Victory 1

“All I wanted was someone to be there”: Surviving the Structured Abuse in Group Homes

Olivia Victory California State University San Marcos Master of Arts in Sociological Practice May 2016

Thesis Committee: Kristin Bates, Ph.D., Chair Christopher Bickel, Ph.D Marisol Clark-Ibáñez, Ph.D.

Victory 2

Table of Contents

Section Page Abstract……………………………………………………………………... 3 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………. 4 Introduction...……………………………………………………………….. 5 Statement of the Problem……………………………………….……………7 Historical Context of Residential Care Facilities……………………………11 Literature Review……………………………………………………………14 The Clinical Master Narrative……….………………………………15 Youth Experiences in Care…………………………………….….....19 Total Institutions……………...………………………………….…..25 Street-Level Bureaucrat………….…………………………………..28 Theory………………………………….…………………………………….33 Erving Goffman’s Total Institutions…………………………………33 Standpoint Theory……………………………………………………35 Methodology…………………………………….……………….…...... 38 Reflexivity through Standpoint…….……………….…...... 38 Overview of Methods……………………….………………………..39 Participants……………………………………………….…………..41 Procedures………………………………………………………...….42 Ethical Considerations…………………………………………...... 44 Findings………………………………………………………………………45 Life Inside Structured Abuse…………..……………………………..45 Effect on Life……………………………………………………...….75 Taking Back Control………………………………………………….87 Transition into Adulthood…………………………………………….98 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..….105 Recommendations……………………………………………………………107 References…………………………………………………………………....111 Appendix A…………………………………………………………………..119 Appendix B…………………………………………………………………..120 Appendix C…………………………………………………………………..123

Victory 3

Abstract

This research delves into the lives of individuals who have experienced living in group homes in the foster care system. I look specifically at how these forms of institutional care affect transition into adulthood. By conducting eight semi-structured interviews, participants share their stories and experiences of these institutions, and bring insight into how such institutions have affected their lives. The interviews recount the standpoints of each participant through their retrospective reflections of their time spent in group homes and transitions into adulthood. The participants reveal the structured abuse found inside of group homes, and highlight how this abuse has affected their lives. My research represents a social justice approach for youth in the foster care system, which demands transparency and accountability to the care provided in group homes.

Keywords. Group home; residential treatment center; institutional care; structured abuse; total institutions; street-level bureaucrat; counter-narratives

Acknowledgments Victory 4

This thesis is dedicated to the youth I had the honor of getting to know and love during my time working as a childcare worker in a group home. Although brief, I cherish the moments I spent with you all and have forever been changed by your presence.

I would like to thank my chair Dr. Bates for her overwhelming amount of support and guidance. Thank you for your professional insight and calming presence during each step of the way, and not to mention the delicious dinners! Your hospitality and positivity made this process enjoyable and memorable.

Thanks to the rest of my committee for your unwavering encouragement. Dr. Chris Bickel, thank you for your words of wisdom and for taking the time to edit my paper and help bring it to life. Dr. Clark-Ibáñez, thank you for believing in me and supporting me since day one, your dedication to your students is truly inspiring.

I give a special thanks to my family and friends who have been my own personal cheerleading team. Thank you to my grandparents for creating the love that is at the foundation of our family. Most importantly, thank you to my parents who have shown me the power of unconditional love and support. I would not be the person I am today if not for them.

Introduction Victory 5

The three houses stood alone and in uniform, with green grass and a bed of flowers stretched across each parameter giving an illusion of tranquility. Every time I stepped inside the manufactured walls of each house, I felt the same uneasy twists in the pit of my stomach. I tried to make sense of the utopian image that was so clearly painted for me, alongside the contradictory feelings that jolted me in directions I have never felt before. As I scanned the barren walls inside each house, I found multiple rules, point charts and a lined-off section reserved for the art project of the month. The staff office in the center of the house locked from the inside had a solid glass window that could never be shattered. This was not a home, it was an institution.

I first met Daisy as I started volunteering at Hogar de Amistad, a residential treatment center whose mission statement is to provide care for youth who have experienced abuse and neglect. The first time I talked to Daisy she ignored me. After that moment I was more hesitant to talk with her. For a while I felt a particular distance from Daisy, while my relationships with the other youth at Amistad developed much faster. Some staff members warned me about “kids like Daisy.” They referred to Daisy as a “bad kid” and that “these kids” weren’t like their own children. I had a hard time believing what the staff warned me, so I kept trying.

Throughout my volunteer work I continued to listen to Daisy. She was a great teacher. I noticed that with time and patience Daisy began to open up, and we formed a friendship. She shared her story and her worries about the future. She explained her biggest fear was that she didn’t want to become homeless. I saw her resistance as a source of strength and as a way of survival within the strict bureaucratic restraints of the institution. I slowly began to understand the reasons why Daisy held people at such a distance. Victory 6

When I began to work as a staff member at Hogar de Amistad, Daisy expressed that this upset her and told me our relationship was going to be different now that I was “staff.” I tried to reassure her that I was there because I cared and that I wouldn’t change, but I soon learned that

Daisy had been through this before. I felt as though I had to regain her trust and reassure her the reasons why I was there. However in time I began to realize that Daisy was right: Hogar de

Amistad did not approve of our friendship. These close mentoring relationships were not allowed or supported.

One day as I was working, Daisy taught me something about her life that will stay with me forever. She expressed she wanted to know what it was like to yell at someone and feel bad.

She explained she had never cared for someone enough to feel remorse after yelling at them.

When she yells at staff, she doesn’t feel bad. After hearing this I saw a small glimpse of a deep loneliness that Daisy has been battling her entire life.

Daisy taught me about the abusive side of Hogar de Amistad that I was not supposed to see, a side that has been silenced and hidden from sight. I learned that this institution allows a young girl to spend her entire life without feeling unconditional love and support, and that this form of care places a barrier between two people that prevents love and compassion. I did not understand how children who just lost their families could be banished to live in a structure of abuse and treated as criminals. I want to understand how youth experience institutional care and how this care affects their lives.

Statement of the Problem

Erving Goffman defines a total institution as “a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of time, together lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life” (Goffman 1961). Victory 7

According to Goffman’s definition of a total institution, youth living in residential group or congregate care such as residential treatment centers (RTCs) and group homes experience this form of institutional care. This research will delve into the lives of youth who experience these forms of institutional care within the child welfare system to better understand the effects of these institutions on their lives and well-being.

The child welfare system takes legal responsibility for the care and well-being of the child, acting as a caregiver or parent. When a child is removed from their home by the state, they enter into the foster care system (Trends 2013). Youth living in out-of-home care in the foster care system are provided food, housing, medical, and caseworker support (Trends 2013).

Children who enter the foster care system can be placed in different forms of care. Such out-of- home care includes kinship care, family foster homes, therapeutic and medical foster homes, emergency shelters, group homes, supervised independent living settings, and residential treatment centers (RTCs) (Mallon et al. 2005). Youth have different experiences depending on their placement in out-of-home care. I am going to focus my research on youth who live in residential treatment centers or group homes because these forms of care are different than traditional home settings.

Foster youth demographics represent a diverse range of social experiences. According to the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), in 2013, of the 402,

378 youth living in the foster care system, 6% or 23,314 youth live in a group home and 8% or

32,602 youth live in an institution. The demographics of youth in the overall foster care system are 52% of youth are male and 48% are female. Also out of this number 42% are considered to be White, 24% are Black or African American, 22% are Hispanic, 9% are multiracial or other races, 2% are American Indian/Alaskan Native, 3% are unknown/unable to determine, and 1 % Victory 8 are Asian (The AFCARS Report 2013). Children of color enter into the foster care system at disproportionate rates, where there are larger numbers of African American and American Indian in foster care in comparison to their overall population size (Summers, Wood and Donnovan,

2013). This research also found that older youth are more likely to be living in group homes or institutions, with only 1% of youth in these facilities being between the ages one and five (Kids

Count, 2011).

Placements in group home care is supposed to be temporary (A National Look 2015), however in California it was estimated that over two-thirds of youth have been in these forms of care for more than two years and approximately one-third stay for over five years (AB403). Title

IV-E of the Social Security Act states that children in the foster care system should have a case plan that puts them a setting conducive to their needs and welfare with the least amount of restriction necessary (HHS 2015).

According to a survey conducted by the Juvenile Residential Facility Census, there are more than 900 facilities that classify as a RTC, 660 facilities that identified as group homes, and over 100 identified as both a group home and a RTC (Residential 2010, Hockenberry, Sickmund, and Sladky 2009 2011). Public and non-profit private child-care institutions must become licensed by each State of residence (42 CFR). Although group homes and RTCs are both classified as residential group care, they have a different level of care.

Through understanding the characteristics of residential group care, or as I will refer to it as institutional care, the differences can be understood on how these forms of care vary from other forms of care provided to youth in the child welfare system. The differences between RTCs and group homes from other types of care are in the level and type of care provided to youth.

Rate classification levels (RCLs) for group care signify the level of care provided within each Victory 9 institution. Levels 12 to 14 are the highest levels of care provided for group care in California, which are designed specifically for children who need the most severe treatment services

(Implementing Group Care 2015). Group homes provide the basic needs of youth, but do not have treatment for mental health problems, whereas residential treatment centers focus primarily on therapeutic treatment services to residents (Bates, English, and Kouidou–Giles 1997,

Residential 2010). A group home typically has around 5-15 residents and has less restrictive boundaries than RTCs with how youth can interact in the public. Children are placed in group home care for various reasons, such as behavioral issues, experiences with abuse and neglect, or because of a lack of family settings available in foster care (Group Homes 2008, Young People).

RTCs provide a higher level of care than group homes. This care is geared towards youth that have been classified as having behavioral, psychological, psychiatric, substance abuse problems, or youth who were too “unruly” for other forms of care. These facilities typically provide a wide range of mental health or substance abuse treatment programs and 24-hour staff supervision in a highly structured environment (Bettman and Jasperson 2009 Residential 2010).

This research will look at how the common institutional aspects of care in RTCs and group homes affect the lives of youth.

Approximately 28,000 youth transition from the foster care system each year due to aging out (Brown et al. 2011, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2011). “Aging out” refers to when youth are dropped from all support and care from the state once they reach the legal age that is specified by the state they are living in. During this transition into adulthood, youth are left to take care of themselves (Trends 2013). Some legislation offers programs that support former foster youth until age twenty-one, such as the AB12 program in California, which provides transitional support services and housing for former foster youth given they fulfill Victory 10 certain requirements (AB12).

Although some support exists for youth transitioning out of foster care, after two to four years of aging out of the foster care system it is estimated that 51% of youth are unemployed,

40% rely on public assistance, 25% become homeless, and 20% will be incarcerated (Ready to

Succeed 2008). In a Midwest study of former foster youth, Courtney et al. (2007) found that 55% of youth who aged out of the foster care system were arrested at least once between the ages of

18 and 21, in comparison to 8% of youth within similar ages who were not former foster youth

(Courtney et al. 2007, O’Hare, 2008). According to the “National Factsheet on the Educational

Outcomes of Children in Foster Care” (2014) roughly 20% of foster youth who graduated from high school continued on to attend college. Around 2 to 9% of former foster youth achieve a bachelor’s degree (Fostering 2014). Based on these statistics it is apparent that foster youth are experiencing challenges and obstacles that are hindering their success as they transition into adulthood.

Through exploring literature and by conducting interviews with youth who have aged out of the system, I gain insight into the challenges and obstacles that youth face while transitioning from the foster care system. My research focuses specifically on the experiences of youth who transition from group homes and residential treatment facilities to offer a critique and deeper understanding of the roles these institutions play in the transition into adulthood. Youth in institutional care such as group homes and RTCs receive different types of care than other youth who transition from the foster care system (Lee and Thompson 2008, Lee and Barth 2011). My research honors the experiences, voices, and resiliency of youth who have lived in group homes and RTCs, and attempts to understand how these institutions affect their transition into adulthood. One goal of my thesis is to raise knowledge and awareness of how or if children’s Victory 11 rights and well-being are being supported and addressed in institutional care. I propose ideas for improving policy and law that supports the rights, voices, and well-being of all youth in the system.

Historical Context of Residential Care Facilities

Institutional care has its origins in the beginning of control over adolescence. Public schools were the first institutions that were constructed from the need to control youth, which stemmed from the need for compliant workers. Prior to the mid-1700s, parents and community members held the main responsibility of control over children, however laws were ultimately created for the punishment of adults who were unable to control their children (Shelden, 2008).

Through understanding the progression of laws and policies throughout history, a deeper analysis can be made of the ideologies present in current institutions that control the lives of children. Parens patriae is a legal doctrine that was first seen in medieval England’s chancery courts, which established the legal authority of the king as guardian over those who were deemed unable to take care of themselves (Shelden 2008). Parens patriae eventually developed into the

19th century as the legal source for state intervention and control over children who were orphaned or whose parents were labeled incompetent by the state (Teitelbaum and Harris 1977 as cited in Shelden 2008). Such policies and methods of control blame and demonize poor communities, rather than recognizing the systemic conditions that create social problems.

Through understanding the historical significance behind current laws, analysis can be made on the function these laws continue to hold in society. Such laws were created to govern the lives of poor communities in order to support the larger capitalist system (Shelden 2008). Institutional control over poor communities is further illustrated through neoliberalism. Victory 12

Neoliberalism has brought further control over poor communities for the benefit of the system and those in power. Lyon-Callo (2008) explains that neoliberalism is a move towards using the private, “free market” as the answer to social problems, which supports deregulation, marketization, privatization; and has produced an increase in the use of capitalist production on a global level. These structural changes have decreased funding for social welfare programs, education and health, and have caused an increase in global inequalities (Stigliz 2002; Lyon-

Callo 2008). Such inequalities are seen in the current wealth divide in the United States, namely that wealth exists for those with power in the system; poverty exists for those without power in the system (Lyon-Callo 2008). Power in the United States has been established by an investment in whiteness, where those who benefit from being White hold more power (Lipstiz 1998). Lipstiz explains that the possessive investment in whiteness is seen throughout history and currently in the discourse, laws, and policies that create disadvantage and inequality in poor communities of color. This is seen when poor communities are blamed for the problems facing their communities, rather than the discrimination they face (Lipstiz 1998). Neoliberalism perpetuates a system that maintains dominance through White privileges.

The inequalities produced by neoliberalism become normalized in society through the support of dominant hegemonic ideologies that justify systems of control as seen in the foster care system. Lyon-Callo (2008) describes neoliberal ideologies as seen in the Clinton and Bush administrations. Here the continuum of care went from a system of government provided support through social safety nets, to a market-based approach providing services focused on fixing the individual (Lyon- Callo 2008). Neoliberal ideologies, such as blaming the individual, are seen throughout institutions. Victory 13

The ideologies that support the agendas of neoliberalism are found within the institutions that serve marginalized communities. Spade (2011) explains the presence of neoliberalism, “This is due to the fact that many organizations are run and operated by wealthy White people with college or graduate degrees, which ultimately creates a system of decision-making based off power and control through hegemonic White supremacy” (Spade 2011). Spade argues that White supremacy is present within the power and control of organizations, in that organizations are often run off of those who have the privilege of attaining a college or graduate degree.

Neoliberalism is present in such organizations that are run and operated by those who hold power in society (Spade 2011). The presence of neoliberal ideologies and White supremacy influences the ways in which institutions were founded, and are run and operated. Youth living in institutional care see the effects of neoliberalism when they experience treatment that supports the neoliberal agenda of White supremacy (Spade 2011). This is seen when the rules and structure of group homes are determined by the dominant ideologies of those in power within the institution.

The origins and development of current institutions are important to understand in order to better see how current institutions view, treat, and care for youth living in group homes or residential treatment centers. Throughout history up to present day there is a pattern of demonizing and blaming poor communities, and failing to recognize the systemic causes of social problems. Youth living in institutional care experience the dominant hegemonic ideology that they are the problem and in need of special care that will help them become better citizens.

However, another common theme throughout history is a lack of knowledge of how youth experience the institutions that run their lives. Without the voices of youth present in the institutions, they will remain subjected to abuses and injustices that fail to support their needs. Victory 14

Institutions that provide care to youth need to understand how youth experience care and whether or not they feel their well-being and future success is being supported. The following literature will explore the complex nature of institutional care in order to better understand how youth experience these forms of care.

Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

The following literature explores the experiences of youth who live within the confines of institutional care in an attempt to better understand how these forms of care affect their transitions into adulthood. In the first section I explore how the institution follows a clinical master narrative, which ignores the voices of youth and contributes the lack of control they have over their lives as well as introducing counter narratives. The second section looks how the micro level of counter narratives through youth experiences in care. The third section takes readers inside the walls of a total institution to gain better understandings of what life is like and add to the existing literature of counter narratives. The final section shows the constraints and requirements of street-level bureaucrats who are in charge of enforcing the master narrative within total institutions, and how this further affects the type of care provided. I draw from literature that describes other types of total institutions to create a better overall picture of institutional care, which focuses on the common institutional aspects. This literature review presents research that explains what life is like living inside of institutional care, in order to gain better knowledge on the social experiences of youth living inside of residential treatment centers and group homes.

THE CLINICAL MASTER NARRATIVE Victory 15

Literature that tells a “master narrative,” which supports hegemonic understandings of social problems, supports clinical and institutional views of youth (Lyon-Callo 2008). The following literature presents the various narratives found in institutional care and research. This section explores ways that youth in institutional care are pathologized in their everyday interactions. Haslam (2003) argues, “Pathologizing is rooted in judgments that the behavior in question is uncommon, incomprehensible, and internally caused” (Haslam 2003: 625). In this definition, personal judgments on behavior function to define and label those who are not fully understood. I explore the functions of pathologizing youth within institutional policies, treatment, and practices. Through understanding how and why youth are pathologized in institutional care, I will be able to gain deeper insights into youth experiences while in care, as well as understand how such experiences are present across all institutions.

The divide in narratives is seen between the narratives of youth and the narratives of the institution. Polvere (2011) explains there is a lack of research on how youth make sense of and experience treatment. Instead, there is more of a focus on clinical analysis on individual youth behaviors, or psychopathology. This shortage of research reveals an overall lack of support for and knowledge of the narratives of youth. Bamberg (2004) and Polvere (2011) refer to the dominant analysis in research as a clinical master narrative. In this narrative children are not a part of the discussion and are placed as objects to be studied (Fox and Berrick 2007, Polvere

2011).

The clinical master narrative is seen in research that focuses on assessing and treating youth behavior. In concentrating on the individual traits and the behavioral concerns of youth, such research contributes to a discourse of blame and demonization. Gorske, Srebalus, and Walls

(2003) find that “most effort needs to focus on identifying treatment combinations that are Victory 16 effective for more disturbed adolescents.” These authors support general arguments that are found in psychotherapy research and literature. They conclude that “disturbed youth” need a better arrangement of treatment to be more successful in residential treatment (Gorske et al.

2003). Through labeling youth as being “disturbed” and in suggesting they need a different array of treatment, the authors contribute to the clinical master narrative, which focuses on treating the individual as a problem to be fixed. Such discourse fails to look at the structural and institutional conditions youth are subjected to that influence their behavior.

The clinical master narrative has powerful effects on the types of treatment youth receive in these institutions. The research of Foltz and Huefner (2014) looks at youth experiences with psychotropic medications in residential treatment centers. Participants in this study include a representative sample of youth who reside in residential treatment centers around Chicago who have experienced high exposure to psychotropic medications. The Survey of Adolescent

Treatment Experience in this study reveals a majority of the youth experience negative feelings of being medicated and feel as though the medications did not create positive results (Foltz and

Huefner 2014). Foltz and Huefner (2014) explain, “The extent to which youth have influence in their treatment planning is often based on the adults’ perception about the youth’s judgment, clinical presentation, maturity, or diagnosis” (p.760). In this we see how the master narrative is further solidified through adult perceptions of youth behavior. As a result, youth experience a lack of control over their bodies and well-being. Adults who are in control of the lives of youth create and follow the master narrative when they fail to value the experiences and voices of youth. In prescribing youth with psychotropic medications, adults are silencing youth.

Prescribing medication in residential care is a way in which adults try to control and “fix” the behavior of youth, rather than looking at the how the institution is creating environments where Victory 17 these behaviors occur. Although some cases may require the use of medication, medication in these facilities are used to control the behaviors of youth for managerial reasons rather than for the health and well-being of youth.

The master narrative, which emerges from clinical and institutional perspectives, pathologizes youth based on the judgments adults have on youth behaviors (Haslam 2003).

Pathologizing youth through a master narrative, like the clinical perspective, is a dominant form of studying and understanding the emotional and behavioral challenges of youth (Polvere 2011).

In the mental health system and in institutional care, those in charge of enforcing the master narrative fail to understand the experiences and perspectives of those directly receiving care and treatment.

Blaming youth prevents the institution and workers within the institution from confronting their own failures (Lipsky 2010). This view keeps institutions in a constant state of control, without taking any responsibility for any the inadequacies and injustices present in care.

Youth experiences and perspectives must be critical to understand service delivery, quality of care, and care reform (Bamberg 2004, Fox and Berrick 2007, Polvere 2011). The master narrative discourse functions as a tool to pathologize youth and protect the institution.

Counter Narratives

In the research presented by Polvere (2011), youth countered the clinical master narrative through describing their frustrations over living in restrictive environments and the inability to express their needs. Polvere (2011) conducted semi-structured interviews with twelve youth in regards to their experiences in out-of-home mental health placements, such as residential treatment centers and inpatient hospitals. Through this research, youth challenged the clinical Victory 18 master narrative in describing how institutional environments and socio-cultural influences have an impact on their behavior within the institutions (Polvere 2011).

The counter narratives of youth conflict with the master narratives told by institutions.

