores with the larger differences. Once again, only scores with a probability value of less than 0·3 are reported, but only those with a probability of less than 0·05 are deemed statistically significant.

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

593

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

SocSup

SolProb

Work

Worry

Friend

Belong

Wish

NotCop

TenRed

SocAc

Ignore

SelfBl

KeSelf

Spirit

FocPos

ProHelp

Relax

PhyRec

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Figure 2. Mean rank scores between crisis ( ) and non-crisis ( ) groups for Adolescent Coping Scale. SocSup=social support; SolProb=focus on solving the problem; Work=work hard and achieve; Worry=worry; Friend=invest in close friends; Belong=seek to belong; Wish=wishful thinking; NotCop=not coping; TenRed=tension reduction; SocAc=social action; Ignore=ignore the problem; SelfBl=self-blame; KeSelf=keep to self; Spirit=seek spiritual support; FocPos=focus on the positive; ProHelp=seek professional help; Relax=seek relaxing diversions; PhyRec=physical recreation.

Table 2 shows that, despite the apparently considerable differences between the two groups noted in Figure 2, only four coping strategies showed any statistically significant differences below the 0·05 level. Of these, three are reported more frequently by adolescents who had experienced crisis placements. These are tension reduction (U =16·5, p <0·01), self-blame ( U =25, p <0·05) and keep to self ( U =18, p <0·02); all arguably rather negative coping strategies. The other two more negative coping strategies in Table 2—not coping and ignoring the problem—are also reported more frequently by the crisis group, although these differences are not statistically significant. When Frydenberg and Lewis (1991) investigated the interrelationships between the 18 strategies of the ACS,

594

D. C. Browne

factor analysis revealed three factors. All of the strategies that are mentioned here showed highest factor loadings on Factor 2, which reflects “a combination of what may be termed non-productive coping and avoidance strategies which are empirically associated with an inability to cope” (Frydenberg and Lewis, 1991, p. 40). Crisis adolescents were also more likely to use social action than their non-crisis counterparts (mean rank of 12·12 as opposed to 9·19), though not significantly so (this fell under Factor 3 in Frydenberg’s and Lewis’ factor analysis, which reflected a desire to refer to others). As has already been mentioned, the adolescents who had not experienced crisis placements seem to report more positive coping strategies, such as social support, investing in friends, focusing on the positive and focus on solving the problem. The only significant difference here is seen in the strategy social support (U=23·5, p<0·04), which involves actively seeking out social support to cope with the problem. None the less, all of these categories fall under Frydenberg’s and Lewis’ (1991) Factor 1, which “represents a style of coping characterized by working at solving the problem while remaining optimistic, fit, relaxed and socially connected.”

Discussion The adolescents who had experienced crisis placements disclosed more concern on all nine of the problem sets, but especially so on items that reflect worry over adult relationships and the amount of control over their lives. These young people have been categorized as “crisis” because of difficulties in their fostering relationships, which implies contention in determining whether they experienced problems with adult relationships and authority as a result of crisis placement, or whether the problems developed as the result of past experiences and then caused a crisis placement. The problems reported most frequently may be inherently of more concern to adolescents in foster care. Triseliotis (1983), for instance, showed that young adults who had grown up in foster care reported more dissatisfaction with the quality of relationships with their foster parents than a comparison group of adoptees. Besides foster parents and natural parents these teenagers must interact with social workers, psychologists and possibly probation officers at a time when most adolescents are instinctively withdrawing from adult society Table 2 Differences in Adolescent Coping Scale scores between crisis and non-crisis participants Coping strategy Social support Focus on solving problem Friends Not coping Tension reduction Social action Ignore the problem Self-blame Keep to self Focus on the positive

Mean rank — crisis 8·81 9·23 9·15 12·12 13·73 12·08 12·12 13·08 13·62 9·73

Mean rank — non-crisis 14·56 13·88 14 .00 9·19 6·56 9·25 9·19 7·63 6·75 13·06

U 23·5 29 28 37·5 16·5 38 37·5 25 18 35

p 0·04 n.s. n.s. n.s. 0·01 n.s. n.s. 0·05 0·02 n.s.

