Ecological approach to work with foster families in the USA and Europe

The article provides the review of contemporary practice in using ecological approach to work with foster families: investigation of peculiarities of their functioning and provision of social and psychological support. The issues of social support and facilitation of communication between the three main stakeholders — biological families, foster families and social workers — are discussed at the exosystemic level. The mesosystemic level is represented with the analysis of the issues of kinship care and provision of continuity in a child's life in the context of non-kinship care. Chronosystem is described as dynamic changes at all the levels of functioning: from child welfare reforms to a child's ontogenetic development. Interrelations between the ecological approach and other topical theories are briefly described.

1. Bernheimer L.P., Gallimore R., Weisner T.S. Ecocultural theory as a context for the individual family service plan // Journal of Early Intervention. 1990. Vol. 14, № 3. P. 219—233.
2. Boss P. Ambiguous loss theory: Challenges for scholars and practitioners // Family Relations. 2007. Vol. 56, № 2. P. 105—111.
3. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological models of human development // International encyclopedia of education / T. Husen, T.N. Postlethwaite. New York: Elsevier Science, 1994. P. 37—43.
4. Brown J. Fostering children with disabilities: A concept map of parent needs // Children and Youth Services Review. 2007. Vol. 29, № 9. P. 1235—1248.
5. Brown-Standridge M.D., Floyd C.V. Healing bittersweet legacies: Revisiting contextual family therapy for grandparents raising grandchildren in crisis // Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2000. Vol. 26, № 2. P. 185—197.
6. Burgess C. "It's just another home, just another family, so it's nae different" children's voices in kinship care: A research study about the experience of children in kinship care in Scotland / C. Burgess, F. Rossvoll, B. Wallace, B. Daniel // Child & Family Social Work. 2010. Vol. 15, № 3. P. 297—306.
7. Chiara Berti L.P. Different ecological perspectives for evaluating residential care outcomes: Which window for the black box? // Children and Youth Services Review. 2009. Vol. 31, № 10. P. 1080—1085.
8. Coman W., Devaney J. Reflecting on outcomes for looked-after children: An ecological perspective // Child Care in Practice. 2011. Vol. 17, № 1. P. 37—53.
9. Fahlberg V. A child's journey through placement. London: BAAF, 2008. 430 p.
10. Family reunification: What the evidence shows // Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. 20 p.
11. Farineau H.M., McWey L.M. The relationship between extracurricular activities and delinquency of adolescents in foster care // Children and Youth Services Review. 2011. Vol. 33, № 6. P. 963—968.
12. Fong R., Schwab J., Armour M. Continuity of activities and child well-being for foster care youth // Children and Youth Services Review. 2006. Vol. 28, № 11. P. 1359—1374.
13. Frensch K.M., Cameron G. Treatment of choice or a last resort? A review of residential mental health placements for children and youth // Child and Youth Care Forum. 2002. Vol. 31, № 5. P. 307—339.
14. Gallimore R The social construction of ecocultural niches: Family accommodation of developmentally delayed children / Gallimore, Ronald; Weisner, Thomas S.; Kaufman, Sandra Z.; Bernheimer, Lucinda P. // American Journal on Mental Retardation. 1989. Vol. 94, № 3. P. 216—230.
15. George S., Oudenhoven N., Wazir E. Foster care beyond the crossroads: Lessons from an international comparative analysis // Childhood. 2003. Vol. 10, № 3. P. 343—361.
16. Ghate D., Hazel N. Parenting in poor environments. Stress, support and coping. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2002. 315 p.
17. Goodman C.C., Potts M.K., Pasztor E.M. Caregiving grandmothers with vs. without child welfare system involvement: Effects of expressed need, formal services, and informal social support on caregiver burden // Children and Youth Services Review. 2007. Vol. 29, № 4. P. 428—441.
18. Hong J.S. An ecological understanding of kinship foster care in the United States / Jun Sung Hong, Carl L. Algood, Yu-Ling Chiu, Stephanie Ai-Ping Lee // Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2011. Vol. 20, № 5. P. 863—872.
19. MacGregor T.E. The needs of foster parents: A qualitative study of motivation, support, and retention / Tracy E. MacGregor, Susan Rodger, Anne L. Cummings, Alan W. Leschied // Qualitative Social Work. 2006. Vol. 5, № 3. P. 351—368.
20. Milner J.L. An ecological perspective on duration of foster care // Child Welfare. 1987. Vol. 66, № 2. P. 113—124.
21. Minuchin P. Training Manual for foster parents based on an ecological perspective on foster care / P. Minuchin, A. Brooks, J. Colapinto, E. Genijovich, D. Minuchin, S. Minuchin. New York: Family Studies, 1990.
22. Mosek A. Relations in Foster Care // Journal of Social Work. 2004. Vol. 4, № 3. P. 323—343.
23. Mowbray C.T., Holder M., Teague G.B., Bybee D. Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and validation // American Journal of Evaluation. 2004. Vol. 24, № 3. P. 315—340.
24. Orme J.G., Cherry D.J., Rhodes K.W. The Help with Fostering Inventory // Children and Youth Services Review. 2006. Vol. 28, № 11. P. 1293—1311.
25. Parenting in contemporary Europe: A positive approach. Council of Europe, 2007. 175 p.
26. Quinton D. Supporting parents. Messages from research. London: Jessica Kingsley, 2004. 272 p.
27. Rostill-Brookes H. A shared experience of fragmentation: Making sense of foster placement breakdown / Helen Rostill-Brookes, Michael Larkin, Amy Toms, Clare Churchman // Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2011. Vol.16, № 1. P. 103 —127.
28. Turner H.A., Pearlin L.I., Mullan J.T. Sources and determinants of social support for caregivers of persons with AIDS // Journal of health and human behavior. 1998. Vol. 30, № 2. P. 137—151.
29. Whiting J.B., Huber P.T. Significant stress and real rewards: the ecological and ambiguous experiences of foster parents // Relational Child and Youth Care Practice. 2007. Vol. 20, № 1. P. 9—20.