Youth explained they sought attention from adults through “acting out.” The clinical responses and perspectives of youth in these institutional settings label youth who “act out” as having

“symptoms” of psychopathology (Polvere 2011). Practices within the institutions, such as physical restraints, are used as forms of staff control over youth as a response to youth who “act out” (Polvere 2011). Youth expressed their fear and frustration over experiences with this control and power, and those who have a history of abuse or trauma experience harmful effects. Youth experience alienation and dehumanization when their behaviors or emotional expressions are attributed to their mental health diagnosis, as a result of stigma (Polvere 2011). Polvere (2011) shares Tayna’s experiences of being labeled mentally-ill:

Because you’re diagnosed with a mental illness you lose all your human rights, whether it’s to happiness, whether it’s anger, being sad, you’re not supposed to have [emotions], and if you do have them we’re gonna give you a pill for it because it means you’re having an episode. And that’s just not fair. (P. 332)

Tayna explains how her human rights were taken away as a result of her mental health diagnosis, and that her emotions were viewed as further evidence of psychopathology rather than as a regular human experience. Treatment is primarily focused on the individual’s psychiatric diagnosis and the clinical assessments of youth, which neglects to evaluate how youth are experiencing and making sense of the treatment they receive (Polvere 2011). When residential treatment centers fail to acknowledge or listen to the counter narratives of youth, the institution fails to recognize the socio-cultural factors and institutional effects that shape individual behavior. Victory 19

Blaming the individual, as seen in the master narratives, fails to recognize structural conditions within the institutions. In the book “System Kids: Adolescent Mothers and the Politics of Regulation”, Lauren Silver (2015) responds to how youth are treated as an illnesses within institutions, “These kinds of representations remove our focus from “the problem” of structural conditions, among them urban poverty, racism, gender violence, and institutional polarization, as well as dire economic, housing, and educational situations for youth aging out of care” (Silver

2015: 158). She continues to note that the “disease” is not the youth who are being marginalized but exits in society (Silver 2015). Silver (2015) identifies the structural conditions in society as the problems or “illness” to be addressed and shifts the focus from how youth who experience them. This argument presents a counter narrative to the master narrative, in that problems stem from the socio-economic conditions that youth experience in society and in institutional care.

YOUTH EXPERIENCES IN CARE

Identity

The socio-economic conditions that youth face in society and in institutional care shape their social experiences, This is seen in the oppressive conditions that are created in institutional care, which affects the identities of youth. Erving Goffman (1961) illustrates how total institutions affect a person’s self upon entering and living within the barriers of the institution that are set apart from the outside world. Goffman explains that a person can experience

“mortification” when the institution fails to support each person’s self. This can be seen when the institution isolates the individual from the outside world and strips the person of all outside support, stable social connections, and previous roles (Goffman 1961: 14-16). An example of this is seen in the admission process, when a person is examined, shaped, and programed to fit into the administrative guidelines of the establishment. During this process the institution has the Victory 20 power to take the belongings and “identity equipment,” as seen in a loss of identity, of the individual (Goffman 1961: 21). Possessions are often held in unreachable storage, however

“property dispossession” may occur when the institution fails to provide individual lockers and choose to confiscate such property (Goffman, 1961: 19). As shown in the experiences of those living in total institutions, youth living in institutional care are prone to experience challenges in maintaining personhood and choice.

Oppression occurs when institutions use identity to implement power and control over certain populations, yet youth maintain agency when they resist this power. Lauren Silver

(2015)’s research explores the experiences of young mothers living in a transitional living facility. “Gatekeepers” or the workers who determine who is deserving of services use various bureaucratic tools and organizational barriers to implement control (Silver 2015). Through institutional discretion, gatekeepers are able to use their own judgment in deciding who is deserving of services, which can be influenced by racist and other discriminatory views. Silver refers to the work of Cheryl Mattingly’s (2008) idea of a “border zone” to help explain how identity negotiations occur. In this space officials and clients use identity stereotypes and cultural differences to interpret a client’s identity recognition (Silver 2015). Such stereotypes produce discrimination over who can access services. Silver (2015) shows how young mothers strategically performed certain identities in order to avoid stereotypes that may prevent them from obtaining services. The agency of young mothers is shown in the ways they resist certain identities. Silver (2015) shows that although young mothers experience a lack of power and access to services based on their intersectional identities within society, they are able to form their own strategic ways of resistance. Victory 21

Based on their racial identity and social status, young mothers are subject to discrimination and stigma. The young mothers in the study by Silver (2015) experience different oppressions based on their intersectionality, or identities of gender, race, class, and age (Collins 1999).

Young mothers experience a lack of power based on the social categories they are placed in, which constrains their choices (Silver 2015). The social realities that young mothers face while navigating services within institutions represents the ways marginalized groups experience such services and forms of care. Institutions use identities to control access to services, which creates a system of privilege based on White supremacy.

Youth have different social experiences of institutional care based on their identity and social status. Goodkind, Shook, Kim, Pohlig, and Herring (2013) used multivariate analysis to study people living in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, who were born between 1985 and 1994, lived in out-of-home care, and/or had families who received in-home services from the child welfare system. Goodkind et al. (2013) found that out-of-home placement for youth in the child welfare system increased the likelihood of involvement with the juvenile justice system, which is supported by other recent studies (Doyle 2007; Jonson-Reid 2002). This shows that the social positions and experiences of youth in care have an influence on their involvement in the juvenile justice system.

Goodkind et al. (2013) also found that when girls entered into congregate care, their chances of being involved with the juvenile justice system doubled, but boys experienced little effects. Racial differences were shown by White youth’s likelihood of being involved with the juvenile justice system increased more than the African American youth. Once involved in child welfare in this county, the African American youth were more likely than the White youth to be removed from their homes (Goodkind et al. 2013). Although analysis of these findings may vary, Victory 22

Goodkind et al. (2013) states that more research needs to be done to prevent racial prejudices within these systems, as well as meeting the needs of different genders. This study shows that youth have different experiences in the various systems that control their life, depending on their racial and sexual orientations. This provides further evidence of systems that perpetuate and create disadvantages and oppressions based on the identities of youth.

Institutional Violence

Literature about institutional violence further illuminates the effects of the master narrative. Spade (2011) argues that violence is used in institutions as a means of social control through creating and enforcing standards of what is healthy or socially acceptable behavior.

Enforcing socially acceptable ways of performing gender, race, ability, class, and other identities are socially controlled within institutions that diagnose, evaluate, treat, and foster social or internal shaming or approval (Spade 2011). The creation of categories maintains certain guidelines of behavior, which can become internalized and self-regulated. An example of this disciplinary power is seen with the involuntary psychiatric treatment that attempts to affect or alter the mental processes of those labeled as outside of socially acceptable behavior (Spade

2011). Such disciplinary power that creates institutional and personal policing, dictates what is acceptable behavior in society. This can be seen in the creation and policing of identities through racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and the effects of colonialism (Spade 2011).

Violence can also be seen through sex-segregated facilities like group homes and residential treatment centers. Spade explains that many transgender youth run away from group homes that assign them to live according to their birth gender in sex segregated institutions.

Transgender youth who do not fit within the assigned norms of sexual identity are placed in dangerous situations where they could experience violence from other residents or staff. Victory 23

Transgender youth are not able to receive mental health support and face providers that view their gender identity as a problem needing to be fixed (Spade 2011). Youth experience violence through the policing of norms within residential care (Spade 2011).

Institutions contribute to and support structural violence, where the system creates disadvantage and disempowerment among its members. Structural violence can occur within institutions that fail to protect youth against the everyday violence they encounter as a part of their social reality. Youth become trapped in cycles of survival within institutions because systems fail to acknowledge the structural constraints and violence in their lives. Youth are expected to use the individual agency to overcome and recover from past obstacles, and adhere to institutional rules and policies that perpetuate the violence (Scheper-Hughes 2004, Hedges

2012).

Agency

Goffman (1961) explains how the total institution violates a person’s autonomy and choice in the removal of their right to determine their own needs, actions, and self-determination.

This denies people the liberty to make their own judgments and decisions and have their own interests. This form of social control is seen when staff place judgments on youth and use their own rational to manage their daily lives (Goffman 1961).

A youth’s lack of choice is seen in their placement in care as well as their decisions over the treatments they receive. Freundlich and Avery (2005) examine the permanency outcomes for youth who lived in congregate care facilities, such as residential treatment centers and group homes. This research found that youth living in congregate care experience a lack of involvement in the decision-making over their lives. Freundlich and Avery (2005) explain that many young adults in the study felt as though options with permanency planning were not fully Victory 24 explored with them. Child welfare workers and courts have power over the placement decision- making with little information available on how these decisions are made (Lee and Thompson

2007).

Youth maintain agency and choice when they choose to go against the institution. This form of resistance is seen in secondary adjustments as Goffman identifies, “Secondary adjustments represent ways in which the individual stands apart from the role and the self that were taken for granted for him by the institution” (Goffman 1961: 198). Youth can resist the institution by maintaining their own sense of self that is apart from the institution. Resistance can be seen as a form of secondary adjustments, where youth are able to take back some control over their lives.

Resistance to institutional policy and curriculum is seen through the negotiation and breaking of rules and boundaries on the part of residents and staff members (Armaline 2005).

Armaline (2005) provides an example of rule breaking when residents in the youth shelter “run away” out of their designated boundaries. In this resistance to social control, youth are able to gain power through rule breaking and negotiation (Armaline 2005). Youth take back some control over their life when they choose to resist the institution. Youth are also able to maintain agency when they develop skills that help them navigate through the system, as seen in Yosso’s

(2005) explanation of navigational capital. Through navigational capital, individuals maintain agency by developing skills in navigating the control of social institutions (Yosso 2005).

Through such capital and resistance strategies, youth preserve their choice and agency that the institution tries to remove. The following section will provide a further critique of the clinical master narrative through understanding how life inside a total institution affects the way people live and work. Victory 25

TOTAL INSTITUTIONS

Goffman (1961) explores the social lives of mental health patients and other forms of inmates living in total institutions. Goffman explains that total institutions require the complete obedience of those living within care. Those who live inside a total institution are under the control and surveillance of a bureaucratic organization, and experience the force of the institution through the structural aspects of care. Such structural aspects of care within a total institution include:

● the institution places all members under the control of one authority,

● the institution pre-arranges a uniform set of daily activities and requirements for

all members,

● the institution arranges all members’ activities as a constricted schedule based on

a formal set of rules,

● the institution determines all activities through a single plan that fulfills the

official goals of the institution (Goffman 1961).

The institution determines all activities through a single plan that fulfills the official goals of the institution (Goffman 1961). Total institutions create rules and policies in order to satisfy the official objectives of the institution through a specific plan (Goffman 1961). Institutions create policy from the belief that an individual agency can overcome all challenges and obstacles

(Hedges 2012, Armaline 2005). Sigrid (2011) explains that once group homes and residential treatment centers attain a license, they have a large amount of freedom in determining the philosophy and approach of treatment. This is because governmental regulations for care do not specify the form of treatment, leaving this decision up to the institution (Rossen 1999). The official belief system of the institution guides the policy and rules within the institution. Since Victory 26 the institution has the discretion in deciding official policies, the methods of control may be seen in different ways across institutions. Through exploring the perspectives and ideologies of total institutions, we can gather an inside look into the methods of control they use over youth.

Program models

Program models offer insight into how total institutions view and treat youth.

Institutional care facilities have various types of treatment and services (Rosen 1999). Further research is needed on treatment models within institutional care to provide a better understanding of their efficacy (Sigrid 2011). Sigrid (2011) explains there is a need for more collaboration between child welfare service systems and researchers to critically evaluate and improve the treatment models and care. Cohen (1986) found that treatment is inconsistent and wide-ranging across group homes. Examples of treatment models that are found in institutional care facilities are individual and group therapy, including various forms of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy includes several approaches to treatment including cognitive, counseling, and behavioral approaches (Gharabaghi and Groskleg 2010). Therapists often determine the types of therapy youth receive, as seen in cognitive behavior therapy, which focuses on trying to change the behavior of youth through directing “cognitive restructuring” (Rossen 1999). Such approaches to institutional care usually have a specific program structure and set of routines. Each approach also has an official ideology that determines how rewards and consequences are administered within the institution (Gharabaghi and Groskleg 2010). An example of this can be seen with level systems.

One program model implements a level system that uses rewards or infractions to try to control behavior (Rossen 1999). Rossen (1999) explains that youth who obey institutional rules and stay “on level” are rewarded with an increase in privileges. Those who do not comply may Victory 27 receive infractions that can lead to various restrictions. State regulatory requirements determine the types of restrictions that are allowed (Rossen 1999). Within such systems, the institution tries to control and regulate the behavior and daily activities of youth.

Level systems make certain behaviors and activities as requirements. Bickel’s (2015) research inside of a juvenile detention facility shows how such rules and level systems are meant to control the behavior of youth living inside of institutions. Bickel explains the purpose of the level system is for youth to learn how to comply with the rules, as seen in Skinner’s Operant

Conditioning with mice (Bickel 2015, Skinner 1953 as cited in Bickel 2015). Children however cannot be conditioned as mice as they possess their own assessments of the rules (Bickel 2015).

Bickel explains that the level system is used to socially control the youth based on a system of establishing hierarchy and privileges. Inside the juvenile detention center, youth who comply with the rules are rewarded with time outside their cells with phone access. Those that break the rules are punished with cell confinement (Bickel 2015). Bickel (2015) explains, “The youth make two fundamental arguments against institutional rules. First, the youth argue that the rules are unnecessarily restrictive and two, the rules are not designed for their rehabilitation which pose a threat to their identity as children worthy of human dignity and respect (269).” Youth perceptions of the rules show that they are not benefitting, and are experiencing harm, which goes against the master narrative of the institution. Bickel further explains that the rules are created off of the “ideological assumptions about the perceived pathological character of detained children” (Bickel 2015: 271). The institution uses rules that are based on the dominant and pathological views of youth in an attempt to further the agenda of the institution, which is to control youth. Victory 28

Program models for youth may also include the use of a “therapeutic” milieus and recreation time (Rossen 1999). Therapeutic milieus is a form of the medical model, that places youth in an environment where they are responsible for their own physical or psychological development, rather than on the staff. This model of treatment places individual youth behavior as the problem (Lipsky 2010). Treatment and program models control the daily requirements and activities of youth in care.

Such forms of control can also be seen in how institutions use structure.

Armaline (2005) shows how the social lives of youth living within a live-in emergency shelter are prearranged by a system of formal and official rules (Goffman 1961). Although an emergency shelter may offer a different level of care than found in group homes and residential treatment centers, this institution uses common motives to control daily activities. Armaline

(2005) describes how the emergency shelter implements a curriculum of treatment to create

“structure” and “consistency.” In this curriculum the shelter forms strict routines and boundaries, as well as behavioral evaluation (Armaline 2005). The shelter expects the staff to use this curriculum as a strategy to support safe and predictable environments, and to teach youth self- discipline and responsibility (Armaline 2005). The institution uses its own ideas to justify the system of formal rules and policies in place. The institution enforces its clinical master narrative through controlling youth who live within its authority as well as the ways in which controls the workers. The workers who work directly with youth in these settings are the authority in charge of upholding the clinical master narrative.

STREET-LEVEL BUREAUCRAT

Youth living in care are under the authority and direct supervision of staff, which I identify as “street-level bureaucrats.” Michael Lipsky (2010) defines street-level bureaucrats as Victory 29

“Public service workers who interact directly with citizens in the course of their jobs, and who have substantial discretion in the execution of their work” (3). The staff members who work in institutional care are street-level bureaucrats in that they are responsible for the delivery of institutional policy and the decision-making over youth’s lives (Lipsky 2010). These workers are required to uphold the clinical master narrative, and without their complacency then the control of institution would be compromised. The street-level bureaucrats in residential treatment centers are the psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and childcare workers who are in charge of treatment and service delivery (Rossen 1999). Within institutional care, staff typically work around eight hours a day and leave work to return home to their lives within the community. This illustrates the divide between the staff and the youth who live inside the institution in that they are a part of different social and cultural worlds. Further division between staff and residents of institutional care is seen in institutional restrictions of information and communication (Goffman

1961). The division between staff and youth who live in institutional care reflects the nature of the work of street-level bureaucrats.

The roles and responsibilities of street-level bureaucrats are important to recognize to better understand how staff contributes to the quality of institutional care. Institutions require that street-level bureaucrats implement and shape work according to institutional guidelines and ideologies, as seen in how they are in charge of implementing the master narrative. Lipksy

(2010) argues that the individual decisions of these workers create agency policy by exercising discretionary power over an individual’s access to government rights and benefits. The primary role of street level bureaucrats within public services is to implement the social control of society. Lipsky argues, “The public service sector plays a critical role in softening the impact of the economic system on those who are not its primary beneficiaries, and inducing people to Victory 30 accept the neglect or inadequacy of primary economic and social institutions” (Lipksy 2010: 11).

Workers of the public service sector play an active role in administering and managing the failures and social control of larger society (Lipsky 2010). Societal dominance is implemented through the service delivery of workers.

The nature of the work of street-level bureaucrats is seen in the expectation that staff use particular types of human interaction along with bureaucratic restraints that require detachment and personal discretion (Lipsky 2010). According to Lipsky (2010), this does not support resource limitations and creates care as conditional. This further illustrates an important environmental dynamic of care within institutions, as youth experience conditional care from staff. Staff discretion is seen through their power to determine the quality, amount, and nature of this care. In this sense, staff has power to determine their own priorities within the confines of institutional policy and rules (Lipsky 2010). Lipsky explains, “street-level bureaucrats develop conceptions of their jobs, and of clients, that reduce the strain between capabilities and goals, thereby making their jobs psychologically easier to manage” (Lipsky 2010: 141). In this way, staff conceptions of youth and of their work may reflect their own ways of coping with the institution and the bureaucratic strains they face. Offering poor services in group homes and low salaries contributes to high staff turnover rates and burnout (Cohen 1986). The nature of the work that staff face in institutions creates environments that require emotional and psychological detachment from youth. By making the role of staff members easier to manage, the institution requires the obedience of youth. This raises concern over the quality of care youth receive in institutions and whether or not efficient care is possible within such complex bureaucratic restraints. Victory 31

Conditional and oppressive care that is provided by street-level bureaucrats can be seen throughout many institutions. Bickel’s (2010) research explores how juvenile detention guards create the identities of detained youth as being pathological and in need of punishment. Through training, guards are immediately exposed to the institutional framework that maintains such views of youth. In further research on youth’s experiences in solitary confinement within juvenile detention centers, Bickel explains the nature of such work. “Guards are then instructed to never turn their backs to the youth, to never share personal stories, and to maintain their social distance, almost as if the youth are suffering from an infectious disease that threatens to contaminate all who come too close” (Bickel 2015: 271-272). In instructing guards to view youth like an “infectious disease” and requiring social distance, the institution is able to maintain social control over the relationships and roles of guards, which serves many functions. Bickel acknowledges such functions include maintaining control and order within the institution, as well as sending a message to youth that they are different from other humans in that they are deceitful and pathological (Bickel 2015). The institution uses the roles of guards to create environments where youth are dehumanized and criminalized in order to maintain control. As seen in the research of juvenile detention centers, street-level bureaucrats are held responsible to implement the control of the institution, as well as maintain certain kinds of relationships with and views of youth living in care.

The care provided by street-level bureaucrats can also be seen in relational work, which is used to further implement the master narrative. Through relational work, institutions encourage staff to form relationships with youth but are trained to follow specific teaching and policy framework (Gharabaghi 2008). The institution requires that such relationships only allow specific interaction and set certain boundaries. This type of relational work is seen in cognitive Victory 32 and behavioral therapy. The institution uses relational work to manipulate and fool youth into confusing the “treatment” with a caring relationship. Youth often become suspicious of such work because it helps to support an acceptance of authority and adhering to certain expectations

(Gharabaghi 2008). This suspicion can be seen in youth’s reactions and resistance to accepting such treatment. This can support the development of a lack of trust and acceptance of authority and the institution, which can contribute to future behavioral resistance (Gharabaghi 2008).

Relational work shows further evidence of the master narrative that prevents nurturing and healthy relationships between the staff and youth. Within such relationships, the care provided by staff members is conditional, contingent on youth behavior, and must remain in accordance to institutional standards. Institutional care facilities uphold power over youth through controlling the types of relationships that are allowed between the staff members and youth.

The goal of this literature review was to provide a critical analysis on institutional care.

Spade (2011) states, “I argue for a model of thinking about power and law that expands our analysis to examine systems that administer life chances through purportedly “neutral” criteria, understanding that those systems are often locations where racist, sexist, homophobic, abelist, xenophobic, and transphobic outcomes are produced”(p. 30). I provided analysis of the literature that shows how the clinical master narrative functions to produce ideas of how youth should be cared for through such “neutral” criteria. The clinical master narrative silences the counter narratives of youth, which contributes to the power and control of the institution. Street-level bureaucrats are in charge of upholding the clinical master narrative through their own discretionary power. Goffman’s research on total institutions provides a theoretical framework for life inside of these forms of care. The knowledge of youth who have experienced living in Victory 33 institutional care is vital to understanding how these forms of care administer life chances (Spade

2011).

Although various literature documents the voices of youth who experienced institutional care, more research is needed to gain youth perspectives on the care that is provided to them, and how these forms of care affect their lives. Silver (2015) explains that the answer is not to get rid of services as seen with independent living programs for young mothers, “SIL programs are essential to the survival of marginalized youth and their families, but the SIL program I studied is not a place where young families thrive” (Silver 2015: 160). Silver explains that the transitional living facility that was a part of her research was vital to the survival of the youth and families who receive services, however these services are not helping them prosper. Although the literature I presented looks specifically at the dynamics of institutional care and youth experiences, that is not to say that these forms of care do not present better options and support for youth. This literature adds to the existing literature of counter narratives that go against the clinical master narratives, in order to provide further support transparency within institutional care.

