Our systematic review found that processes for matching children with foster families were often taking place in rushed or crisis environments. Children and young people wanted to be involved in the match decision-making process. We have not been able to draw strong conclusions on the impact of matching decisions on the outcomes of children in care, due to weak evidence.
The majority of children in care in the UK live in a fostering family. Which family a child is matched with can have a pivotal role in their care journey, and therefore we wanted to understand more about these decisions. The systematic review explored lived experiences of matching children with foster families and examined the evidence on the outcomes of matching decisions.
Our aims were to:
We looked for studies that explored the perspectives of care-experienced young people, foster carers and children’s social care practitioners in the UK, focusing on aspects considered important in the matching process. We also sought studies using experimental or quasi-experimental designs to assess the impact of matching processes for children and young people in foster care.
Searches were conducted using eleven academic databases, as well as websites and the grey literature.
Eighteen studies were included for the analysis of Research Question 1; sixteen of these studies were located in England, one in Scotland, and one was in the UK but did not say where.
Five studies (four located in the USA and one in Canada) were included for Research Question 2.
We advise caution in interpreting these findings due to methodological limitations in some of the studies included, and a risk of bias being high.
Experiences and Perceptions
Matches were often made in a rush, meaning that carers and children did not receive much information about each other beforehand, and there was little time to prepare for the child’s arrival into the foster home.
Children and young people wanted to be involved in the match decision-making process. Information sharing was also important to foster carers, children and young people, and the initial arrival into a foster home was seen as a critical moment.
Social workers sometimes prioritised matching by ethnicity and culture without considering what was important to the child or their multiple and intersecting identities. Children and young people valued shared qualities and experiences with their foster carers, but living in a household that respected and supported their identity was also important.
Impact and Attribution
There were not enough studies included to allow for any strong conclusions about the impact of matching in foster care.
We recommend greater reflexivity and consultation in decision-making and in foster care planning and transitioning processes. Matching in foster care should be well-resourced to allow for child-centred practice which supports social workers to reflect on intersections of identity, consultation with young people and their birth families, and visits between the child and potential foster families.
There is a need for high quality studies to be carried out so that we can find out about the impact and attribution of various matching practices in foster care.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.