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

595

(Newton, 1995). These adults make important decisions about the teenager’s life and about living arrangements that the young person has little control over. This can be related to locus of control, which Porteous (1985b ) explained as “the extent to which persons feel their lives are controlled by outside events and influence rather than by themselves.” Porteous found that measures of locus of control were highly correlated with parents, authority, oppression and self-centred concerns, which were the four items that showed the most significant differences between the two groups in this study. What is so significant about these results is that a group of foster teenagers showed higher scores than other foster teenagers on the items of most relevance to adolescents in foster care (which are also those between which Porteous (1985b) found strong links). The PPC scores do not show that relationships are not working out, nor why relationships may not be working out. What they do show is that crisis teenagers are saying that they are more bothered by items such as “I am worried because of my foster parents not understanding me” or “Grown-ups always complaining about me is a worry to me.” After disclosing most concern in relation to the power adults had over their lives, crisis adolescents then revealed that they used self-blame as a coping strategy significantly more than their non-crisis counterparts. This item reflects “that an individual sees him/herself as responsible for the concern or worry” (Frydenberg and Lewis, 1993a) which contradicts the idea of an external locus of control. This ambiguity can possibly be explained by returning to Elkind’s (1984) patchwork self model. It will be recalled that patchwork self teenagers develop conflicting and inconsistent attitudes and a poor self-esteem. Stress management, according to Elkind (1984), involves co-ordinating the external demands of society with these internal beliefs. The results of this study seem to show distinct confusion in crisis adolescents between the outward demands (too much control by social workers and foster parents) and inner discord (poor self-esteem and inconsistent beliefs). Patchwork self teenagers will be expected to have poor coping strategies. Frydenberg and Lewis (1993 b ) defined coping as “a set of cognitive and affective actions which arise in response to a particular concern. They represent an attempt to restore the equilibrium or remove the turbulence for the individual.” From the results in this study it would appear that those young people who experienced non-crisis placements were better able to deal with this turbulence. It has already been discussed how context plays an important role in how an individual copes (e.g. Hauser and Bowlds, 1990). Frydenberg and Lewis (1990) attributed high scores on work and focus on solving the problem to the concern their sample (senior secondary school students) had for achievement concerns. In the same way, high scores on items such as self-blame and keep to self may reflect the feelings of isolation, or the lack of attachment that is associated with foster care. Crisis teenagers may be those who have developed poor self-esteem and coping strategies because of their particular developmental experiences. Notwithstanding this assessment, however, Frydenberg and Lewis (1993 b ) noted many of the non-productive coping strategies that have been associated here with crisis teenagers were associated with female participants in their study, a trend—although not a statistically significant one—that was also noted in the current sample (see Browne, 1995). Interestingly enough, Frydenberg and Lewis (1993 b) also suggested that one reason females may have scored higher on non-productive coping is that they may feel less empowered than males. This notion of disempowerment is compatible with the PPC scores and also with Elkind’s (1984) patchwork self teenagers. Many of the teenagers

596

D. C. Browne

participating in this study were female, however, so further study on a larger sample would be necessary before substantial conclusions could be drawn. I would tentatively suggest that the results outlined in this paper would support the idea that teenagers who experience difficult foster placements have developed poor coping skills and find it difficult to deal with normative and non-normative stresses of this period. It is possible that their specific experiences have contributed to these developments. The limitations of the present study, however, mean that interpretations can only be speculative. Further research using these or similar measures on a foster adolescent sample are necessary. A larger sample would, of course, allow for a more valid interpretation. This is a very neglected area of research and there is an urgent need to follow up the highly significant findings of this paper with more substantial data on the problems and coping strategies of foster adolescents.

References Berridge, D. and Cleaver, H. (1987). Foster Home Breakdown. Oxford: Blackwell. Browne, D. (1995). Problems and coping strategies of adolescents in foster care. Workshop presented at the International Foster Care Organization, International Conference, Bergen, Norway. Browne, D. (1996). Problems encountered during foster care placements and their influence on placement outcome. Paper presented at the British Psychological Society, Social Psychology Section Annual Conference, Glasgow. Browne, D. (1997). Approaching an understanding to problems encountered in foster care. Paper presented at the International Foster Care Organization, International Conference, Vancouver, Canada. Charles, G. and Matheson, J. (1991). Suicide prevention and intervention with young people in foster care in Canada. Child Welfare, 70, 185–191. Coleman, J. C. (1995). Adolescence. In Developmental Psychology, Bryant, P. E. and Coleman, A. M. (Eds). Essex: Longman. Colton, M. J. (1988). Dimensions of Substitute Child Care—A comparative study of foster and residential care practice. Aldershot: Avebury. Colton, M., Aldgate, J. and Heath, A. (1991). Behavioural problems among children in and out of care. Social Work and Social Science Review, 2, 117–191. Cooke Parker, K. and Forrest, D. (1993). Attachment disorder: an emerging concern for school counsellors. Elementary School Guidance and Counselling, 27, 209–215. Doelling, J. L. and Johnson, J. H. (1990). Predicting success in foster placement: the contribution of parent–child characteristics. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 60, 585–593. Doyle, C. (1990). Practical Social Work: working with abused children. London: MacMillan. Elkind, D. (1984). All Grown Up and No Place to Go. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Fahlberg, V. (1995). How early life experiences resurface as identity issues in adolescents. In A Journey through Fostering, McTeigue, D. and IFCA (Eds). Ireland: The Irish Foster Care Association. Fanshel, D. and Shinn, E. B. (1978). Children in Foster Care. New York: Columbia University Press. Fernandez, E. (1996). Significant Harm. Unravelling child protection decisions and substitute care careers of children. Aldershot: Avebury. Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. The Psychoanalytical Study of Children, 13, 225–278. Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (1990). How adolescents cope with different concerns: The development of the adolescent coping checklist (ACS). Psychological Test Bulletin, 3, 63–73. Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (1991). Adolescent styles and strategies: Is there functional and dysfunctional coping? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 1, 35–42. Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (1993a). Adolescent Coping Scale, Administrators manual. Victoria, Australia: ACER.