Theory

I use the theoretical framework of Erving Goffman’s definition of a total institution and standpoint theory to guide my research in understanding how youths’ experiences in institutional care affects their transitions into adulthood. In this section I draw from literature to explain these theories and show how I use these theoretical frameworks in my research. I also use standpoint theory to understand how my position and social location in relation to my participants influences my research.

ERVING GOFFMAN’S TOTAL INSTITUTIONS Victory 34

Through the theoretical framework of Erving Goffman’s research on total institutions as seen in his book “Asylums, Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other

Inmates”, I draw knowledge of the common institutional aspects found within these institutions.

Total institutions are divided from the outside social world and require a complete separation between the social worlds of those who live and work within the institution (Goffman 1961).

Goffman explains when patients living inside of asylums fail to be compliant and meet the demands of the institution, the institution labels this defiance as further evidence of a need for treatment. The institution views personal adjustments or reactions to care as a lack of obedience that requires further control. Patients need to show acceptance of the institution in order to leave the hospital or ease their lives within it (Goffman 1961). Through understanding life inside a total institution, insight can be made into how youth experience the institutional aspects found in group homes.

As Goffman (1961) has shown through his research, the structural design of the total institution requires that every individual fulfill a certain role within the institution. Goffman argues that although the social units they are assigned to define the individual, personal identity is maintained when the individual stands against the institution as seen in secondary adjustments

(Goffman 1961). However the institution reacts to this resistance with further punishment and control. Goffman refers to the “moral career” of the mental patient where the patient is socialized into a new role and understanding of their self and their role in the institution (Goffman 1961:

169). The total institution requires the patient get rid of their concept of self and adopt the social role they are assigned in the institution, as seen in mortification. Patients are expected to actively show their acceptance of the new roles that are given to them, as Goffman describes as a “self- Victory 35 alienating moral servitude” (Goffman 1961: 386). Through such servitude patients can become confused and further bare the weight of the institution running with ease.

The institution relies on the predictability of behaviors of both those who are in confinement and those in control. Goffman shows how individuals constantly learn their roles through symbolic interaction with each other. This is seen when the actions of individuals create meaning within the institution, and how through this interaction individuals learn their role within the institution (Goffman 1961). As seen in the psychoanalytic understandings found in individual therapy and counseling, solutions proposed within the institution are based on making the role of physicians easier to justify and implement rather than seeking solutions based on helping improve the human conditions of patients. Goffman shows that such psychoanalytical reasoning ultimately supports the overall management of the individuals living in the total institution (Becker 2003), rather than the management of the structure of the institution

(Goffman 1961).

Becker (2003) analyzes Goffman’s critique of total institutions that rather than blaming the individual for the choices they make in institution, Goffman is holding the institution accountable. He points out that even the institution is playing a social function for larger society, and that blame can not be given to any one person but rather is contingent on larger societal problems (Becker 2003, Goffman 1961). The theoretical framework that is woven throughout total institutions gives insight into the social functions of the institutional care in group homes and explanation for the structural design of such institutions (Goffman 1961).

STANDPOINT THEORY

Standpoint theory explains that the production of knowledge occurs through lived experiences. Standpoint theorists, such as feminist scholar Dorothy Smith, reason that our social Victory 36 locations determine our knowledge of the social world. Smith argues that there can never be a completely objective standpoint. Standpoint theorists argue that the most accurate knowledge of the social world comes from a person’s life experiences. For example, Smith explains that an understanding of the experiences and knowledge of women is needed in order to understand the social reality of women (Longhofer and Winchester 2012).

Judith Lorber (2006) shares the idea that there is a shift in current feminist social science theory towards research that analyzes the various social locations of those who are being researched as well as the researcher. Feminist theory seeks to understand how these social locations affect how knowledge is created (Lorber 2006). The concept of standpoint, or the personal perspective that is dependent on an individual’s social location, becomes more complex with multiple and intersecting identities (Lorber 2006, Walby 2000, Collins, 1999).

Collins extends Smith’s standpoint theory through the idea that gender is not the only way in which an individual experiences social inequality. Collins explains that the gender inequality of White women is different from the gender inequalities faced by Black women

(Longhofer and Winchester 2012, Lorber 2006). She instead calls for an analysis based on an individual’s intersectionality. Collins explains that intersectionality presents a different perspective on inequality through oppressions based on race, class, gender, and sexuality that interconnect and shape an individual’s social experience (Longhofer and Winchester 2012

Collins 1999, Crenshaw 1995).

Researchers have their own standpoints based on their social experiences, which influence their research and how they construct the social realities of those they are researching

(Lorber 2006, Smith 1990b). Grahame (1998) refers to the work of Smith (1987, 1990a), which explains that our standpoints are our own entry points into the broader social world, which Victory 37 explains how our knowledge of the world is created. Smith critiques Sociology’s role in contributing to how dominant institutions and professional dialogues in society, which regulates what happens in society and often ignores the standpoints of individual people living in the social world (Grahame 1998, Smith 1987, 1990a).

Youth Voices and Rights

Youth in the foster care system experience oppression because of their age. Children are viewed as being juvenile and as lacking the experience and judgment needed in order to act in their own best interest. Youth who are under the age of eighteen are legally bound to the authority and control of adults (Silverman 1977). Children in the United States do not possess constitutional rights because they are perceived as being unable to determine their own best interests (Silverman 1977). The right of parental control exists as far as the state allows, but those rights are revoked once the state decides to intervene based on their own judgment of the best interest of the child (Silverman 1977).

The United States and Somalia are the only two U.N. member nations to not endorse the

United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1959. This declaration states that all children are born with basic human rights and it is the responsibility of mankind to protect these rights (CRC, U.N. General Assembly 1989, Daiute 2008). Children do not have a voice in deciding what their own rights are, or how they will be protected. Adults create the laws and policies that directly affect the lives of children, and are responsible for the type of care and protection they receive. In a world where children do not have the right to declare their own rights and protection, they are prone to injustices and abuse. Through my research I support children’s rights and voices. Victory 38

I draw knowledge from the voices and experiences of individuals who have lived in institutional care to help bring awareness of the types of care that exists in the foster care system.

I have collected the standpoints of people who have lived in group homes through qualitative interviews. I use the theoretical framework of standpoint theory to guide my overall research, findings, and discussion.

Methodology

REFLEXIVITY THROUGH STANPOINT

As a researcher it is important for me to understand how my own standpoint influences my research. As a young, middle class White female I understand this influences the ways in which I view the standpoints of others. I have never lived within a residential treatment center or group home. My social location is different than the individuals I have interviewed as seen through the differences in our intersectionality. This can be seen with the different oppressions that individuals may experience in regards to their race, class, gender, and sexuality (Longhofer and Winchester 2012, Collins 1999, Crenshaw 1995). Through this theoretical framework, I critically assess how my social location influences my research in order to better understand the social experiences of others.

As a limitation of my study, my social identity may have influenced what stories participants felt comfortable sharing with me or prevented interested people from feeling comfortable in participating. Our intersectionality creates social connections through our shared experiences, so a lack of social connection may have influenced how participants opened up to me as well as the amount of participants. For example, due to our common social identities, young White women may have up opened up to me more than African American men. Victory 39

Due to my experience of working as a childcare worker within the setting of a residential treatment center, I acknowledge that my own involvement with these institutions has inspired me to do this research. I have found themes in the literature based on my own understanding of these forms of care. However, I need to make sure that my own biases do not stand in the way of sharing the stories of those I am interviewing in the ways they wish to be heard. As a researcher I have the power and privilege to share these stories. My primary goal is to use this power to provide an avenue for those who have been silenced by dominant institutions to be heard.

OVERVIEW OF METHODS

My experience working as a childcare worker in a residential treatment center has influenced my methodology. In being required to uphold the clinical master narrative, my emotions were not allowed within the institution, as Daisy had taught me. The divide that the institution required between staff members and youth caused a terrible pain inside of me I had never felt before. I was expected to become an abusive and detached parent in this institution, and although I tried to find ways of resistance I found that I was being controlled as well. I still struggle with this pain to this day. Through this research I have come to terms with the pain and the emotional turmoil that I not only experienced but also was a witness to. This pain is what is experienced in an abusive system, where youth are isolated and controlled. After my small exposure to this, I questioned the kind of care being provided to Daisy and how this is in violation of her human rights and well-being. I was a witness to how children were stripped from their families and forced into an institution that operates off of a structure of abuse.

Daisy, as well as many other youth have showed me the power that was hidden under this clinical master narrative. This power is found in youth’s counter-narratives that expose the social realities that are concealed within the institution, which reveals its abusive system. I saw how the Victory 40 institution silenced and demonized youth because of how their counter-narratives challenged the total control of the institution. Their resistance to this control was manipulated into further indication for their confinement as seen in total institutions (Goffman, 1961). For my research I chose to seek the standpoints of those who have lived within these forms of care, as a source of knowledge that bring transparency to these institutions.

This research is a form of my own resistance to these institutions and an avenue where I channel the emotions I was not able to show to the youth I cared deeply about. I opened up to each participant about my role as a staff member and was honest in showing my emotional connections to this research. This research goes against what all staff members are expected to do, which may be a reason why the participants opened up to me and trusted me in sharing their stories.

My research looks specifically at the experiences of youth who lived in residential treatment centers or group homes, because they offer a different level of care than other forms of care in the foster care system and from traditional home-like settings. Youth are placed in these forms of care for various reasons including needing support services for behavioral or mental health needs, having a clinical disability, or because of a lack of placements available in family settings (A National Look 2015, Group Homes 2010, Young People). These settings are characterized by 24-hour staff supervision, but each type of group home differs in the amount of structure and restrictions (Bettman and Jasperson 2009, Residential 2010, Group Homes 2010).

Residential treatment centers are characterized by highly structured environments and provide mental health and substance abuse treatment programs (Bettman and Jasperson 2009, Residential

2010). Group homes have less restrictive boundaries with the outside public (Group Homes Victory 41

2010). I focus specifically on how the common institutional aspects of care found in residential treatment centers and group homes affects the lives of youth.

Through conducting qualitative interviews, I have gained understandings of the standpoints of those who have lived within institutional care. Through sharing this knowledge, I bring attention to the counter-narratives that go against dominant institutional discourses and practices. Through my research I bear witness to each individual’s experiences, survival, and resiliency as well as illuminate the aspects of institutional care that has affected their lives.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants that I chose for my study are adults aged 18 and older who have experienced living in group homes or residential treatment centers. For the recruitment process I used the term “group home” because this is the general term that is used to describe this form of care in the outside community and by the participants. I used purposive and snowball sampling to recruit my participants. To find my participants I passed out fliers to various organizations and colleges throughout San Diego County. I contacted organizations that specifically works with transitional age youth, as well as organizations that serve foster care youth. Such organizations included group homes, homeless shelters, welfare agencies, community support services, transitional living facilities, community colleges, universities, and the military. I chose a wide range of organizations in an attempt to understand multiple social experiences and perspectives.

I relied heavily on snowball sampling through using my own network of friends who knew someone who experienced living in a group home, as well as asking participants if they knew of anyone else interested in being interviewed. Although I tried to recruit around 10-15 participants, I was only able to gather 8 people, which is a limitation of my research. I found I was the most successful with recruiting participants through snowball sampling and through the Victory 42 support of community colleges. I experienced many challenges in recruiting participants; this may be the reality of people with busy schedules or participant uncertainty about sharing their experiences.

The range of demographics of the participants included 3 males, 5 females. Two participants identified as Latina. Four participants identify as African American, and one of these individuals also identifies with being part Puerto Rican American. One participant identifies as

American Indian and one participant identifies as White. The ages ranged from 18-33, with an average age of 24. Table 1 shows a list of each participant and their demographics.

Table 1. Participant Demographics

Participants Name Race or Ethnicity Gender Age

Katie White Female 18

Jessica Latina Female 25

Joseph African American Male 27 & Puerto Rican American Ariana American Indian Female 20

Tahlia African American Female 18

Evana Latina Female 22

Romon African American Male 33

Laurence African American Male 30

During the interview time, six of eight of the participants were currently enrolled in college courses. One participant graduated from a four-year university and has a full time career.

Five of the participants were currently working. Seven of the participants had a secure housing option, even though a few of them discussed difficulties in paying for rent and other living Victory 43 expenses. Only one participant was currently facing housing insecurity. The participants represent individuals who are currently surviving in their adulthoods. A limitation of my research is I am missing the standpoints of more participants who are struggling to have their basic needs met such as housing, food, and clothing.

PROCEDURES

On the fliers that I passed out to for my recruitment, I included a brief description of my research, who I was looking to interview, my contact information, and that I would be offering a

5 dollar gift card for all participants (See Appendix A). In most cases, I would email the organization with the flyer attached and a more detailed description of my research, and then would follow up with a phone call. I received mixed responses from each organization, with a handful stating they would pass out my fliers and notify the possible participants themselves.

Other organizations either did not respond to me or they said they were unable to assist me. For those interested organizations I would arrive at the location and provide a stack of my fliers.

Once the potential participants contact me, either by phone or email, I explained my research, the interview process, and that I was offering a 5-dollar gift card for their participation. I would then ask if they were interested in scheduling an interview and would set up a time and place that was the most convenient and comfortable for them. When we met in person for the scheduled interview, I went over the Informed Consent form, and if they agreed to participate I would asked them to sign the form (See Appendix B).

The interviews with participants were individual, semi-structured, and face-to-face, lasting approximately 40-60 minutes. One interview was held over Skype because the participant was out of town. Each participant allowed me to use an audio recorder to record the interview. I asked each participant if they would like to choose their own pseudonym, to protect their Victory 44 confidentiality. I also informed them that I would be transcribing the interviews and that if they were interested I could send them the completed transcription so they have the opportunity to edit anything they want within one week’s time.

In the interviews I asked anywhere between 10-15 questions depending on the allotted time and asked follow up questions based off of their answers. Due to the fact that the interviews were semi-structured, the questions were used to guide the discussion. I began the interview with general questions about their current lives and how they got to where they are today. I then asked more specific questions about their experiences in group homes. Such questions included: Can you describe what a typical day is like living in a group home? What do you think about the rules and restrictions in the group home? The next series of questions asked about how their experiences in group homes affected their lives and transitions into adulthood. Some of which included: What are some things you wish you had when you were in the group home that would have helped you more for when you aged out? Knowing what you know now after aging out, what parts of the group home should change in order to help youth who in live in them have better lives? (See Appendix C). The interviews aimed to gather the participants’ retrospective at their time in group homes and overall lives. This perspective provides insight into the quality of life and life opportunities of the participants after leaving the institution(s). These standpoints offer a different perspective than youth who are currently living in group homes.

After each interview I transcribed the interview and sent the transcriptions to the participants who were interested in editing their interview. Most participants were satisfied with the transcriptions and did not end up editing anything. I then went through each entire interview and coded all the themes that I found. I would make a list of all the main themes I found and then compared all of the compiled lists of themes from each of the interviews. Once I found common Victory 45 themes I went back through each of the interviews and color-coded all of the main themes. I then went through the different themes and selected the quotes I wanted to use, and began organizing my analysis section.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In order to ensure ethical research, I honor all ethical issues in regards to qualitative research. I was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct my research, which ensures all ethical considerations of my research. Each participant voluntarily agreed to participate and signed an Informed Consent form. The possible risks included: psychological discomfort with discussing their experiences of being in or leaving care; inconvenience in taking time out of their day; worry of the loss of confidentiality. To minimize these risks explained to the participants: they do not have to answer any questions they don’t feel comfortable with and can end the interview at any time; they can leave at any time if it is too long; they can choose their own pseudonym to protect confidentiality; all Informed Consent forms, audio recordings, and transcriptions will be stored in a locked file and password protected file on my computer that only I have access to. I have made sure and will continue to make sure that the well-being and safety of my participants is my first priority, and that by doing an interview they will not be adversely affected.

Findings

In this section I will present my overall findings. I identify four main themes from each of the interviews. These include life inside structured abuse, effect on life, transition into adulthood, and taking back control. These four sections will be broken down into various subthemes to provide further analysis and insight. These themes will look specifically at how the participants’ experiences living in group homes have affected their transitions into adulthood. Victory 46

Each person has their own unique experience living in group homes, however I focus on the common social connections that tell their stories.

LIFE INSIDE STRUCTURED ABUSE

In this first theme the participants will take us inside what life is like living in the structured abuse in group homes. The themes that I collected from the interviews show the common elements of institutional care that were identified by the participants. The term “group home” was used among all participants to identify these forms of care, although facilities range in types and levels of care. Each individual shared their own unique knowledge and insight on group homes, however there are many common experiences among the participants. The counter narratives shown in this section present a different side of the institution that challenges hegemonic understandings.

Rules

Jessica, a twenty-five year old Latina female is a mother of two children, works full time and goes to school full time at a community college. She entered into the foster care system when she was three years old and reentered again when she was five. Jessica experienced living in numerous group homes and foster placements. For the interview Jessica and I met at a local coffee shop. She greeted me with a warm smile, where I instantly felt welcomed. In the interview

Jessica graciously opened up to me about her emotional journey in the foster care system. During a point in our interview I asked her what a typical day is like living in a group home. Jessica took time to reflect on this:

Yeah, a typical day [pause to remember] so they wake everyone up at the same time. So, everyone is up by 6-6:30 because you have to eat breakfast by 7. So, you get up, get ready, er, so basically you are still in your pajamas. They put you all in a line and all the different units within the group home I was at. Everyone went to breakfast, lunch, and dinner at different times so that they wouldn’t be around each other. So they put you in a line and you go into the lunchroom. Victory 47

You get your food. You sit down. You know, boys and girls separate. Um, and they don’t let you go and get seconds say if you are still hungry. Then once you are done with breakfast you go back you take showers. Um, then if you go to the school on site, then you get back in line. You walk up the stairs and you go to the class. You’re there, you know, you may have PE depending on that’s what’s on the schedule for the day. Um, then you come back to class. Once you are done with the day, so you are there so you are there from like 12 to [pause to think] or, no, I’m sorry from 8:30 to 12. But to be honest, you’re not learning anything most of the time. When I was there, everyone was just playing games and stuff. You’re not really learning anything. You’d go to PE. You’d come back. You basically sit there again. Then by like 1:30-2, you’re out. And then in between there you have lunch. Um, you come back, back in your rooms until its recreational time, which is until like 6’oclock. Well, you go to dinner at like 5-5:30. Then you have recreational time for like an hour. Then you go back in your room. So, on Friday nights though they had thing where [refers to movie night]. So you are spending a good chunk of time in your room. You are not really out unless you are allowed to be out.

Jessica describes the daily routines and restrictions in one of the group homes she lived in. Each part of the day is under a prearranged and strict schedule that residents are required to follow.

She describes how the rules are organized to separate the youth from one and other to keep them moving in a particular order. Everything in this environment is controlled, down to the amount of food they are allowed to eat. In this group home, Jessica describes how some of the youth go to school onsite at the facility and feels as though at this onsite school students do not learn anything. Every hour of the day is controlled along with physical activity and time spent outside of your room.

The daily rules and routines within each group home are identified in the characteristics of Goffman’s (1961) definition of a total institution. The participants identified a pre-arranged schedule of activities, a formal set of rules, the authoritative control of staff members, isolation, surveillance, and punishment (Goffman 1961). Youth living in group homes experience the complete control of the total institution through the rules and restrictions. Victory 48

Tahlia, who is an eighteen-year-old African American female, is currently living in a group home with her young son, and is a student at a local community college. Now that she is a legal adult she is using the program AB12, which allows her access to transitional support services and housing until age twenty-one given she either remains in school, or has a job

(AB12). Tahlia looks forward to moving into a Transitional Housing Program with her son.

When we met at her community college for the interview, I was instantly struck by her poise and calming nature. Tahlia begins our meeting by proudly showing me a picture of her young son.

She exudes confidence through the conviction in her responses. In the following quote, Tahlia gives her opinion on the level system that is implemented in the group home she currently lives in:

It’s very inconsistent, so that’s another thing, is with the levels and the points is like sometimes you may get in trouble and get points taken for something and then sometimes you may not. It’s really inconsistent, and that’s why I feel like that system shouldn’t be in place.

Tahlia notes the inconsistency in the level system with how points are distributed to each resident. She explains that the discretion in determining the amount of points per person creates an overall flawed system. This shows that even when rules are set in group homes, it does not mean that all staff will implement them consistently. Staff members use their own judgments to determine how and when to control youth through rules and restrictions. Within the control of the master narrative, staff members use their own assessments of youth’s behaviors as seen in how youth are pathologized (Haslam 2003). As Lipsky (2010) identifies, staff members are able to use their own discretion in deciding how to enforce the clinical master narrative of the institution.

Joseph, a twenty-seven year old African male with Puerto Rican ethnicity, is a college student at a community college and aspires to one day achieve a PhD. He is a board member for Victory 49 a non-profit organization, which is an advocacy group for those who are visually impaired. Due to his challenges of experiencing an unhealthy lifestyle living in the foster care system and his progressing visual impairment, he has developed a passion for helping others by advocating for health and wellness. Joseph is in the process of creating a non-profit organization called Heart for Sight that as he describes as “an organization that provides superior nutrition, adaptive workout routines, and occupational development services to the blind and visually impaired.”

Joseph entered into the foster care system when he was six years old and explains that he was raised in group homes more than foster placements. As I interviewed Joseph, I was amazed by his positive disposition and powerful soul. He openly shares his story and perspective on group homes. Joseph talks about his experiences with level systems in group homes:

I was always on C. B, level B was similar to C, you got a little less money for your allowance. You didn’t get as long of a pass to go out. I think if you stayed on C you got a pass to go off campus for like 4 hours, when I was a youth. I think when you’re on B you can go for like 2 hours. Maybe go Ups-N-Downs skating rink or Iceoplex arcade with my friends for like 2 hours. Level A, I think you got a couple dollars. And you had a, uh I am not sure if you were allowed to go off of campus. But then you have orientation, and then you had restriction. You were on the week long like restriction for a week. Or you had your 3-day freeze, which was a restriction for only 3 days. So an individual doesn’t make his bed, 3 day freeze. An individual doesn’t do his chore, 3-day freeze.

Joseph explains the privileges and punishments that are given to each individual depending on the level they are on. The level you are on determines the amount of money allowance you receive, and what you are allowed to do. The institution is able to maintain control over the freedoms and daily activities of youth through bribery, punishment, and labeling. Bickel (2015) explains that level systems are created to control the behavior of youth living inside of the institution. Through placing each child on a level, group homes also label youth’s worthiness for freedom and living life. Victory 50

Ariana, who identifies as a twenty year old American Indian female, is enrolled in online courses at a community college and is looking for a job. She was given a seven-day eviction notice from the transitional living facility she is currently living at, and faces the challenge of finding a new place to live. In our interview, Ariana kindly opened up and shared a powerful glimpse of her experiences living in various group homes during her time in the foster care system. I associated her protective and confident demeanor as a source of strength in her survival of a cold and abusive system. Ariana discusses the differences in the rules and restrictions between the group homes where she has lived in:

It depends on what group home. I’ve been to a lot. Like at PB-18 [refers to the level of group home], it was very structured. You’d get up, go eat breakfast, come back, make your bed, go to school, go back to your room. You would stay in your room all day. And you’d have free time for like two hours if you earned it. Or if you are on ITL you stay in your room. You don’t get free time. You shower in your room. You get food brought to you in your room. You just don’t come out. But at like Amistad or Mission house where I was at. Because I was so used to being in that strict setting, and I got that freedom. I took full advantage of it and became wild. I wouldn’t listen to the staff. I wouldn’t follow the program. I stopped going to school. Hm, I guess that’s it. Its just, you do groups during the day. You can’t go on self-passes. And like during the week day at Amistad, you couldn’t go on self passes because you had to go to mandatory groups. And its like the groups that they have, they are pointless. They don’t teach you anything. I don’t even know what they were for. We would talk about [pause to think] We would watch a movie on like some criminal justice movie and like write a sentence about it. What does that have to do with regular living like day by day. I don’t know, you just had no freedom.

Ariana begins by discussing the different levels of structure between the group homes where she has lived. She then talks about one highly structured facility where residents have conditional and limited amounts of freedom, and explained that when youth are placed on lockdown they are confined in their rooms for an extended period of time. Bickel (2015) explains the common institutional aspect of lockdown is used in juvenile detention centers as the most extreme form of punishment. Victory 51

Ariana describes the experience of moving from a highly structured facility to placements with less structure, and how her gain of freedom influenced her behavior. Ariana describes one of the group homes where she was required to go to group meetings, believing they were useless.

The rules and restrictions in the group homes restrict the overall amount of freedom youth are permitted to have and allow staff the ability to maintain power and control. There are many different levels and types of group homes, causing a large amount of discretion among each institution. This means that youth have many different social experiences depending on which group home they are placed.

In relationship to another total institution, Bickel (2015) shares that youth, who were locked inside of juvenile detention centers, felt as though the rules did not benefit them and caused them harm. The rules are made off of the idea that youth are pathological and that they can be conditioned to follow the rules (Bickel 2015, Skinner 1953 as cited in Bickel, 2015).

Rules are in place for the bureaucratic ease of staff, rather than for the benefit of youth. This is seen in practices found in total institutions that functions to make the management of those in confinement easier to handle (Becker 2003, Goffman 1961).

Laurence is a thirty-year old African American male who experienced living multiple years in a group home during his time in the foster care system before his foster mother officially adopted him. He has made a successful career as a musician. During the time of the interview was out on tour with his band. As we began the interview over Skype, the interviewed naturally flowed with ease because of Laurence’s calm and genuine nature. Laurence disclosed how his social experiences were different than other youth in the facility he was at because his placement was different:

Long story short, there are multiple housing units. There’re three houses that have kids arrive in high-risk, kids that were schizophrenic, kids that were suicidal and had social Victory 52

issues social anxiety. And things like that. And they have to be on a constant watch 24 hours, 7 seven days a week. I lived in a house far away from there. Or I could actually go out and interact with kids around the neighborhood. Go do things like go to the park, skateboard around yards, ride our bikes, all that stuff. And I mean for what it was that was some of the cooler things that I got to do living in the group home. Because we weren’t under this constant eye. I have someone saying hey you can’t do this, you can’t do that. You shouldn’t do this, you shouldn’t do that. You got to take your medication, you got to do this. So I got to live as close enough to a normal life that I could living in a group home. I didn’t have that constant shield of someone watching over me, and you know, where a lot of other kids who have anger issues. So if they were just trying to play something and one of the staff told them ‘Hey you’re doing that wrong’, that could cause them to have an outburst. And they would have to be detained or something. So yeah, I had it kinda easy.

Laurence explains that within his group home there were multiple housing units. Youth are placed in the different housing units depending on their prescribed emotional, behavior, and mental health levels. The level of structure, surveillance, and control depends on each housing unit. Laurence compares his social experience with other youth who had lived with a stricter authority. He shares that he was able to have a more normal childhood experience due to his ability to have more freedom to participate in regular childhood experiences. He also believes that his experience was easier than others. This shows that youths’ social experiences within group homes are dependent on the level and type of care they are placed.

Group homes are structured in a way that creates stricter systems of control for youth who are less compliant with the behavioral expectations of the establishment. Some of the participants indicated the less you comply with the institution, the less likely you are going to be placed in a foster placement and remain in the group home, as seen in the experiences of patients in asylums (Goffman 1961). Each participant had their own unique experiences in the treatment and level of care they received (Sigrid 2011); however they described a collective knowledge of these institutions. Group homes operate off of making the jobs of staff members easier, and the lives of youth harder for the purpose of maintaining complete control. Victory 53

Tahlia openly shares her opinion on the different types of group homes:

I would say, this is probably, this is something I have been saying for a while, is that group homes are definitely needed. They are places where people, you know, without family go to. And I just feel like there are some people that deserve to be in group homes and some people who don’t, who just really shouldn’t be in group homes at all. There’s good group homes and bad group homes, it’s just the way it is. Everything is flawed, every system is flawed, and you just got to make the best of it.

Tahlia explains the functions that group homes serve, in that they provide a place for youth without homes to go. She specifies that there are good and bad group homes, and that some youth are worthy and others unworthy of such placements. She compares this reality to the overall understanding that flaws exist in all systems. Silver (2015) explains similar findings that although such institutions are needed, these are not places were people thrive.

Group homes are structured in a way that labels certain youth as deserving of such treatment. The dominant ideology treats youth as though they have done something wrong and are in need of this treatment. Silver (2015) argues that the problems stem from structural conditions, rather than with the youth. Once a child is labeled as deserving of such a placement, the institution is able to further justify this control. This can be seen when the behaviors or emotional reactions of youth are treated as signs of their psychopathology (Polvere 2011).

Foster care youth experience living in multiple placements often including different group homes and foster placement. Jessica expresses frustration with her experiences of constant placement disruption:

Just the whole foster care system they say they don’t want to take you away just for any reason or they are trying to put families back together. But they’re still so many kids that are in foster care. It’s providing those services to the parents to be able to get their kids back. Not just take them away and they’re stuck living, you know. You are moving from group home to foster home to placement center to group home to foster home. It’s just like, I went to 10 different elementary schools. I went to 7 different high schools. And I mean I am just surprised I managed to still graduate because, you know. But even then, even now, I am just like where were all those people that should have helped me guide me to where [pause to think]. I am sure it’s changed a lot since I have been in foster care. Victory 54

And you know, maybe I’m sure you will get different stories but for me it was not like. I felt like I was everywhere. Even now I feel like I bounce from [pause]. I mean like every year I move and it sucks. Because again, I feel like I am in a group home. I’m moving from place to place to place and it sucks because I don’t want to. I mean, luckily my son is still be able to go to the same school. But it’s like, I hate moving from place to place, you know. I don’t want to do that.

Jessica argues that there should be more support for services to help families get their children back instead of just taking them away. Instead youth experience being moved to multiple placements including group homes, foster homes, and placement centers. Such instability not only affects placement in homes, but also placements in school. Jessica went to 17 different schools since her time entering foster care when she was a young child. Her surprise over graduating high school shows the educational hardship she has had to overcome as a result of these moves. Such hardships of moving stays with her today whenever she has to move.

Freundlich and Avery (2005) explain that youth experience a lack of control with the decision- making over their lives, as seen with their placement plans. Joseph explains his experiences with moving to different group homes:

And so from Coleridge I went to a group home called The Hills that was in Highland Hills. And from The Hills I went to a group home in El Circulo. From El Circulo I went to a group home in Grand Beach. And from Grand Beach I went to a group home in Estrella, called Friendship Lane. And just bouncing around from various areas. Uprooting myself from school. Or my mom being in and out of jail, coming in my life and coming out, just caused a lot of emotional, kind of uncertainty and turmoil I would say.

Joseph’s experiences of instability within placements added to his emotional hardships and added havoc to his life. Goffman (1961) explains that total institutions deny people the choice to determine their own best interest and self-determination.

Romon is a thirty three year old African American male, who spent the majority of his adolescence in the foster care system. Since his time aging out of the foster care system he has dedicated his career to bringing awareness to and being present for youth transitioning out of the Victory 55 system. He was on the forefront of advocacy efforts locally and nationally, where he fought for programs such as AB12, which provides extra support for youth during their transition into adulthood (AB12). He transferred to a four-year university from a community college, where he achieved his bachelors in Human Development. He has worked in programs and non-profit organizations that work with former foster youth and homeless youth, and in the last 10 years has been working in program development, and case management. When we met for the interview I felt Romon’s kind and relaxing presence was paired with a strong, professional confidence.

Through his professional and personal experiences, Romon shared multiple understandings of group homes. Romon discusses the shift in support for group homes in California:

There has never been a time where we have had enough foster homes. And I think people were getting off the group home thing because kids were getting lost and staying there, long-term group home kids.

Romon refers to the recent state legislature, which pushes away from the use of group homes and more support for foster placements (AB403). This is due to the fact that congregate care settings, or group homes were identified as not meeting the needs of youth (AB403). He explains this change in policy reflects the general understanding that many youth were remaining stuck in group homes for a long period of time, while also acknowledging the difficulties in finding foster placements. Silver (2015) argues that getting rid of transitional living programs is not the answer because young mothers rely on the support services provided within these institutions. Although group homes may not offer youth the quality care they deserve, the reliance on these facilities may not ever be fully eliminated.

Surveillance

Participants are held under tight surveillance in the institution in order to maintain control. Ariana opens up what it is like being held under constant surveillance: Victory 56

Like with me, I had supervised phone calls all the time. I couldn’t sit there and talk to my Mom or my Grandma or my Auntie. And let them know, like, how I was feeling or what was bothering me because you always got a staff sitting next to you. Or you are in a room with other people, like a day room, and you are on the phone, everybody is going to hear your conversation. So its like, I don’t know, its kinda like they shut you up. Like they put you in this home and make you just shut up. You can’t make a relationship with anybody. You can’t do anything.

Ariana explains how the staff’s surveillance over her phone conversations with her family and lack of privacy prevented her from being able to share her feelings with her family and have relationships. She attributed this surveillance as a form of control and being forced to remain silent. Silencing youth is a way in which the institution is able to maintain order and complacency. Surveillance within group homes is seen as a form institutional control, where youth are held under the tight watch of one authority in an attempt to make them obey the institution (Goffman 1961). The institution certifies the use of surveillance in order to justify the system of policies and rules that upholds the clinical master narrative (Armaline 2005). Through isolation and control, youth are subjected to the abuse of the institution.

Romon explains the experience of having limited access to the outside world living in such institutions:

At group homes you usually don’t have access to like go anywhere or do anything unless it’s approved by your social worker, and there are adults that are approved to be on your list. And so for me most of my family was here in central San Diego, so no one was going to be driving to Highland Hills to come and visit or take me so. Most group homes will provide transportation or will take you down and stuff like that but then again it just comes down to someone being on your list.

Romon lived in a group home that was far from his family, which made it difficult for him to see them. He explains that social workers determine the people youth are allowed to see and where they are allowed to go. Youth’s access to the outside community is contingent on the decisions of those in control. Goffman (1961) identifies a pivotal aspect of total institutions is the complete Victory 57 separation from the outside world and from those who work within the institution. Ariana further illustrates how group homes can prevent access to the outside community:

Or what I didn’t understand was one of the consequences was if you are not on level, or if you aren’t doing what you are supposed to do, then your visits are going to be canceled with your family. That used to piss me off. Like, how are you going to cancel a visit with my family because I am messing up. I barely see my family and I want to keep that relationship with my family but you guys are taking it from me.

Ariana’s expresses her frustration with the punishment of not being able to see her family. This represents the power institutions hold in determining the social lives and well-being of youth.

The institution punished Ariana through removing her rights to see her family and outside social relationships. The structure of abuse in group homes functions off of the isolation, surveillance, and punishment of youth.

Punishment

Youth who do not comply with the authority of the group home experience some form of repercussion or punishment. Jessica opens up about an emotional and traumatic time in her life:

I had found out my brother had died in February. This is nine years ago. I was really upset. I asked to go out of my room and go into this spare room they had where kids could go to express themselves. Well I went there, I was really angry, I was crying. I was so [pause] I ended up getting put on restriction because I was out of my room after curfew hours even though I was told it was okay to go in there to get away from my roommate and just let steam out. I got put on restriction I wasn’t allowed to call anybody on my phone list. The only person I could talk to was my social worker. But again, some social workers are really hard to get to because they are busy. Then two months later I found out my brother got stabbed 17 times and was in the hospital. I was again, really upset and this was in the same year. I asked to go into this room and went off and I got put on [pause]. Not restriction. I got put on a higher level because I was at risk of hurting myself, because I was punching the wall. Um, and again, I wasn’t allowed to talk to anybody. And that just made me more angry. And I would make comments saying I am going to hurt myself. And then my social worker actually ended up picking me up that night because he had found out that my brother was in the hospital. And he basically went over their rules and said I am taking her. And took me to go see my brother. So obviously, when I got back I was in a lot of trouble, because I left the premises without having permission to leave. Even though I left with my county worker. Um, then from there I wasn’t allowed to go outside. I was in my room 24 hours a day. Eating in my room. There would be times when I would be really Victory 58

depressed and I didn’t want to eat. And I get in trouble for not eating and wasting money. And then in that same year, I found out my dad died. And again, it was the same thing. I mean you have something big like that happen to you and they punish you for it. And I’m like, how is that? You should be comforting someone. How are those rules okay to have when someone is dealing with something that is so major in their life?

Jessica describes a traumatic time in her life, dealing with the death of her father and her brother being brutally stabbed. She explains that as she tried to emotionally deal with the pain of such trauma and hardship, the group home she lived in further isolated her and punished her. Rather than helping her through such a terrible time in her life, the group home’s focus was on trying to control her emotional reactions through isolation and punishment. Jessica questions the use of such rules and points to the inhumanity in punishing someone during such a hard time in their life rather than consoling and helping them.

The power of the clinical master narrative is seen in the detachment of staff members from youth. In this divide, relationships are prevented from forming that would allow staff members to have compassion for what youth are going through. Rather than having compassion for what youth are going through in their lives, staff members react to youth’s emotions with further control. The function of this treatment and social divide is maintaining the managerial ease of the institution (Goffman 1961). This detachment perpetuates a cycle of abuse, where youth are not allowed to have human emotions and are further removed from the reality of the world. The clinical master narrative hides this cycle of abuse, where youth are instantly marked as criminals the minute they enter the group home. The abuse that occurs in traditional relationship and family settings is similar to the structure of abuse found in institutional practices. In both cases the person being abused is labeled as deserving of such treatment by the abuser. Victory 59

Although the use of such abusive punishment varies across group homes, the common element of control is to punish behavior. Romon explains this as a type of control seen in the foster care system:

In a foster home or group home it’s all based off behaviors. So, if I have a bad day at school, I’m upset because maybe I am thinking about my mom or family. Or you know it’s my birthday and nobody contacted me, now I’m upset. Now they get mad, now I am kicked out of the foster home. Because I am too you know aggressive or I’m not being compliant.

As Romon indicates behavioral reactions of youth are met with punishment from the institution.

He shows how when youth do not comply with the behavioral expectations of the establishment, they are further blamed and punished for their actions. Punishment in this case is being kicked out of a home. Through this form of abuse, the institution sends a message to youth that the care they receive is contingent on their behavior and that their existence is removable.

Control in the institution is also seen through medication and restraints. Joseph describes the process and experience of being restrained:

That was a real big problem. You see a lot of kids get hurt from the way staff members would restrain you. I remember when I was younger they used to do a thing called basket hold. It was a form of restraint. And I think now they made it to where if a kid needs to be restrained you can do it by yourself. And so when we were younger, we would have a staff member [pause]. Lets say for example if I was acting up and I needed to go to the time out room. And I was just throwing a tantrum and I needed to be restrained because I was physically damaging or hurting myself or hurting others. [Physically demonstrates what a restraint looks like with gestures] So what they would do is, they would put the youth down and sit them on their butt. And have their legs like open. And a staff member would be behind you. And they would cross your arm and hook their legs in between you and just hold you tight. And so obviously, what you would have left is to just move your head [motions with head] and stuff. That’s why they would hold you tight, so you didn’t have that range of [pause]. And they would cause a lot of joint problems for youth a lot. A lot of youth were getting hurt. Things like that thank god they are not like [pause]. They are not allowed to do those kinds of things but even still I mean sometimes you are going to have to revert to restraining somebody. So, for causing harm to others. But staff members need to be better communicators.

Victory 60

Joseph notes the particular ways in which staff members were trained to restrain youth. He

explains that when youth “act up” or are physically harming themselves or others, staff were

allowed to restrain them. He mentions that many youth actually experienced physical harm due

to these restraints. Polvere (2011) shares that staff members use practices such as physical

restraints in an attempt to control the behaviors of youth who “act out”. Youth with histories of

abuse or trauma experience harmful effects due to this forced physical control over their bodies

(Polvere 2011). Joseph states that although staff members are no longer allowed these types of

restraints, there are particular times when restraints may be needed. He proposes a different

strategy, which challenges staff members to use better communication skills. The institution

has the power to determine when the use of physical control is necessary.

Physical control is also seen through medication, as Joseph explains:

I think the medication really altered not only my mindset, but it definitely altered my hormones at that age. You’re giving kids Risperdal, Antenex, Paxil and all that stuff at age 11, 12 years old when they are hitting puberty. I mean, come on now like, I’m not a chemist but I don’t think that that works well. Especially, these are adult-size doses you are giving to youth that are 13. And sometimes when I was taking them they were more experimental. And they don’t really know the side effects. As opposed to what they do now. That’s one thing that really frustrates me, more so than anything. Is that you see a youth who has experienced so much uncertainty within their life, and its hard for you to connect to that youth because they are not opening up to you. Obviously for obvious reasons for what they have been through. But to think, okay let me just drug you so we can get what we want out of you. Which is behave, until we can figure out to do with you when you emancipate and graduate. And I think you don’t [pause]. Medication doesn’t help what’s wrong with someone psychologically. It’s always something within. It’s an experience or some emotional feeling from some experience or something that has happened to them.

Joseph explains the psychological and physical harm that he experienced as a result of being medicated. He points to the corruption of the institution in prescribing youth drugs without the knowledge of its full effects on their bodies and well-being. He expresses frustration with how Victory 61 group homes use medication as a form of control to get youth to comply with the institution, rather helping them through their emotions.

Polvere (2011) explains that youth experience dehumanization and alienation when their behaviors are treated as signs of their psychopathology. Youth experience a violation of their human rights when this occurs, in that they are not allowed to express human emotions without the repercussions of being medicated (Polvere 2011). When youth act out, their behaviors are treated as signs of their psychopathology (Bickel 2015, Haslam 2003, Polvere 2011). Participants share that when they have behavioral reactions to something in their life, they are punished or medicated rather than understood and helped.

Ariana gives an instance where the group home prescribed her medication to physically control her:

And um, I went back home and I was going on crisis. And um, I was throwing fruit everywhere [laughs]. And then we had pictures on the wall and I would knock down those pictures. And they called the psych ward on me. And they came out to evaluate me. And um, they didn’t take me, cause I wasn’t harming anybody. Or, I wasn’t putting anybody at harm. And they were going to take me and I started crying. And I told them that I didn’t want go. I’m not going to go. They made me take 300 milligrams of Seroquel to go to sleep. And if I didn’t take it then they were going to take me to the mental hospital. So I took the Seroquel, and I just went to sleep after that for like a day. I was so tired. I don’t know, that’s the stuff that blows my mind. How are you going to make me take medication? Like you are practically forcing it on me because I don’t want to go somewhere you want me to go.

Due to Ariana’s non-compliance and behavioral resistance, she was threatened with being sent to a psychiatric hospital. She explains that the staff made her take powerful psychotropic medication to sedate her, and that if she didn’t take them they would send her to the hospital.

Ariana experienced the complete physical control of being required to take medication and then being physically tranquilized. This institutional control rejects any other solutions to the situation Victory 62 and takes away Ariana rights over her body and free will. When the total institution strips away the basic human rights of youth, youth experience abuse and injustice.