Problem disclosure, coping strategies and placement outcome

597

Frydenberg, E. and Lewis, R. (1993b). Boys play sport and girls turn to others; age, gender and ethnicity as determents of coping. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 153–266. George, V. (1970). Foster Care—theory and practice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Hall, G. S. (1908). Adolescence: its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion and education. New York: Appleton. Hauser, S. T. and Bowlds, M. K. (1990). Stress, coping and adaptation. In At the Threshold, the Developing Adolescent, Feldman, S. S. and Elliot, G. R. (Eds). Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Holdaway, D. M., Ray, M. S. and Ray, J. (1992). Attitudes of street kids toward foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 9, 307–317. Hughes, D. A. (1997). Facilitating Developmental Attachment—the road to emotional recovery and behavioral change in foster and adopted children. New Jersey: Jason and Aronson Inc. Kearney, C. A., Drabmann, R. S. and Beasley, J. F. (1993). The trials of childhood: the development, reliability and validity of the daily life stressors scale. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 2, 371–388. Lee, H. B., Chan, D. and Yik, M. (1992). Coping styles and psychological distress among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 494–506. Levine, K. (1988). The placed child examines the quality of parental care. Child Welfare, 67, 301–310. Macaskill, C. (1991). Adopting or Fostering a Sexually Abused Child. London: Batsford. Massinga, R. and Perry, K. (1994). The Casey Family Program: factors on effective management of a long-term foster care organisation. In When There’s No Place Like Home, Blacher, J. (Ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., pp. 163–180. Molin, R. (1990). Future anxiety: clinical issues of children in the latter phases of foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 501–512. Newton, M. (1995). Adolescence: guiding youth throughout the perilous ordeal. New York: W. W. Norton and Co. O’Higgins, K. (1993). Family Problems and Substitute Care. Paper No. 28 Broadsheet Series. Dublin: Economic and Social Research Institute. Porteous, M. (1979). A survey of the problems of normal 15-year-olds. Journal of Adolescence, 2, 307–323. Porteous, M. (1985a). Developmental aspects of adolescent problem disclosure in England and Ireland. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 464–475. Porteous, M. (1985b). Porteous Checklist: an inventory of adolescent problems—manual. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson. Poulin, J. E. (1992). Kin visiting and the biological attachment of long term foster children. Journal of Social Service Research, 15, 65–79. Rowe, J., Cain, H., Hundleby, M. and Garnett, L. (1984). Long Term Fostering. London: Batsford and British Agency for Adoption and Fostering. Shulman, S., Seiffge-Krenke, I. and Samet, N. (1987). Adolescent coping style as a function of perceived family climate. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 367–381. Stern, A., Lynch, D. L., Oates, R. K., O’Toole, B. and Cooney, G. (1995). Self esteem, depression, behaviour and family functioning in sexually abused children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36, 1077–1089. Thompson, R. W., Authier, K. and Ruma, P. (1994). Behavior problems of sexually abused children in foster care: A preliminary study. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 3, 79–91. Trasler, G. (1960). In Place of Parents—a study of foster care. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Triseliotis, J. (1980). Growing up in foster care and after. In New Developments in Adoption and Fostering, Triseliotis, J. (Ed.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Triseliotis, J. (1983). Identity and security in adoption and long term fostering. Adoption and Fostering, 7, 22–33. Weinstein, E. A. (1960). The Self Image of the Foster Child. New York: Russell Sage. Zimmerman, R. B. (1988). Childhood Depression: new theoretical formulations and implications for foster care services. Child Welfare, 67, 37–47.