Laurence states his opinion on the usage of medication within group homes:

Like this kid is 100% being a child, a teenager, but they are going to quickly assume that there are behavioral issues. And put everyone on like Ritalin. Put them on anti- depressants. And then that makes them not want to do anything. And then they go from being some of the most athletic kids in the facility, to gaining 30, 40, 50 pounds, and not wanting to walk laps around the school anymore. Because they are depressed and they are just doped up on medication. You know, like being where I am in age and seeing what I saw then and comparing that to how I see kids now. It was just kids being kids. And a lot of the people there were just doping them up on medication and saying here you go, here’s your bi-hourly medication. And make sure you don’t have any outbursts or else we are going to up your medication. You know, that was kinda sad. That was another reason I definitely didn’t want to go back and work there because I didn’t want to be associated with that at all.

Laurence explains his experience with seeing how group homes attribute the normal behaviors of children as an illness that needs to be treated with medication. He describes the negative effects that psychotropic medication has on the overall physical and mental well-being of youth. The study of Foltz and Huefner (2014) reveals that most youth experience negative feelings from being medicated and that the medication did not help them. Youth do not have a say in the treatment they receive, but rather treatment is based on adults’ clinical assessments of their behaviors (Foltz and Huefner 2014). This clinical master narrative reminds youth of their “moral career” inside of the institution (Goffman 1961: 169), in that they are expected to be subservient, emotionless, and deserving of this treatment.

Participants discuss the physical and psychological harm they experienced from being medicated as well as being labeled and stigmatized. Medication did not help with their problems, but only functioned as a way to sedate and silence them. The institution controls youth who have emotional outbursts with medication, rather than recognizing the causes of such behaviors. Such Victory 63 physical control functions as a way to silence and blame youth. Group homes induce youth to become comatose in order to keep them complacent to the custody of the institution.

Many of the participants described group homes as being like prison. Jessica shares the common institutional aspects between group homes and prison:

For example, both my sister Casey and I ended up being at that same group home. She was at long-term [pause to think]. I was at short-term 12, she was at [pause to think]. They have different units, like short-term 12, long-term 12. And there’s a different unit that they have. Um, and so, but even then we weren’t allowed to see each other. Like, because we weren’t in the same unit. So, its like we would see each other but if we looked at each other we would be put on, like on some kind of, not a lock down. But they have some kind of different statuses that you are on. Gold, or you know, so we ended up getting put on probation, is what I would used to call it. Because they would keep you in your room all day. And you weren’t allowed to come out. You had to eat in your room. It’s like you are in prison. And not just that, but a lot of these staff were like very verbally abusive, physically abusive. And no one ever did anything about it. And the other thing that sucked was you couldn’t go to school outside. Like your social worker really had to push for you to go to outside school. Because at the school there, if you are a high school- er you are learning things that you learned in middle school.

Jessica was not allowed to communicate with or look at her sister due to being in separate units within the facility. If they did not comply with this, they were put on lock down. Jessica describes lock down, also referred to as probation, as being required to stay in their rooms all day without being allowed to leave for any reason. She continues to discuss how the staff got away with being verbally and physically abusive to the youth. Jessica explains the difficulty in trying to go to outside school and that the education provided onsite was extremely poor. She relates her experience in this group home to being in a prison, as seen in the shared institutional and punitive aspects.

Through punitive practices youth are treated as the problem, which fails to recognize their humanity and needs. This blame is also used to make the role of the institution easier because it takes accountability away from the establishment. This makes the lives of youth even more difficult and places the needs of the institution before the needs of youth. The participants Victory 64 identified this form of retributive care when they describe group homes as being like prison. This is seen through the shared ideological practices and institutional characteristics between the total institutions (Goffman 1961).

Tahlia shares similar thoughts:

There’s a lot of conflict between residents and staff. And its almost like juvenile [pause]. I’ve been saying this since the day I got there, this place feels like juvenile hall. Which is, I don’t think that’s good at all, especially for a kid who just got abandoned or their parents just died. That’s not a good feeling to feel like, well now I’m locked up. And I have no family or no friends. And there are these people who are always fighting and throwing stuff. It’s not a very happy place. In my opinion.

Tahlia expresses that the group home she lives is like being in Juvenile Hall. She shares that for youth who have already experienced the pain of being abandoned or separated from family, the experience of feeling locked up without any friends or family inflicts further distress and hardship. Tahlia describes the conflict and tensions present in this environment, and the overall lack of happiness. The participants illuminate the similarities between group homes and being in a lock down facility, which is seen with the shared institutional elements and negative experiences. After children have experienced the trauma of being divided from their families, they are placed in a structural system of abuse where they are treated as criminals. When youth enter into group homes, they are subjected to the punitive and retributive control of the institution that causes harm and distress in their lives. This type of control focusing on punishing and controlling youth, rather than offering support and care.

Experiences with Staff

The participants illustrate how the individual discretionary power of staff members resulted in inconsistent implementation of the rules and institutional control (Lipsky 2010). Each interviewee expressed their own experiences dealing with staff members. There are both positive and negative experiences as Laurence describes: Victory 65

Some of them I would say thank you because they did a great job. And they made me feel comfortable when I honestly didn’t know what was going on or why I was there. Seeing people being treated the way they were. And comparing their situation to mine and trying to figure out why I am there in the first place. So to those people I would say thank you. And that’s the good half. And as for the bad half, I would say man you need to chill out because if you put yourself in those kids shoes you would probably want to like pick something up and throw it at you. And then maybe they would be able to recognize that, you know. At the time living there you can’t say anything like that because you are out of place. You are talking to an adult as a child in a program that is, you know. Maybe, you know, taking medication or something and has issues and maybe don’t know any better than adults do.

When asked about what he would say to the people who work at and run the group home,

Laurence begins by thanking the staff members that helped him feel comfortable during a confusing and difficult time. He then challenges others staff members to look at children as human beings and to see their actions through understanding rather than demonization. He briefly discusses the lack of power and voice youth have when it comes to challenging a staff member, due to their age and social status within the institution. The participants shared a wide range of positive and negative experiences with staff members, which demonstrate the large amount of discretion that is allowed in implementing the rules (Lipksy 2010). Some staff members used their power for further control over youth and abused their power; while other staff tried to show they cared about the youth. Like Laurence, a majority of the participants shared both positive and negative experiences with staff members. Joseph says:

Looking back, there is a gentleman by the name of Trent. I go, how am I supposed to listen to you when you are a kid yourself? You act like a kid here more than any other kids here. And I think you need to be really careful with the people that you bring into the group home. Sure you want them to [pause]. I mean, the group home wants you to keep your distance as far as emotionally but, as a staff member you’re in replacement of parents at that point. You need to provide guidance. You need to provide knowledge and experiences and future possibilities.

Joseph argues that group homes should be careful when selecting staff members to make sure they are fit to be good parental figures. His experience with a particular staff member Victory 66 demonstrates the reality than many youth in the foster care system must face, that age and social status determines the amount of power you have within the system. Within these hierarchical relationships youth are at the bottom, and youth must obey staff regardless of the competency and nature of staff.

Institutional policy requires the division between staff members and children living in the group home as the adults are in charge with upholding institutional control as seen in the clinical master narrative (Goffman 1961, Lipsky 2010, Lyon-Callo 2008). Through this separation of worlds, a social distance is maintained and controlled. The participants recognized the social disconnect present between the staff personnel and youth living in care. As Joseph explains, staff members are taking the place of a parent for youth and should be held to the same standards.

Staff members are not a detached street-level bureaucrat, but rather a parental figure. However, the institution is in charge with determining what kind of parental figure staff members are allowed to be, as seen in the expectations that they must uphold in a system of structural abuse.

Staff members have complete authority over youth, which is shown through their power and control. Tahlia describes this power:

I think the only thing that’s like tough for all of us, is the staff. Because they are really like power hungry. Like they abuse their power almost. And there’s only so much we can do. Like we try to go to the higher ups and stuff but they don’t [pause]. It takes them forever to get back to us.

Tahlia portrays the staff as being hungry for control and with this comes an abuse of power.

Bickel (2015) explains that the institution uses the prison guards in juvenile detention centers to treat youth as though they are deserving of the abusive treatment they receive since they are different from other youth. Guards maintain control within the institution through dehumanizing and criminalizing youth (Bickel 2015). Within total institutions, staff members or guards are allowed to abuse their powers because this supports institutional control. Victory 67

Laurence further illustrates this hierarchical control:

But I don’t want to be affiliated with places that have, you know, staff that don’t do and don’t follow the rules like they are supposed to. Take advantage of their authority. Yelling at kids and stuff because they are having a bad day. It’s like that stuff is not really necessary, you know, that’s your job and chose to do that job. You chose to be a help for someone and instead you are kind of [pause]. You’re installing fear into them and that’s not what you are there to do. That’s I guess that’s my main reason for not wanting to go back.

Laurence shows his disdain for group homes that allow staff members to abuse their authority and cause fear in youth. He holds the staff members accountable for their actions in going against the roles they should be providing for youth. When staff members are allowed complete control over youth, abuses can occur.

Youth experience the repercussions of the unlimited power of group home staff members.

Jessica recalls a particular time when abuse occurred:

I mean there was an instance where I could remember where one of kids ended up getting punched by the staff. Because they were trying to restrain him, because he had tried to run away. Because there is always someone sitting at the gate, to see who walks in and out. But this kid at that time, before 7’oclock there’s no one there. So when you’re going to breakfast this kid had tried to run away and he got out of the gate. And when they brought him back in. I mean, they were walking him in and there was this um African American staff that actually ended up beating him. I mean, over and over, like you see videos of cops. Or you know, over using, over going what their power is. And the kid ended up going to the hospital. And I mean black eye, bloody. He was all bloodied out. And the staff didn’t even get arrested for it. They said that he used appropriate force because this kid was refus- [pause]. You know, resisting arrest is what basically what it was. And the kid like, we never saw him again. So I don’t know what had happened to him. But the staff still works there actually to this day.

Jessica talks about a particular incident where a staff member abused a child who was resisting his control. The staff member who beat the child was not held accountable for his actions and was even allowed to continue working at this facility. Through protecting the staff member and blaming the child, the institution is able to maintain this authority.

Abuse becomes a consequence of complete control, as Laurence describes: Victory 68

But some of the staff in the actual residential housing where everyone was on campus. They flex their authority too often. I’ve witnessed with my own eyes a grown, like 35-year-old, male pick up a kid by his shirt and pressed him up against the wall. Because yeah, he was frustrated. But he just had an outburst himself. And I guess wanted to prove to people that he’s the big bad guy and you don’t want to get on his bad side. Now however your scare tactics work, that is against the rules. That is illegal. And in any case, at public school that guy would get fired. But he quit after, so that he couldn’t get any you know, notches against. And actually came back months later and reapplied. And they rehired him without hesitation. And then there were no words spoken of it. That was the confusing part, it was like these people are here to help you and do certain things but in every batch of people there’s always going to be a few that are not doing things the way they should be.

The abuse of power is seen in ways that staff members choose to exercise their authority. Staff members use abuse to inflict fear in youth in an attempt to control them. Laurence talks about such an incident, when a staff member expressed their frustrations through a physical act of rage against a child. When both the staff member and the child acted out of frustration, the child is the one who is labeled as being bad and not allowed to behave in this way, however the staff member is considered to be doing his job. Staff members hold privileges within the group homes, as seen in how they are allowed to have a physical outburst without any repercussions for their actions. These examples of abuse shows how within these social hierarchies, staff members hold the power to choose their own methods of control.

Hierarchical control is an essential element of control found within total institutions, and those who resist this control are further punished and kept in confinement (Goffman 1961).

Neoliberalism creates power structures that allot control to those who hold privilege within the establishment. This is seen in larger society and is reflected in the structure implemented in group homes. The dominant ideologies that are found in group homes reflect the ideologies of neoliberalism, where youth are demonized and as result structural problems are ignored (Lyon-

Callo 2008, Spade 2011, Silver 2015). Victory 69

Those in power in the group home allocate status depending on social identity. Youth have different social experiences depending on their identities. Romon explains the racism he has experienced:

And so, of course, if a kid, you know, disproportionately was more minorities in group homes. But then if there was a kid that comes in that, you know, White or something. Sometimes I guess, most of the staff were White. They didn’t have like a lot of minorities in the group homes that I was at. And then when I was in regular foster care, all of my social workers were probably White women. You know, no males, no males of color. So that’s another thing that kind of influenced me to kind of go into the field was to kind of impact youth and be a male presence. But um, sometimes I would see stuff, I don’t think it would be deliberate maybe it was just more familiar sometimes. Like yeah, if you are a White person from a different area, or you are not going to relate to I live in a gang neighborhood. So you are not going to talk to me about gangs. Or different things like that, so I think it was just general what happens in society. I had never seen anything like really, I had a couple White staff that I felt like they just didn’t like Black kids or something or they had the perception that we were just already bad. So, you come in and they do certain things, like locking up stuff or being very aggressive to you. But in group homes you get around it by just causing a ruckus. It’s like you don’t like, me its all good. There was a staff that was kind of like that. He would always take us on trips. And he would always like blame me and this other kid if something was stolen. And all of us did like little mischievous things but he was always kind of riding us.

Romon identifies the racial demographics of group homes. He states that most of the staff was

White and that a majority of youth in his group home were racial minorities. He also did not witness men of color in the field, as most of his social workers were White females. He attributes the lack of representation of men of color as part of his reason he decided to work in this field, to challenge this social divide and become a positive Black male presence for youth.

Romon explains how this social divide influenced the way in which staff members related to youth depending on their race and social experiences. He then discussed the racial treatment youth received, in that youth who were Black experienced discrimination from White staff members. Romon shares his experiences of racial discrimination, where he was automatically blamed and targeted by certain staff members for doing something wrong. He Victory 70 explained his own strategies for challenging this racial discrimination. The experiences of

Romon show that youth have different experiences of oppression within group homes depending on their intersectionality, and that power is distributed through such identities (Collins 1999).

Silver (2015) explains the role workers play as “gatekeepers”, by having the power to decide who is deserving of services, influenced by their own racist or discriminatory views.

Tahlia argues:

Or you know it’s just so stupid. The rules are so stupid. You know, it just seems like they are so detached. You know, like, it’s just unfair they had a different lifestyle than we did. And so they don’t have any idea of how we are trying to cope with things or the way that we know how to go about life. You know, so. I don’t know, I just feel like they are dumb.

Tahlia shows how the rule creators and staff members are detached from understanding the social realities of foster youth. Due to this social divide, those who hold power in the institution further reproduce inequalities and implement rules that subjugate youth. Spade (2011) argues that neoliberalism is present in organizations that are run by those who hold privilege in society.

Those who hold privileges, as seen in hegemonic White supremacy, determine the decision- making within institutions (Spade 2011). As Tahlia describes, the decision makers of the institution are detached from the social realities youth face due to their differences in social identity and status. As a result, rules are made for the benefit of those in power.

Group homes determine the duration of relationships that are allowed between staff members and youth. Romon reflects on the schedules that create instability in the time staff spend with youth:

I think it was more so for the kids. Because staff when you get there, when the PM shift comes, you are going up to them. Like oh hey, you know. All the kids are like hungry for attention. So when you have staff that were not even trying to be even open to that, then that could make a kid go off for a day, and now he’s in like crisis. You know, because its like aw dang you know. Or I can’t wait til this person to comes back to the PM shift or the AM person comes because that’s the shift they work. So then you will see kids that are like acting up on the weekends because the PM shift on the week days sometimes Victory 71

didn’t work on the weekends. Or you have field trips or outings, they call them. They go do stuff and you are always like, aw I wish d-dawg could go with us to the movies because he’s like a fun staff. So its just, I think the common thing for foster kids, especially in a group home, you didn’t have choice. It wasn’t like you could go in and be like aw I want d-dawg to work on. D-dawg had his own thing he had to do and there was a schedule. So people that come from traditional families, more traditional families, they haven’t had to understand that or deal with that.

Romon explains that youth experience a broad range of staff members due to the rotating shifts.

If a child forms a relationship with or likes a staff member, they have to wait for that staff member to be on shift. Youth are unable to choose when they see certain staff members, so their experiences on a given day are determined by who is working. Romon compares this with traditional families and shows that youth living in group homes have to deal with relationships that are on a schedule.

Katie, who is an eighteen-year-old White female, entered into the foster care system when she was twelve years old and experienced living in two group homes and four foster placements. She is currently attending a community college, where she also works in the EOPS office. Although she is undecided on her choice of study she knows that she wants to one-day work with children. When I met Katie for the interview, her kind and gracious spirit instantly filled the room. In one part of the interview, Katie opens up to me about her frustration in dealing with the constant changes in staff members:

It’s more of like consistency in social workers. Because I have, definitely I mean, I’ve had like 15-20 different social workers and that’s a lot. Having, this is fine, like “Hey Katie can I come interview you for you to share your story”. Yeah for sure, because I want people to know. But when you have a social worker who has your case right in front of them but they are lazy to read it. And they come and meet you for the first time, they are like “So why are you in the system?” Well excuse me that’s in my file you are supposed to know all of this and you are coming to ask me, you know.

Katie talks about the large amount of social workers and the frustration dealing with bureaucratic inefficiency. With the constant change in staff, foster youth experience inconsistency in Victory 72 relationships with staff members. Youth in the foster care system not only have to deal with the constant turnover of public service workers, but as also the discretion exercised by these workers

(Lipksy 2010).

Group homes limit the relationships youth are allowed to have with staff members as

Joseph reveals:

Well there is a lot of politics in the group home. That’s the one thing. Its hard for someone like you Olivia, to have so much compassion and care and still feel like I am doing something that is needed for this youth to be a better person. To have a better life. A better experience. But if you are limited onto how you are able to interact with the youth, how do you continue to work there. How do you continue to be an individual that is adding damage to whatever is already damaged. Adding more damage to whatever is already wrong. And so me I tell myself, its hard for me to go back and live at or work at a group home because it would kill me and eat me up inside to have to handle these kids a certain way. Keep my distance when these kids are so emotionally distraught. And for me, I am passionate emotional person, and I like to share my feelings and my experiences hoping that in return you can find some sort of inspiration or education from what I have experienced. Which will allow you to make your actions or determine your actions a little bit better. And I feel like at a group home I can’t do that because I have to keep my distance. You know, due to the legalities. That’s a big problem because it takes away from people like you who care and foster youth know. I see right through somebody who is there for the money or is there for actually caring about the longevity of our life. So, that’s what I really have to say about that. But the politics is a real big thing because it really determines an individual’s actions whose trying to help.

Joseph refers to the politics behind the group home that Daisy had taught me. These politics determines how people are allowed to interact with youth. He talks about how the love and compassion of someone can only go so far because they are limited to how they can act with the children. Joseph shares his own sentiments on limited relationships with youth, and realizing that this only causes more harm to each individual. He explains the bureaucratic restraints that the institution places on staff members and youth; how it controls the types of relationships that are allowed to form. Victory 73

Staff’s conceptions of youth may be influenced by their ways of coping with institutional pressures and bureaucratic stresses (Lipsky 2010). There is a high level of burn out among staff members due to low salaries and the poor services in group homes (Cohen 1986). The nature of staff member work creates an environment that compels emotional and psychological detachment from youth. Even when staff members seek to form caring and supportive relationships, they are still held to the standards of an abusive system. Such caring relationships are just not allowed in the institution.

Ariana talks about the staff members she formed a relationship with:

I still talk to those staff now. But because I made a relationship with another staff she had to move. She had to quit working at PB-18 where I was at. And she had to get a totally different job. And that was their way of separating the bond that we had. Because she was the only person that I would talk to that understood me, and that actually took the time. And that’s what I’m saying, like how do they expect us to succeed if we don’t have anybody? Or if we, yeah if we don’t have anybody or if they don’t teach us or if they’re not there for us. How do they expect us to succeed? I don’t understand. Cause they take us away from our family.

Ariana explains that after she formed a caring relationship with a staff member, they left for another job. She blames the group home for this staff member leaving. Ariana illuminates the negative experiences youth face when they are not allowed to have supportive and lasting relationships, and argues that the system began this control when she was taken from her family.

Romon explains the boundaries that restrict such relationships:

Yeah, so knowing my training now, because I used to work at a foster agency too, they just have stricter boundaries. So a lot of the staff. They weren’t allowed to talk really about their family or outside personal stuff. So it was always just you know processing your own stuff. Which, and in any general relationship when you are a kid and you are talking to an adult, you build relationships by connecting or learning stories about people. And so that was the hard thing about staff. And then also social workers. It was hard because they always kept it like so separate. So it was always surfacey stuff. And then also you know, at that group home in particular, it was all boys there but they had coed staff. So you just kind of, I know for us I know like third, fourth, fifth grade. So a lot of kids like if you came in some of the kids were really drawn to the female trying to have like motherly type relationships but they were not allowed to like hug or touch kids, of Victory 74

course for the safety issues. But we are human beings. You come out of the womb like you are supposed to show affection.

Romon discusses the boundaries that are set by foster agencies and group homes, where staff are not allowed to share their personal lives with youth. He explains that the boundaries cause shallow relationships that end up harming youth because they are not shown how or allowed to have a genuine relationship.

As Lipksy (2010) explains the nature of the work of street-level bureaucrats requires the detachment of workers from youth. The amount and quality of care becomes conditional on the bureaucratic restraints within the institution as well as the discretion of each individual worker

(Lipksy 2010). This is also seen in the relational work, when staff members are encouraged to have relationships with youth but are trained to follow the boundaries of specific policies and frameworks (Gharabaghi 2008). Due to the separation of social worlds between staff members and youth (Goffman 1961, Lipksy 2010), staff members can more easily label the alleged pathological behaviors of youth (Bickel 2015). When staff members fail to understand the behaviors of youth due to this social distance, they develop their own conceptions of youth, making the abusive control over youth psychologically easier to justify and implement (Lipsky

2010). Romon argues that affection is a basic human need that group homes deny to youth. Staff members in group homes are given the unattainable task of providing affection within an abusive system. In this case, staff members are placed not just as a street-level bureaucrat (Lipsky 2010), but placed in a role that is in replacement of parents.

Life Inside Structured Abuse - Reflection

Dominant institutional ideologies that create the structure of group homes dehumanize and demonize youth, and function as tactics of control in order to make youth become docile and complacent until they age out of care. The structure of abuse is seen in the common institutional Victory 75 aspects of care as identified by the participants. These institutional aspects include: rules and restrictions, separation from the outside world, surveillance, punishment, and physical control

(Goffman 1961). Other forms of institutional control are seen in how staff members are given complete authority over youth, and are immune to the behavioral requirements that are set for youth (Goffman 1961, Lipsky 2010).

In the foster care system youth often experience multiple placements into various types of group homes. Within group home environments, having positive relationships with staff members is not supported, or at times even possible. Within group homes, staff members step outside of the role of street-level bureaucrat and into the role of a parent. Staff members are expected to uphold the structure of abuse, as seen in the clinical master narrative. In doing, so, staff members take on the role of an abusive and detached parent. In such institutional care youth experience a lack of control over their bodies, minds, relationships, and emotional well-being.

Group homes resemble the prison model when the ideologies and practices focus on punishment rather than offering care. Youth are marked as criminals the minute they enter into group homes.

In order to survive within the institution, youth must deny their rights to human emotions and dignity as well as lose their own sense of self (Goffman 1961). Above all else youth must remain complacent and docile, or else they will be experience further control and punishment. By keeping youth complacent to the rules through punishment, the institution is able to more easily implement the rules and maintain control.

EFFECT ON LIFE

These following sub-sections will present the ways in which group homes have affected the lives of the participants. The themes are a few of the common social experiences shared by Victory 76 the participants. The critical perspectives of individuals who have lived in group homes expose the inherent effects of institutional care.

Relationship Struggles

Group homes do not support youth relationships with others. Youth living in group homes experience relationship challenges. Ariana shares:

Nobody’s ever been there. I’ve never had the support or somebody to love me like a mother, or like a father. Or to show me what’s right. And so I put up I guess an angry front. So it backs people off. And my social worker is like well you did it to yourself. I understand it’s my fault, but help me, show me different. And she just doesn’t, she doesn’t have the time.

Group homes do not support loving and caring relationships. As Ariana shows, workers within such settings do not have the time or ability to be help support the personal relationships and development of youth. Ariana explains that she has never had the love and support of a mother or father. In blaming Ariana for the wall she has put up as a result of not having such relationships, the social worker ignores the reasons for this distancing. Not having experienced what many youth in the foster care system have, outside people are prone to judge the behaviors of youth rather than understand them, as Joseph further explains:

I wrote in my journal a couple weeks back that it’s tough for a foster parent to come into a group home setting and see an individual who has very poor emotional unstableness. And to think that if I take this individual into my home, these circumstances are gonna be under my watch. And it’s tough for a foster parent to kind of put themselves in perspective and gravitate to a youth like myself at that age.

Joseph acknowledges the difficulty that foster parents experience in deciding to bring youth into their homes when they do not understand or relate to their emotional behaviors. Youth living in group homes experience further social distance from others when their behaviors are not understood. When this distancing occurs, youth’s chances of moving into a foster home lessen.

Distancing also hinders youth from connecting with a foster family. This social distance is the Victory 77 distance patients in asylums experience, when their behaviors are treated as further reasons for their confinement within the total institution (Goffman 1961).

Romon talks about how group homes fail to support youth in making life long connections:

At the group home when I leave, a lot of the kids like being at the group home because it’s familiar. You go to a foster home, you have to try to adjust. You’re at a new school, they got new kids all that stuff. So you would see a lot of kids who would rather be at the group home because they at least know the staff and you get a break from them. Because if they work PM, they are not going to be there in the AM. So its just like oh, I’m going to stay here. Long term its not good because you can’t continue that relationship. You’re not supposed to continue that relationship after you get out of care. Same thing with the social workers, so every time I would say relationships. Finding ways to have relationships or connecting them with people that are just far enough outside of the system that they can continue that relationship once they leave.

Romon identifies the consequences of staying in group homes in comparison to foster placements. Group homes may offer youth a break from the hardships in foster placements such as constant network disruption and uncertainty. However, Romon explains that staying in group homes will harm youth in the long term because they are not allowed to make lasting relationships with staff members. Romon stresses the importance of youth forming healthy and long-lasting relationships with individuals outside of group homes. Youth who live in group homes are not supported in having lifelong relationships.

In being alienated from the outside world, youth living in group homes experience isolation from others. This can be seen in the challenges they face in having relationships, as

Romon discusses:

And then, sometimes they get good at mimicking whatever they are doing. So that’s the negative side because when you go into adulthood you actually have to have genuine relationships with people. You can’t just be cool with somebody just to get something. Can’t be good, you actually have to go to stuff that you don’t like. You know show up to birthday parties. You have to work or go to school. All those things, transition out kids they don’t actually understand that. It’s always like what’s in front of them.

Victory 78

Through not being allowed to have genuine relationships within the group home, Romon explains that youth can become unaware of how to form these relationships in the outside world.

This separation from having relationships shows the divided lives that youth have when they live in group homes. Group homes obstruct the development of personal relationships for youth, due to the social distancing that is produced through institutional care.

Participants share their experiences with having been hurt by relationships with staff members. Katie talks about enduring such hurtful relationships:

And another thing is, a lot of the students have attachment issues. Where it takes a long time for them to get attached, if they do at all. And so they are very disrespectful to other people. And in my case, I don’t know if it is because I got taken away at a late age but every parent that I have had, every person. Like I’ll meet someone and if we hang out like you’ll be my best friend in like a week. Like, I attach really fast and that’s kind of dangerous and so I have been let down a lot and I’ve been hurt a lot.

In speaking with students through her job at the EOPS office, Katie explains that many students keep others at a distance. Katie compares their experiences with her own where she connects with others fast, but that in doing so she becomes more open to being hurt. Rather than placing themselves in a situation of being hurt, youth create a barrier of protection from others. After being in a system that operated off of an abusive structure, youth become more hesitant to open up to others because of their fear of being hurt again.

Ariana provides an example of being hurt by someone she had a relationship with:

Like at Mission, I had made a good relationship with the program director. When I barricaded my door that day she goes, “You mean nothing to me. You are going to go nowhere in life.” That’s what she told me and I just started crying and that’s why I went on crisis when I got back home. Because I go, I mean nothing to you, well, that really made me feel like shit. That really hurt me, and that stuck with me forever. Like how is somebody going to tell me that? I shouldn’t have been doing what I was doing but you don’t tell me that.

Ariana shares that the program director she had a good relationship with turned on her and said harmful words that degraded her existence and future life. Ariana expresses the hurt that she felt Victory 79 over the director’s malicious words that she continues to live with. She was unable to justify why someone was able to treat her that way. This shows how youth in group homes do not receive protection from and are openly exposed to the hurtful words and actions of staff members.

Through the power staff members have within the total institution (Goffman 1961), they are able to get away with harming youth. This is also reflective of the how the abusive system within the group homes operates, when staff members begin to believe in and implement the hegemonic understandings found in the clinical master narrative (Lyon-Callo 2008). The institution is able to maintain control through demonizing youth and treating them as though they are pathological

(Bickel, 2015).

Personal Struggles

Youth face personal struggles living in institutional care, as Katie shares:

Well, again I would want it to be more family oriented. But I definitely would make it more of a support system because I have seen a lot of kids who have been in the system who have just given up. And they have kids and their kids go into the system. And then those kids of have kids and then it’s just a cycle. And it’s really sad because these kids just think they are nobodies. And they have been told that they are nobodies. And so after you have been told you are a nobody so many times you start to believe it. And you don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel and there’s no way out. Well there is but they don’t see it, you know.

Katie states there should be more support for youth in the system. She identifies that without this support youth become stuck in an insufferable cycle where they feel worthless. Katie calls attention to the fact that many youth are told by others in the system that they mean nothing.

Such words are harmful and wounding. Joseph challenges the lack of support youth receive:

And a lot of times when it gets so exhausting, you just don’t want to wake up and do it anymore. I’ve over heard a couple youth this past week contemplating suicide. To think that they can’t [sigh] they can’t push themselves because they don’t know what they can do. They don’t know what they are capable of. They are already at this point right now with their lives but they don’t know what they are capable of continuing to do. And it saddens me to think that they feel like their lives are not worth living. Like if I were to just take my own life, I would be doing myself and others a favor. Victory 80

And that’s, ah, how do you sleep at night. If you are somebody who has brought this youth up and you know has raised this youth. And to think at age 21, this kid thinks he’s going to kill himself just because he up to this point in his life has felt that it’s worthless. Come on now, we are in the business of helping youth. And if you can’t help youth paint that picture, or help them draw, it’s just going to be an ongoing unfortunate statistic that it’s just going to compound and keep happening.

Joseph explains how the exhaustion of life can become too much to handle for youth and that many contemplate ending their lives. He objects the reality that youth are able to spend their lives without any guidance or support to help them through their personal struggles. Joseph argues that if we do not start supporting youth in finding value and hope for their futures and current lives, then this cycle will continue. The cycle is caused by the cycle of abuse that youth repeatedly face within these institutions. In order to end such a cycle, the structural conditions need to be dismantled and eliminated. Silver (2015) argues that the structural conditions in society are the problems that need to be addressed, rather than focusing on the youth who experience them.

Jessica shares her own inner struggles of this abusive system:

So, I feel like from growing up in the group homes, and just in foster care in general, I feel like I’ve become such an angry person. And I hate that about myself because I want to be happy. But I feel like I’m never going to get to that point where I am just going to be happy. I feel like I can put on a smile and pretend to be happy and do all these things that I want to do but deep down inside I am so, so angry.

Jessica describes the constant emotions she struggles with every day, where she can’t escape the anger she feels due to her life growing up in group homes and the foster care system. Jessica shows that although youth may leave the foster care system one day, the weight of their negatives experiences can follow them the rest of their lives. After living in a system based on a structure of abuse, people leave foster care having to deal with the emotional wounds that were inflicted on them. This is seen in Jessica’s anger with what she was forced to go through during her time in the foster care system. Victory 81

Various participants opened up about some of the emotional turmoil they experienced while living in group homes. Jessica opened up to me about her painful experiences within an abusive system:

Sort of felt like I went crazy. I was just really angry because I didn’t want to be there I wanted to go back to short-term 12. I just became really angry. Let’s just put it that way. I would pick up furniture and throw it. I would do that to myself. I would make myself throw up. Think I was just angry at the fact that I felt like no one really wanted to help me, and I was just being put in these homes because that was what was convenient for them at the time.

Jessica felt devastation as she returned back to a group home. She expressed her emotions through physical outbursts, and harming herself. These emotions came from her experiences of feeling abandoned and cast away. For Jessica, group homes were a place to be further ostracized and isolated. Group homes become a place where youth, who have just experienced the trauma of being separated from their families, are thrown in confinement and treated as criminals. This treatment of youth is extremely abusive and is a violation of their basic human rights.

When group homes lack understanding and compassion, youth do not receive support in dealing with their emotional turmoil:

And its like, me, I always seek for my family. Because I mean I was 12 when they took me from my family. So I had a strong bond with them. I didn’t understand why, and that made me very, very angry. And I would get visits set up with family and they would say they would come and then cancel, so I would blow up. And then I would get the consequences for it. But they never took the time to understand why I was upset. Because I had my hopes up, like my mom is going to come and see me, and then last minute she’s not coming. There’s always a consequence for everything you do I guess. When I got a consequence, I’ll push it, and push it, and I’ll get more and more and more. And then in the end I’ll really think about it and then be like, I just wanted you guys to understand that I was hurting because I wanted to see my mom. I guess they just never took the time.

Ariana describes the emotions she felt when her family wouldn’t visit her in the group home.

When Ariana would express these emotions, staff members would give her consequences or punishments rather than taking the time to understand why she was acting this way. Youth are Victory 82 not allowed to have emotional reactions to the hardships in their lives. Through blaming youth and treating their behaviors problems, the institution is able to uphold the clinical master narrative and ignore any structural issues (Silver 2015, Polvere 2011, Lipsky 2010). Group homes fail to provide youth with necessary emotional support when the rules aim to punish youth for such emotional reactions.

When group homes keep youth from connecting with their family and community, youth lose a part of themselves. Ariana, who identifies as American Indian, shares:

I wish they didn’t take me from my family. Like, I understand why they took me from my family but don’t take me completely away from them. Like I had my own culture, I was going to my cultural events. I was living with family, and then I went to go and live with my mom. I wish they didn’t take me from that. Or if they did then let me go with them, let me go on pass with them more or let me go to cultural things that I was doing before because I lost my culture, they took that from me.

Ariana shares how she was torn away from her family and culture. In being prevented from participating in her cultural events or visiting her family, Ariana’s culture was taken from her.

This cultural loss robs youth of their identity and community. Goffman (1961) explains that youth experience “mortification” when the institution does not support each person’s self, as seen in a loss of identity and connection with community. Youth not only experience harm emotionally and culturally, they experience harm physically.

Joseph shares how youth experience physical harm as a result of being medicated:

But it’s hard to get into somebody’s head like that when they are so doped up on antidepressants. And especially when they come off that, it’s just, like I said it’s just hard to digest and I have so much passion about that because even still today I am in the best shape that I’ve ever been in my whole entire life and its embarrassing to say that I still have traits of gynecomastia, which is an enlargement of male breasts. And so you see kids that, like I said, when you are developing in puberty you are taking these antidepressants, they mess with your physical body. And I’m sure you have seen the Risperdal claims on TV, if you have ever seen them, and the most commonly, those are former foster youth that get those claims. And to think, you are trying to better a kid’s life but you don’t understand how much damage you are doing to them not only psychologically but physically. And I think if there is some kind of way to talk to, I mean Victory 83

there’s a lot of politics behind the group home scene. You know that. To somehow get physicians and doctors to understand I feel like you are doing more damage than good to these youth by giving them this much medication.

Joseph discloses the physical harm that medication caused to his body. He explains the psychological and physical effects of being medicated, and points to the little knowledge doctors seem to have of this damage. He explains that foster youth are the usual targets of suffering from such damage. Youth who have no control over the medication they receive are prone to harmful side effects. Youth experiencing a lack of rights over their bodies is another form of abuse within the system. Physical harm is an effect of a system that does not place the health and wellness of youth as a number one priority.

Feeling Normal

The participants expressed how they did not feel normal within group homes. Joseph describes how he fought to feel normalcy in his life:

I always loved being in school. School was like a place for me to like I felt normal. I felt like, I am going to public school, I feel like for at least these eight hours I am like everybody else. And so I valued my education. I valued being in school. I valued participating with other youthful individuals that enjoyed sports, recreation, arts and crafts, stuff of that nature.

Joseph valued the time he spent at school because this was a place where he was able to feel normal. Youth turn to outside outlets such as school to escape the abnormal life in group homes.

This shows that youth living in group homes are held to much higher standards that other youth, with expectations that require complete detachment from their human needs and dignity. Also, that the control within group homes is “unnecessarily restrictive”, as identified by youth living in juvenile detention (Bickel 2015: 269).

Laurence shares similar sentiments:

Because like I said, being involved in the group home and stuff I couldn’t do a lot of the things that my friends that were going to public school. Which I was one of 66 kids that Victory 84

were allowed to go to public school. They were going to places and doing these things and I was like no I got to go home. I have to go straight home after school. So I started doing sports so I could hang out, to stay out of the group home. You know, that would make me feel normal.

Laurence describes the differences in life that he had in comparison to his friends who did not live in group homes. He notes that he had the unique opportunity to attend outside school, in comparison to other youth who were forced to attend school at the group home, and did not have such freedom. Laurence explains that in joining sports and after school activities, he was able to avoid time spent in the group home and spend more time feeling normal at school.

Jessica illustrates what life in a group home feels like:

I feel like they are very, very strict, like I said it’s like jail. You are in jail is basically what it is. You sit on a couch with a girl you get put on like the lock down. They put a lot of kids on medication because they assume that every foster kid needs to be put on medication. I don’t know I just don’t like that feeling like you can’t be a normal person.

Jessica compares life in a group home to living in jail. She explains how a normal act of sitting on a couch is met with punishment, as well the overall assumption that all youth in group homes need medication. She compares group homes to the prison model because of the common punitive and retributive practices. These institutional practices that are found inside of group homes create environments where youth are dehumanized and unable to live normal lives.

Through punitive practices youth are treated as the problem, which fails to recognize their humanity and needs. This blame is also used to make the role of the institution easier because it takes accountability away from the establishment (Silver 2015). This makes the lives of youth even more difficult and places the needs of the institution as the only priority. The participants identified this form of retributive care when they describe group homes as being like prison. This is seen through the shared ideological practices and institutional characteristics between the total institutions (Goffman 1961). Victory 85

Participants share being stigmatized and labeled in group homes which further alienates them from society:

I just, the one thing is just I really hate that they treat kids like they are all crazy. I hate the medications, I hate because that sticks [pause to reflect]. After you emancipate when someone looks at your files it shows this kid was on all these medications maybe they have a problem now. Um, they label you is what they do. I don’t want to be labeled.

Jessica explains what it is like being diagnosed and treated as though she is crazy or ill. She shares that the stigma attached with the labels youth are given in group homes stays with them even after they leave care. Polvere (2011) explains that youth experience alienation and dehumanization when their behaviors are treated as a symptom of their mental health diagnosis.

Ariana illuminates the dehumanization that occurs when youth are judged off of such labels:

But I just wish they would take the time to just to get to know somebody and not judge them off of a paper, or off of SIR reports from where you are getting from group homes. Because maybe this person was having a bad day that day. Then they do an SIR report and that’s all they see. You don’t see anything good on those reports. That oh, um Ariana graduated as a medical assistant, or oh, Ariana actually graduated high school, or Ariana can really talk to people when she wants to when she can actually trust them. They don’t see that. They see, oh, Ariana was getting into a fight, or Ariana was on medication. I don’t know, I guess for them to take the time to get to know someone and to know the kids that are in the system and to be able to talk to them. To know their background and not what’s on paper. Or to be able to actually be there for the youth.

Ariana does not want to be judged off of what is stated on Special Incident Reports (SIRS) due to the negative labels it gives to children. Such reports focus on the negative behaviors of youth, rather than understanding why those behaviors occurred. When staff members judge Ariana off of the SIR reports, they fail to see Ariana as a human being. Ariana argues for a system based on compassion and understanding, rather than demonization and dehumanization. Bickel (2015) explains how prison guards in juvenile detention centers are trained to view the youth as deceitful and pathological. The institution uses the guards to create an environment where youth Victory 86 are dehumanized and criminalized in order to maintain control (Bickel 2015). Through demonizing the behaviors of youth, total institutions are able to justify these behaviors as further necessity for their confinement. Each individual is expected to follow the roles they are given from the institution (Goffman 1961).

The demonization of poor communities can be seen throughout history when state invention first began removing children from parents who were believed to be unfit to raise children (Shelden 2008). Control over poor communities is further seen in neoliberalism, when the system functions off of the disenfranchisement of marginalized communities (Lyon-Callo

2008). The function of demonizing and blaming marginalized communities is to silence those who have less power in order to secure the investment of power for those on the top, as seen in

White supremacy (Lipstiz 1998). These common threads of maintaining power are woven throughout the institutional care found in group home, by demonizing and blaming youth.

Participants further talk about how group homes focus on the negative behaviors of youth, as Jessica explains: When they are on levels, you know, kids are going to have bad days, just like anyone does. I wouldn’t put them on levels because you are giving this person more of an opportunity than this kid, or you are giving more attention to this kid because they are good but you are giving less attention to the kid that is bad, but most of the time the kid is bad because they are the one that needs the most attention.

Jessica states that through putting children on levels group homes provide opportunities to some youth over others based on their behavior. She argues that by doing this attention is focused in the wrong areas and that the youth who need the most attention are neglected. Romon argues:

But in foster care and group homes everything that they monitor and track is negative. So if you are good or you have a great day, you earn your own points there is no reward for that. It’s only what’s tracked when you do your case assessments, its all the negative stuff. What are we going to work on? Okay, oh you did great you passed that class but you are over here and you are struggling here, struggling here, struggling here. All your assessment plans for the group home or foster home is always negative. So that’s the big difference. Victory 87

Romon points out that group homes and foster placements only focus on the negative behaviors of youth, rather than celebrating their strengths or accomplishments. The attention to negative behavior demonstrates the overall perspective group homes take in assessing children.

Effect on Life – Reflection

The participants share the ways in which living in group homes has affected their lives and well-being. Group homes do not support and often prevent youths’ ability to develop supportive and lifelong relationships. This further alienates youth from society and keeps them having emotional connections with others. Due to this youth are alone and left to find these connections by themselves. The participants share the struggles of feeling self-worth and value when group homes fail to support their healthy lives and well-being. The punitive practices in group homes focus on preventing youth from expressing their emotions rather than supporting them through such difficult times.

Youth do not receive protection from the physical, mental, and emotional harm experienced in group homes as seen in the abuse from staff members, and the detrimental effects of being medicated. Participants validated that youth are not placed in group homes to have normal lives, and that once they step inside the group home they are no longer treated as normal kids. The clinical master narrative functions to hide this system of abuse, where youth are automatically dehumanized and criminalized. These institutions are manufactured off of a structure of abuse whose primary goal is to contain and tranquilize youth until they age out of care. After experiencing the trauma of being separated from family, youth are being re- traumatized and abused when they enter group homes. The participants show that they are not victims, but survivors.

TAKING BACK CONTROL Victory 88

In this section I draw attention to how each participant took back control in their lives.

Despite the power group homes seek to have over their lives, the following themes show how the participants were able to maintain their own choice. Goffman (1961) identifies the process of individuals taking back control within total institutions when they choose to go against the institution through “secondary adjustments” (p. 198). The participants share their own secondary adjustments when they maintain control over their lives through their agency, resilience, resistance, and self-determination. The participants used navigational capital to survive this social institution (Yosso 2005). Through navigational capital participants use agency to take back control over their lives. The first set of themes illuminate the participants’ resistance while living in group homes, and the second set of themes demonstrate how they relied on their resistance outside of the institution. Youth combat the institutional power of group homes through determining their own needs and fighting for what they want in life.

Navigating the System

Participants show the ways in which they navigated through the system. Through their knowledge of the system, they were able to resist institutional control. Joseph shares his own ways of navigating the system:

You follow the rules when you’re like, 16 years old I was following the rules. And I was following the rules so well that I was able to become a foster child instead of a group home child.

Joseph found that through following the rules he was able to live in a foster placement rather than in a group home. He identifies the behaviors that would give him an advantage in being placed in a foster home, which was following the rules. Through this he was able to escape living in the group home. Tahlia explains how she traverses through the system:

They have helped me because [pause]. I don’t know they can just help when I feel like I am not getting through to anybody. I talk to them and say who do you think I should go Victory 89

to talk to? Or you know, who’s the higher ups that I should go to because this is how I am feeling. And in my opinion it’s unfair that I am being treated this way, or whatever. And then they will help me first to calm down and then help me do whatever else it is that needs to be done.

Tahlia talks about one reason why she goes to the therapists on site at her group home. She uses the therapists to help refer her to the right people to talk to when she needs something. Tahlia uses the therapists as a resource to help her navigate the system and achieve what she wants. This shows a clever way in which youth are able to work the system to their advantage.

While living in the institution, some participants used the rules as a way to gain back control. Ariana contests the discretionary use of the rules:

Like at Mission, I was in a group home over there. They had a rulebook and I would tell them it doesn’t say it, what I would be doing. It doesn’t say it in the rulebook so how am I going to follow the rules if it’s not in the rulebook. Or how are you going to reinforce the rules on just one person and not everybody else. There needs to be, like, if I am going to get consequences, they need to get the same. Or if they are going to get consequences and I’m doing the same thing, I should be getting the same thing. Or don’t have consequences at all.

Ariana points to the unjust use of rules when staff members do not equally enforce. She shows that the system is flawed when the staff applies the rules disproportionately. If staff members expect youth to follow the rules, then she argues that staff members should follow them as well.

Ariana uses the rules to contest the double standards present within the group homes.

Joseph shares how he used the rules to his advantage:

That’s what I’m thinkin, so I’m going to go to school. I am going to be at school 6:30 in the morning. I’m going to play a sport every single semester, and I’m going to be at school until 6 to probably 7 o’clock. If we have a tournament or something, I am not going to be home until 9, 10. So my life at 15, 16 wasn’t that bad because I wasn’t at home. I mean I had to make my bed of course. If you don’t make your bed you get put on restriction or my group home called it a 3- day freeze. It’s a 3 day restriction and we had our chores. Our chore list where we go through all our, you know, everyone cycles through, you do your chore for a week. Sometimes for me, I was gone. How are you going to expect me to do a chore? I was gone 12 hours a day. [Laughs] So at age 15 it was not that bad, I wasn’t at the group home as much. I would go on my outings on the weekend. I was always on good behavior and good terms because I was never home. Victory 90

Joseph stays within the confines of the rules but yet is completely able to avoid them. He does this by doing whatever he is allowed to do that keeps him out of the group home. Through playing sports after school he was able to stay out of the group home for a longer period of time and by doing this escaped having to deal with the rules. He explains that he was always on a high level because he was never home to be placed off of it. This shows how youth are able to strategically benefit from the rules and work them to their advantage. Through resisting these forms of social control, Joseph highlights how this control places unnecessary and useless burdens on youth.

Some participants show they were able to benefit from following the rules of the group home, as Joseph shares:

I mean if I am the best-behaved student in the school, I want some privileges. I want to be on the dean’s list. And if I’m on the dean’s list, I want extra seniority or privileges, rather than any other kid. But that’s because I put in the effort. I put in the work. I know how to play the system. I’m following the rules. In the group home setting C, I was on C all the time because I was never home. And the things I was doing I was making people proud, you. I am changing my life and getting a lot of community involvement around me to support me.

Joseph describes how he was able to enjoy the benefits of following the rules. Through “playing the system” he sought out ways to use the system to his advantage. He was able to draw from outside support as well and benefit from this positive attention. Joseph took control over his life and embraced the benefits of his actions.

Laurence also found the benefits in following the rules:

I basically ran my program did everything that they asked me to do, stay out of trouble you know, brought no issues to the table so. I was good to go I was in and out of there.

Victory 91

Laurence was able to benefit through doing what he was expected and not causing any issues with the group home. Some youth follow the rules in an effort to prevent conflict in their lives and to avoid the consequences of not following the rules.

Resisting Control

Other participants showed ways in which they chose to resist the power of the institution in order to gain control over their lives. Ariana resists this institutional power, “And like if they looked at my files, I rarely took my medicine, I would check it all the time because I didn’t want to take it.” Through pretending to take her medication, Ariana is able to gain back control. Her choice to not comply shows a form of resistance. Ariana further shows her resistance:

And I got mad and I was in my room on ITL again for like three days. And I wanted to come out because I was tired of being in there. So I socked the door. They have metal doors there that they close on you. I socked it and I broke my hand. And I told them. I said I broke my hand I need to go to the hospital. That was my way of getting out. And they didn’t know that though. I go “I broke my hand I need to go to the hospital”. And they said, “You didn’t break your hand because your hand isn’t swollen”. I go, “I broke my hand”, and I socked it again. And they go, “You didn’t break your hand”. And I go, “Tell me I didn’t break my hand again”. They told me and I go, “My hand is broken and I need to go to the hospital”. And they didn’t take me. They didn’t want to take me. So I went into my room and I started socking the Plexiglas. There was Plexiglas windows and I started crying and I go, “I broke my hand I need to go to the hospital”. My hand wasn’t swollen. It’s just like how they are now [motions to hands]. And they go, “You didn’t break your hand”. The next day, I calmed down, and I told them I broke my hand. And they took me to the hospital and sure enough my whole knuckle was shattered.

When Ariana was placed on lock down and was not allowed to leave her room, she fought back by breaking her hand on the metal doors and Plexiglas windows. She explains that breaking her hand was a way to escape confinement, in that they would have to take her to the hospital. The program staff did not let Ariana leave to go to the hospital even when she said that she broke her hand and continued to harm her hand. This example of medical neglect shows the total control the group home staff and how the resistance of youth can be met with further control. Ariana tried to gain back control, even if it meant she would harm herself in the process. As Goffman Victory 92

(1961) explains, when patients living in total institutions are not compliant, the institution labels these behaviors as further evidence of their need for confinement. When youth do not comply with group homes, then this lack of obedience is met with further control (Goffman, 1961). In order to survive in this system of abuse, the institution requires that each youth forget that they are human beings. They must lose their concept of self and adopt the social role that was given to them by the group home (Goffman 1961). They must transform into the criminal deserving of punishment that the institution makes them out to be.

Agency

The following themes will show how the participants relied on their resistance outside of the system to gain control over their lives. This is seen when they choose to create their own paths regardless of their circumstances. Joseph explains this through his belief in the future abilities of all youth:

I remember there was a time where I was 13 years old, there was a lady saying “If you want to become a doctor, you can become a doctor. If you want to become an NFL player, you can become an NFL player”. And she was told, “Pamela don’t tell these kids they can become NFL players”. Like are you kidding me? Who are you to sit there and tell somebody that they cannot do something. I truly believe if you can put your mind to it and focus all your energy and passion into it you can achieve anything, regardless of your circumstances or unfortunate circumstances. And to sit there and think you are a grown person who probably doesn’t have much, or achieved much, and to sit there and tell this 13 year old, 12 year old little boy that they can’t be whatever it is they want to be.

Joseph contests the views held by staff that youth are not able to aspire. He believes that all youth have agency through their abilities to achieve their goals regardless of circumstances.

Youth in the foster care system have to beat all the odds that are stacked up against them. As

Joseph believes, their agency will help them to persevere. Katie expresses her own agency:

And so I knew it was never going to be a good placement because I mean I know I will never have a connection with someone like they do with their own birth children because you know they didn’t carry me in their womb. Or they didn’t raise me when I was a baby Victory 93

until now. And that’s totally understandable but I mean I meet people all the time and I get close to them and I learn to love them.

This was a powerful outlook that Katie shared. Although Katie was shown by others that they would not be able to love her as their own child, she realized for herself that love is a choice. She is able to get close and love others regardless of the traditional biological belief of family constitution. She challenges the hegemonic understandings of what family is and how we choose to love others.

The participants that I interviewed showed an extreme amount of resilience through their strength and perseverance through their personal achievements after living in the system. Joseph talks about the non-profit organization that he is starting:

And so the reason why I am doing this is because health and wellness to me is vital, very important staple of our future. And considering how I was raised in foster care it’s a correlation to how my unhealthy lifestyle translated after dependency. So we will talk about that a little bit more. So it resulted in me being very obese as an adolescent. Going into my teens coming out of high school and at age 24 that’s when I noticing that my visual impairment was really starting to take a toll on me. So creating an opportunity for not only for my future, and myself but for other people that are in my circumstances as well is something that I have a lot of passion for. So creating Heart for Sight is something that I work night in and night out with so that’s what I am doing now.

Joseph shares his inspiration for creating a non-profit organization that focuses on providing health and wellness services and support for individuals who are visually impaired. After his experiences of living an unhealthy lifestyle in foster care as well as managing his own progressing visual impairment, Joseph has grasped an opportunity to help support the health and wellness of others. Joseph’s resilience is seen through how he has taken his struggles and has created opportunities for himself and others.

When asked what she would say to the staff members and the people who run the group home, Katie responds by saying: Victory 94

So the staff members that, you know, not that they physically hurt me but didn’t take care of the problems that hurt but I wouldn’t ever disrespect them but I would more or less thank them. Because like I said earlier in the interview, everything, day to day, hour to hour, minute to minute that I’ve gone through has shaped me. And if I, you know, that day if those girls who told me I wasn’t a real foster child and I was a nobody, like if that didn’t happen then that wouldn’t have impacted me. So you know, every little bit of my life counts and I’m thankful for everything. It’s kind of ironic that I am thinking that I was in the system because you know the things that I had to see before I was in the system. But I’m thankful that I had to go through those things because I know that I make a difference in the world and I am who I am because of all of that. So I guess I would just say thank you.

When I asked what she would say to the staff members and people who ran her group home

Katie responded by saying that she would say thank you. She states that she is thankful for all she has been through because she is the person she is today due to those experiences. After all the adversity Katie has experienced throughout her life, Katie shows resilience through celebrating her strength in becoming the person she is today and recognizing the impact she will have on others. Youth in the foster care system take control over their lives through their resilience and survival.

The participants show how they were able to gain control over their lives when they fought to determine their own directions in life. Joseph shows his own self-determination at a young age:

When I knew she [refers to birth mother] is not going to be out until I’m 20, 21 years old. Thinking to myself at thirteen, I am already going to be my own man, my own person. I am going to develop myself and have my own influences. So, I think with the fact that her permanently leaving, not permanently but for an extended period of time, kinda opened me up to like actually, okay, let me continue to live my life the way I decide to want to live it.

At a young age Joseph faced the reality that he was going to be separated from his mother for a long time. Joseph shares his moment of realization that he was in charge of determining his own future. He explains that he decided to determine on his own how he wants to live his life. When Victory 95 youth do not have parents or a support system to help guide them, they must make life-altering decisions on their own.

Having a “Home base”

The participants share the fundamental outside support they received from others that helped to change their lives and futures. Youth living in total institutions experience isolation from the outside world (Goffman 1961), and through this they experience extra challenges in forming outside supportive relationships. When group homes prevent the development of life long relationships and connections with others, the participants show how they found their own

“home base.” Laurence shares how he benefited from having the support of family that he found outside of the group home:

I went to my mom [refers to adoptive mother] for almost everything. If I had questions, if I needed answers for things. There’s a lot of stuff I feel like I didn’t learn in the group home that I could ask my mom or my dad about. And they always seemed to have answers. So it was awesome, I went to them for most everything. Another thing that made me always go to them was being in foster care and in group homes and stuff in the past and like my parents constantly moving I never really got a place to settle down. So when I lived with my mom after I got adopted that was the longest I had been at one place in multiple years. It kinda made it like a home base for me, which I mean that’s supposed to be what you have in the first place with family.

Laurence talks about how much his adoptive parents added to his life and well-being. He refers to his parents as being his “home base,” which family is supposed to provide but is denied to youth living in group homes. Youth must find support outside of the group home:

So I was connected with the mentor at one of my foster agencies when I was 11, 11 or 12. I always joke he supported me, I mean now I mentor his kids, he has two high school students. But he was matched with me, and the program went under, after you’re dissolved. And I didn’t really know, what like a few years later probably, like by the time I was in high school, that he had just continued mentoring me. And so yeah, he was probably the main person that I went to for support. And I always joke because he was like a white guy. He is the whitest white man I’ve ever met but the thing that worked with it was that he was consistent. And even when I made mistakes or got in trouble or different things, he was the only person that didn’t like disown me or just leave.

Victory 96

Romon shares his experience of being connected with a mentor, who provided him with unconditional and consistent support. Romon compares this relationship with others in that his mentor was the only person who did not abandon him. This lifelong connection shows the impact that mentoring can have on youth in the foster care system and the importance of having human connection.

Group homes do not allow youth the experience of having family. The participants share how they have found family in their lives apart from the group home. Joseph shares:

And I think more so than anything I could be appreciative of is those two years that I had in experiencing what a family was. How even though he was a single parent [refers to foster father], I had somebody who cared about my well-being, cared about my future, cared about the resources and opportunities that I had. And to simply take me into his own home. And I thought that was very special. And I think it carries onto me in how I interact and feel for other people today.

Joseph expresses his gratitude for the years that he spent living with his foster father, who welcomed him into his family. He experienced the care and support of a family, which he explains has helped to shape how he forms relationships with and feels for people today. Having a family is central to the well-being and care of youth.

Evana is a twenty-two year old Latina female, who is a full time student at a community college and currently lives in a transitional housing program. She was removed from her family in 2005 and entered into the foster care system. During her time in the system she experienced living in foster homes and spent two months living in a group home. We met for the interview at her community college and found a cement bench to sit on. Although there was commotion all around us from students passing by, it was hard to notice as the interview began. Evana shares her strength as she reveals her survival in the system. When I asked Evana who she goes to for support in her life, she says: Victory 97

Yes my mentor, she is always there for me, whenever I need her. When I need a hug or the love of a mother. She’s there for me you know. I see her as my birth mom, because she was never there for me and just knowing like she sees me and loves me as her own kid, it’s just like wow you know.

Evana sees her mentor as her mother, and shares what she feels in having this love and support in her life. Love is a necessary part of any relationship. Institutional care places barriers in forming loving relationships, so youth are left to find this love on their own.

Katie shares how she has found the support of family where she works:

And with this job working here with EOPS it’s definitely like [pauses]. I came in and was super excited because I would be working one on one with foster youth and I never thought like I would be experiencing what I do now. Its just like a huge family. I come in every morning and they are like “Hi Katie! How are you? Did you have a good night?” We share what we did. And when I leave they are like have a good, you know [pause]. I can go to my supervisor for anything. I go in there every morning and I say good morning and I share stories with her all the time. She’s like the mom of all of us so it’s really cool. I am so grateful for everything. Katie experiences family every day when she comes into work. Although this may not be a traditional family setting, Katie was able to find family through the love and support she feels at work. She explains the relationship she has with her supervisor and how she is like a mother.

Love and support can be provided in any environment, which challenges the dominant beliefs held by many group homes.

Challenging the System

The participants challenge the beliefs held in group homes and show the ways in which change needs to happen in order to provide care for and support the well-being of youth. Jessica shares her thoughts on how all youth should be treated:

You know treat them like you would treat anybody else. Be there to listen to them. Be there to teach them what you would teach your own kid. I don’t know just basically that. To treat every kid like they are just a normal person.

Jessica advices group homes on how to treat and care for youth. She argues that children living in group homes should be treated the same way any parent would treat their own children. In Victory 98 order to provide care for children, they cannot be denied the basic human needs of all children.

Ariana further illustrates these needs:

And I would be there for them. I guess, I don’t know, its hard to think like that because I wouldn’t want to have a group home or have it be like a foster home because its messed up. But if it all came down to that. I would just be there for them. Because that’s all that I wanted, and maybe that’s not what everybody needs but that’s mainly what I needed, was somebody to be there. Ariana explains that all she ever wanted was someone to be there for her. In her ideal world she would not want group homes or foster homes. She states that if she were to create a home for youth, she would make sure to always be there for them. Ariana identifies this as a basic necessity that should be provided to all youth.

Taking Back Control – Summary

Each participant held the answer to what they needed and what they considered to be adequate care in a group home environment. When they were denied their basic needs, each person showed the ways in which they actively searched and fought for their own well-being.

They became their own advocates in fighting for a better life. Each of the participants proves that they are not helpless victims of institutional care, but instead are their own problem solvers, defenders, and number one supporters.

Although such secondary adjustments are fundamental in maintaining agency and self, when youth go against the institution they experience further dehumanization and control. Their resistance is then used to perpetuate the idea that they are in need of such treatment, which further justifies the system of control within the total institution (Goffman 1961). The participants showed the creative ways they were able to fight for control over their lives, although this control sometimes came at a cost. Youth leaving group homes are survivors of the structured abuse of group homes.

TRANSITION INTO ADULTHOOD Victory 99

This final section will focus primarily on the participants’ experiences of becoming adults and taking on adult responsibilities after leaving the foster care system. Group homes are systems that “administer life chances”, in that such institutions affect the direction of the future lives and well-being of youth (Spade 2011). Participants who have either experienced or are currently experiencing this transition into adulthood, share their thoughts on the preparation for this change and the difficulties they have faced.

Preparation

Most of the participants felt as though they were not prepared enough for their adulthoods while in group homes. Jessica states:

It’s like they don’t teach you what to expect when you age out of the foster care system. A lot of kids like going into the programs. The schooling there, it’s like you end up, once you go to regular school you’re so behind. It’s like you lose so much of what you should already know. They are treating you like you are this little kid but you’re not.

Jessica explains that group homes do not teach youth what to expect once they leave the child welfare system. Jessica argues that students fall behind due to the poor education at the onsite schools. Youth exiting the child welfare system have a different reality that other youth their own age that have the support of adults. Ariana shares:

Well if I was taught a little bit more, in the system. Then maybe I would have been more prepared. I don’t know, being in the group homes I wasn’t able to get a job. I wasn’t able to go on passes to go and look for a job. I had to earn all of it and by the time I actually earned it they moved me to a different place. Or like, just going to get groceries or being to budget my money. Because now when I get my checks from the transitional housing program, I blow it. I don’t know, it just goes to nothing. I don’t get groceries, I just, I don’t know. If they would have taught me or if I had somebody to walk by my side and show me, then things probably would have been different.

Ariana discusses the ways in which she was not prepared for her life as an adult. She reasons that group homes should have done more to teach her about how to manage life in adulthood and not making goals such as getting a job hard to accomplish. Joseph further supports this argument: Victory 100

I’m a big believer on providing opportunities for people. And sometimes you know people in our circumstances need a little extra help. A little extra assistance. And they are out there, there are so many resources out there. Funding, Just in Time, Promises 2 Kids, Voices for Children, you know California Youth Connection. There are so many groups out there that are working to better the lives of foster youth. More so after dependency. But man it starts much early than that. They need to figure out what they want to do when they get older. It starts 12 years old it starts. Teach them at 10. Then at the end of the day they are going to turn 18 and you are going to say to them, oh you are an adult now, you are a grown ass man now.

Joseph acknowledges that organizations are out there to support former foster youth, but he argues that this type of support should start much earlier in their lives. He reasons that since foster youth have the weight of their futures with them starting at a young age, they need to start being prepared at a young age.

Group homes should be preparing youth for life in the real world. Romon provides his perspective on how the rules in the group home do a disservice to youth:

So I don’t like how rigid some of those things are and it’s unrealistic. If I curse or drop the F bomb, you take 100 points away from me, okay cool. I go over there, I knock that down, I take away 200 more points. It turns into, I think, when kids stay in group homes, it desensitizes them to reality. And it’s unfortunate because then they get out and into the real world. So if you don’t pay your SDG&E bill, your lights are going to go off. Okay cool, I will just find someone else to put SDG&E in their name. Well that’s alright, but then down the road what’s going to happen when you need to re-sign up? You haven’t take care of that. So it’s more so, I think it doesn’t allow the kids to have real life experience. It’s kinda manufactured security.

The level system does not teach youth about how to survive outside group homes. Level systems in group homes don’t teach youth any valuable lessons or life skills and further removes them from what life will be like once they become adults.

Evana states:

I think like, not even for group homes but for foster parents too, to teach us how to be independent. How to cook, clean, you know, even like driving. Even like have to take the bus from this place to another place because, I mean I know because, and I had to teach myself how to take the bus, how to get to the doctors, to school you know, from my house to wherever I am going to. Because I mean, obviously there are some foster kids Victory 101

that they want to drive, they want to get a license. But now how is it going to be possible when they don’t teach us nothing. So it’s just like more independency goals for us.

Evana argues that there should be more support in developing life skills and overall preparation for adulthood. She explains that many youth want to learn these skills but that no one is there to teach them. Tahlia shares similar sentiments:

They should teach us how to do things that all adults have to do like taxes. Nobody teaches us how to do taxes. Even if you are only 16, it’s going to help because you can still do taxes even if you’re not 18. If you have a job, you get your W2s and you can do taxes. So I feel like they should be teaching us to do our taxes so that, or not even just that or like taking us to get our license or whatever it may be, having ILS skills [refers to Independent Living Skills]. They have ILS skills classes there but they don’t teach the things that we need to know. Like they teach about resumes. Okay there’s resume building classes online that we can take. Teach us the things that we are going to have trouble doing, like going to the welfare office, you know like getting EBT or whatever it is. Teach us the things that we’re going to be completely clueless about if we need it. Like a resume, okay you technically don’t need a resume. Like it’s nice to have one but all you need to do is fill out an application. Most of the time for a job. There’s just a lot of life skills that they don’t really [pause]. They are just teaching us how to stay at home all day, and I feel like that’s just not helpful at all.

Tahlia also believes that youth should be better prepared for their adulthood, such as doing things like filing taxes. She explains that the Independent Living Skills (ILS) class that her group home sends her to does not teach useful information. Tahlia shows that although ILS classes may be offered, this does not mean they are being taught the right information that will help them in the future. Youth enter into adulthood blind and unprepared when group homes fail to teach them necessary skills and information for their survival.

Guidance

The participants identified that more guidance is needed for youth when they traverse life after foster care. Joseph shows this:

I think having that at 18. Understanding okay I said this yesterday, I have this canvas but I don’t know how to paint. I can paint my own picture but I don’t know how to draw. And so having people teach me these small things would allow me to at least think okay, we get all these resources, we get all this money when we graduate, we get all of this Victory 102

stuff but lord knows we don’t know what to do with it. I don’t know how to make money work for me. I don’t about credits. I don’t know about you know all these resources that will allow me to advance my economic status you know.

Joseph explains that although resources exist that support youth once they age out of care, youth need guidance in understanding how to achieve their life goals and use their resources to their advantage. Youth should have guidance and support to help them achieve future livelihood and security. Ariana discusses the necessity of having guidance:

And they expect us to just fend for yourself. It’s like give us the resources to then. Teach us how, and they don’t. And it pisses me off. That’s why I throw it in their face all the time. Like if you want me to change? You want me to talk to you right? Show me how. Teach me how. You want me to go to school? Help me get into school. Show me the first time. You want me to get a job? Help me get a job. Show me what to do. Help me make a resume. They don’t do any of that in the system. And it’s like once you are 18 and when you get into an AB12, I mean into a transitional housing program, they expect you to have all of this stuff and it’s like they don’t want to help you. And that’s why it takes me longer than others because I wasn’t taught.

Ariana points out the contradiction in expecting youth to achieve and learn, when no one teaches them. Ariana shares her experience of entering into a transitional housing program without help or assistance, and as a result taking longer to learn everything. Without guidance, youth are stuck figuring everything out by themselves, or they may never learn.

Care through Supportive Relationships

The participants identified that supportive relationships were crucial during their transitions into adulthood and for their future well-being. Romon explains the importance of having such relationships during this transitional time:

So it comes back to relationships. People over look that relationships give you confidence. Relationships make you understand who you are, your self-esteem. Relationships help you get over adversity. Also, for this population you hear about a lot of bad statistics. Well if you get out of care and you don’t have a good relationship with someone, okay you guys want to go rob a bank? It’s all good. I want to hold you guys, you guys have my back. As opposed to me having a mentor. I know, damn, if I go rob a bank and I get caught I am going to feel like that is embarrassing. I don’t want to let him down. Or they believe I can go to school. Like dude I’ve been a C average student most Victory 103

of my life. Finally getting good grades in high school but college, there’s nowhere to hide in college. You either show up or you don’t. But having someone to support you. Hey, yes you can. Alright you got an F, let’s try and work over some of the challenges. It’s relationships. I would say if you are going to do a group home or foster home just really focus on that and be aware that at the end of the day the kids, they are just people, little people.

Romon names all the important ways in which relationships help better your life. He states that when youth leave care, if they have a caring relationship with someone, they are more likely to make better decisions. Romon explains what it means to be in a healthy, supportive relationship and the power of believing in the abilities of the other person.

Katie talks about her experience with these kinds of relationships during his transition into adulthood:

And I mean Carol Morales, our foster youth counselor [refers to the EOPS at her community college], she’s amazing. You know, she definitely has been here for all of us and she does her job and she’s a great person. But you know, she tells me day to day that she’s just grateful that I am here because now the students have someone they can relate to. So I mean, you know, just like the support and stuff. If I could tell these students like more outreach and stuff I would definitely would. Give them the resources that they need for the support and like if they needed someone they want to talk to, they can talk with me or Carol. There is someone everywhere you go who is going to help you. You just have to look for them. Some of the students don’t want to look because they have been let down so often and stuff.

Katie has experienced the importance in building relationships with others, as her foster youth counselor Carol has shown her. She stresses the importance in providing outreach to youth for support. Katie explains supportive people exist but that some students are afraid of looking because of the fear of disappointment, which comes from their past experiences of being let down. Seeking supportive relationships can be challenging for former foster youth, but such relationships provide critical support. Victory 104

During the transitional time as youth enter into adulthood, having a support system helps provide security and comfort. Some youth leaving foster and group homes leave care without a support system, as Jessica explains:

I get mad sometimes when people are like “Oh my parents...” Like I have a co-worker she’s like “Oh I’m going to have to start paying rent, but you know its okay if I end up not being able to afford it. I can go back to my parents”. And to me that gets me because I’m like, just be thankful that you have your parents to go back to. I think that’s what I struggle with the most because I don’t have that support system. You know, aging out and not having anyone to really go to when I need help.

Jessica shares frustration with the fact that in her adulthood she does not have the support system that others take for granted. She talks about how she struggles not having anyone to go to for help and backing in her life. Romon attributes his foundation to having the support he has:

So having that support, I think the mentor component, in addition to a couple other relationships I had, just kinda gave me a little bit more of a foundation making that transition. If I had stayed in group homes, I know that wouldn’t have been there, because they are not allowed to have outside relationships with the kids.

Romon credits the support he had from mentors and other relationships as having provided a foundation for his transition into adulthood. He specifies that had he stayed in group homes, he wouldn’t have had this support system due to the fact that such relationships are not allowed.

The participants identified that having supportive relationships with caring adults was a fundamental need as they transitioned into adulthood. When youth do not have a strong support system during this time, then they experience even more hardships and uncertainty.

Struggles in Adulthood

As youth leave the foster care system and enter into adulthood, they face many struggles.

Romon shares some of these challenges:

So, later in my foster experience I ended up getting a mentor and also got connected with some more people. So kind of helped me have a little bit of a foundation when I transitioned out at 18. But even with that, I had a lot of struggles just making that transition. Now they support kids up until 21 with foster care, which is a lot better. I Victory 105

mean, I was 18 and a half trying to make adult decisions. So I got in trouble a little bit running with the wrong guys. I was just trying to balance a lot of things. It really made me realize like wow, you know, I kind of have support and I was still put in situations where I was going to bad decisions.

Romon explains that even with a support system he found that he was placed in challenging situations and struggles making the transition into his adulthood. He refers to the California state legislature that was passed after he aged out, which moves the support for young adults from age

18 to 21 (AB12). Joseph shares his experience:

And at 18, 18 to 24 I mean, god forbid we really don’t know much. We know how to survive because that’s what we have been trying to do at this point. And if we are always staying in survival mode at age 18 age 19, 20, we are going to gravitate to the negative things that are going to allow us to survive. Just for you know, next week. So we can have food, so we can pay for rent. And god forbid you get locked up. God forbid you get evicted. Where do you fall back? I think that makes it not only challenging for me but it makes it challenging for many other foster youth. Especially that don’t have my perspective on life.

Joseph talks about the challenges that young adults face on a daily basis after they leave the foster care system. He states that many young adults revert back to a survival mode that leaves them prone to choosing harmful options. As Joseph identifies, youth do not have a safety net if they end up experiencing the repercussions for these decisions, such as jail time or eviction.

Young adults who were once in the foster care system often have extra obstacles to overcome, and less support as they navigate through their lives in adulthood.

Transition into Adulthood – Summary

The participants shared how their experiences in group homes did not prepare them for their lives in adulthood. Many explained that while they were in group homes and foster care they were not taught necessary life skills that would have helped them for when they aged out of care. The participants discuss the overall lack of guidance they have received in their lives in achieving futures goals. Group homes do not support youth in having supportive relationships, Victory 106 which participants identified as being crucial to their future success and well-being. Youth living in group homes are not being adequately prepared to survive and succeed in their future lives.

Although group homes provide food, shelter, and various support services, these forms of institutional care do not support the basic necessities that youth need as they transition into their adulthood. Youth not only acquire all of the responsibilities of being an adult in this transition, but they are left to heal from the structured abuse they experience in group homes. When the government removes children from their homes and places them into the foster care system, this entity needs to take full responsibility of the care children receive while in custody. The institutional care provided in group homes needs to be dismantled in order to provide care that supports the happiness, love, well-being, and futures of youth.

Conclusion

As Daisy had taught me, group homes are not a place where care can exist. Total institutions are not supposed to be caring, rather are places where youth such as Daisy are placed in confinement for a crime they did not commit. Their sole reason for being there is that they were separated from their family by the state, through no choice of their own. Once youth enter into the isolated walls of group homes, they are automatically labeled as needing control and are treated as criminals. The institution has manufactured a system of abuse whose sole purpose is to keep youth controlled so they may remain complacent and docile until they are no longer the responsibility of the state. Staff members implement the control of the institution and in doing so must step into the role of an abusive parent, rather than a detached street-level bureaucrat. Daisy taught me about the structured abuse of the institution that was hidden, which tried to control us both. Victory 107

Daisy deserves to live in a loving and nurturing environment, where her existence is celebrated and cherished. She should be guaranteed the protection of her human rights and welfare, as well as security over of her future life. Daisy should not be worried about becoming homeless once she ages out of care, as approximately 25% of former foster youth face (Ready to

Succeed 2008). The criminalization she endured living in group homes should not mark her future incarceration, as 20% of youth exiting care may one day experience (Ready to Succeed

2008). The current and future struggles that Daisy faces, along with the other approximate

56,000 youth living in institutional care each year (AFCARS 2013), should not be occurring.

The participants of this study show that the structured abuse in group homes is impeding the “life chances” of youth as they transition into their future adult lives (Spade 2011). This is seen when group homes do not place the needs and well-being of youth as a number one priority.

Participants explain this occurs because group homes prevent youth from having life long relationships that provides crucial love and support in their lives, as well as an overall lack of help and guidance for their future success. Through the standpoints of those who have lived in these institutions, my research argues that group homes should be dismantled and institutional care eliminated. Future research should further focus on gathering the standpoints of individuals who have lived in group homes and who are currently struggling to survive in their adulthoods.

Recommendations

Through the knowledge gathered from the counter-narratives of the participants of this research, I propose recommendations to support the human rights and well-being of youth who live in group homes. At the micro level, all children need to be treated as normal kids and be provided the same opportunities and love as any child. Just as parents are expected to do, if workers are not able to place youth as a number one priority then they should not work there. All Victory 108 children should have unconditional love and support in the group home. This type of care is not possible to provide to youth within an institutions.

On the meso-level, the institutional care in group homes needs to be demolished and changed into a model of care that focuses on implementing restorative ideologies and practices that place the needs of children at the center. Policies that blame the child, as seen in the level system, place the responsibility of the institution running well on the children. In this case, children are expected to remain sedated until they age out of care and are not allowed to express human emotions. The current policies found in group homes create structured abuse that profoundly harms youth. Such policies block opportunities for supporting their learning and personal growth. Youth are then left to overcome all of the obstacles that these policies create.

All policies and practices in group homes should ensure the health, happiness, and well-being of children.

There seems to be a fundamental preconception that group homes cannot do any better and that the easy solution is to just get rid of them. An example of this can be seen in the recent

California legislation that is moving away from the use of group homes and more towards the use of foster placements (AB403). In reality AB403 will never eliminate group home usage entirely and does not address the core issues of institutional abuse. In some of the interviews, participants shared traumatic and highly abusive experiences of living in foster placements. In a private foster home, abuses may be even harder to monitor and easier to hide due to the lack of oversight in comparison to group homes. I am not proposing one placement is better or worse than the other, rather I am challenging an unrealistic goal in finding quality foster placements for all youth. In using the standpoints of children my research finds that group homes contribute to a widespread institutional abuse problem that should be adequately addressed and corrected. Victory 109

On the macro level, the punitive systems of control found in the foster care system needs to be eliminated. Through the standpoints of the participants, the system is what produces the abusive environments found in group homes and bares the ultimate responsibility in the treatment they received. This system, as seen in neoliberalism, blames the individual for the benefit of those in power, which violates youths’ human rights and brings harm to their lives

(Lipstiz 1998, Lyon- Callo, 2008). The United States should secure the protection of children’s’ human rights through adopting the United Nations’ Declaration of the Rights of the Child of

1959 (CRC, U.N. General Assembly, 1989).

Funding and support should be given to organizations that are on the forefront of advocacy and social change for youth in the foster care system. California Youth Connection is an example of such an organization, where foster youth lead the policy changes for youth in the foster care system (CYC 2016). Lessons should be learned from such organizations and there should be substantial efforts in creating restorative justice approaches to social change for current and former foster youth. The California Fostering Connections to Success Act,

Assembly Bill 12, increased support for youth in the foster care system until age twenty-one

(AB12). Although this is a major accomplishment and a step in the right direction, such support should be extended until each individual is secure in living independently. All youth who have lived in the foster care system should be guaranteed a safety net and support system that will help them thrive in their future lives. All policy changes should stem from the standpoints of those who have lived in these forms of social control.

Victory 110

Victory 111

References

“AB12, The California Fostering Connections to Success Act Preparing Foster Youth for the Transition to Adulthood”. California Youth Connection. Retrieved April 21, 2016. (http://www.calyouthconn.org/assets/files/policy/AB12/AB_12_Youth_Fact_Sheet%203- 11-11.pdf).

“AB 403 (Stone): Foster Youth: Continuum of Care Reform”. California Department of Social Services. Retrieved April 21, 2016. (http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/entres/pdf/AB403_FactSheet.pdf).

"A National Look at the Use of Congregate Care in Child Welfare". 2015. Children’s Bureau. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Armaline, William T. 2005. ""Kids Need Structure": Negotiating Rules, Power, and Social Control in an Emergency Youth Shelter." The American Behavioral Scientist 48(8):1124- 1148

Bamberg, M. 2004. Considering counter narratives. In M. G. W. Bamberg & M. Andrews (Eds.), “Considering counter narratives: Narrating, resisting, making Sense” (pp. 351-371). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Bates, Brady C., Diana J. English, and Sophia Kouidou–Giles. 1997. “Residential Treatment and Its Alternatives: A Review of the Literature.” Child & Youth Care Forum 26(1):7–51.

Berkman, Lisa F. 1983. Health and Ways of Living: The Alameda County Study. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bettmann, Joanna E., and Rachael A. Jasperson. 2009. “Adolescents in Residential and Inpatient Treatment: A Review of the Outcome Literature.” Child & Youth Care Forum 38(4):161–83.

Bickel, Christopher. 2010. "From Child to Captive: Constructing Captivity in a Juvenile Institution." Western Criminology Review 11(1): 37-49.

Bickel, Christopher. (2015). “The Scene of a Crime: Solitary Confinement in a Juvenile Detention Center.” USP Marion: The First Super Max Penitentiary. Ed. Richards, S.C. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Brown, Adam; Cary, Colleen Courtney, Mark E; Dworsky, Amy; Love, Kara; Vanessa Vorhies. 2011. “Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Victory 112

Youth: Outcomes at Age 26”. ChapinHall at the University of Chicago.

Burns, B. J., Hoagwood, K., & Mrazek, P. J. (1999). “Effective treatment for mental disorders in children and adolescents.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2, 199-254.

Chamberlain, Patricia, Joe Price, John Reid, John Landsver, Philip Fisher, and Mike Stoolmiller 2006. “Who Disrupts from Placement in Foster and Kinship Care?” Child Abuse and Neglect 30(4):409-424

Cohen, N. 1986. N. Cohen “Quality of care for youths in group homes”. Child Welfare, 65, pp. 481–494.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 1999. “Moving Beyond Gender: Intersectionality and Scientific Knowledge.” Pp. 261–84 in Revisioning Gender, edited by Myra Marx Ferree, Judith Lorber, and Beth B. Hess. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications

Courtney, M., & Dworsky, A. 2006. “Early outcomes for young adults transitioning from out-of-home care in the USA”. Child & Family Social Work, 11(3), 209-219.

Courtney, Mark E., Dworsky, Amy; Cusick, Gretchen, Ruth; Havlicek, Judy; Perez, Alfred; Keller, Tom 2007. “Midwest Evaluation of Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at age 21”, Chapin Hall, Center for Children, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, Table 4.

Courtney, Mark E.; Hook, Jennifer L. 2011. “Employment outcomes of former foster youth as young adults: The importance of human, personal, and social capital” Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 33, Issue 10, Pages 1855-1865, ISSN 0190-7409, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.004. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074091100173

Courtney, M., Piliavin, I., Grogan-Kaylor, A., & Nesmith, A. 2001. “Foster youth transitions to adulthood: a longitudinal view of youth leaving care”. Child Welfare, 80(6), 685-717.

Courtney, Mark, Ahrens, Kym, and Dworsky, Amy, 2013. “Health Insurance Coverage and Use of Family Planning Services among Current and Former Foster Youth: Implications of the Health Care Reform Law.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law 38, no. 2: 421–39.

CRC, U.N. General Assembly. 1989. United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx).

Crenshaw, Kim W. 1995. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Victory 113

Formed the Movement, edited by K.W. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas. New York: New Press. CYC, California Youth Connection, Our Voices, Our Future. 2016. (http://www.calyouthconn.org/).

Daiute, Colette. “The Rights of Children, the Rights of Nations: Developmental Theory and the Politics of Children’s Rights.” Journal of Social Issues 64, no. 4 (December 2008): 701–23. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00585.x.

Doyle, J. J. 2007. “Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the effects of foster care”. American Economic Review, 97, 1583–1610

Foltz, Robert, and Huefner, Jonathan. 2014. “The Subjective Experience of Being Medicated in Troubled Youth: A Sample from Residential Treatment.” Journal of Child & Family Studies 23, no. 4 : 752–63.

Fox, Adair, and Berrick, Jill. 2007. “A Response to No One Ever Asked Us: A Review of Children’s Experiences in Out-of-Home Care.” Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 24, no. 1: 23–51.

“Foster Care Statistics 2013”, Numbers and Trends. 2015. Child Welfare Information Gateway. Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf#page=9&view=Race and ethnicity).

“Fostering Success in Education: National Factsheet on the Educational Outcomes of Children in Foster Care”, 2014. National Working Group on Foster Care and Education.

Ferguson, H. Bruce, Wolkow, Katherine. 2012. “Educating children and youth in care: A review of barriers to school progress and strategies for change”. Children and Youth Services Review, 2012, Vol.34 (6), pp. 1143-1149

Fowler, Patrick J., Paul A. Toro. and Miles, Bart W. 2009. "Pathways to and from Homelessness and Associated Psychosocial Outcomes among Adolescents Leaving the Foster Care System." American Journal of Public Health 99(8):1453-8

Freundlich, Madelyn and Rosemary J. Avery. 2005. "Planning for Permanency for Youth in Congregate Care." Children and Youth Services Review 27(2):115-134 (http://ezproxy.csusm.edu/login?

Gharabaghi, K. (2008). “Reclaiming our 'Toughest' Youth”. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 17(3), 30-32.

Gharabaghi, K, and Groskleg, R. 2010. “A Social Pedagogy Approach to Residential Care: Balancing Education and Placement in the Development of an Innovative Child Welfare Residential Program in Ontario, Canada.” Child Welfare 89, no. 2: 97– 114. Victory 114

Goffman, Erving. 1961. “Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates”. Originally published in 1961 by Doubleday & Company, Inc: Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books

Gorske, Tad T., David J. Srebalus, and Richard T. Walls. 2003. “Adolescents in Residential Centers: Characteristics and Treatment Outcome.” Children and Youth Services Review 25, no. 4: 317–26.

Goodkind, Sara, Shook, Jeffrey J., Kim, H. Kevin, Pohlig, Ryan T., and Herring, David J. 2013. “From Child Welfare to Juvenile Justice Race, Gender, and System Experiences.” Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 11, no. 3. 249–72.

Grahame, Peter R. 1998. “Ethnography, Institutions, and the Problematic of the Everyday World”. Human Studies, Vol. 21, No. 4 pp. 347-360. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

“Group Homes”. 2008. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., (http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Group_Homes.pdf).

Haraway, Donna. 1988. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.”Feminist Studies 14:575–99.

Haslam, Nick. 2003. “Folk Psychiatry: Lay Thinking about Mental Disorder.” Social Research 70, no. 2: 621–44.

Hedges, Kristin. 2012. "Teens in the Grey Zone: The Structural Violence of Substance- using Youth being Raised in the System." Human Organization 71(3):317-325.

"HHS Could Do More to Support States’ Efforts to Keep Children In Family- Based Care". 2015. United States Government Accountability Office.

Hockenberry, Sarah, Melissa Sickmund, and Anthony Sladky. 2009. “Juvenile Residential Facility Census, 2006: Selected Findings”. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

“Implementing Group Care Reform in California: The RBS Case Study”. 2015. Casey Family Programs. (http://www.casey.org/media/rbs-full-report.pdf).

Jonson-Reid, M., 2002. “Exploring the relationship between child welfare intervention and juvenile corrections involvement”. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 559– 576

"Kids Count Data Snapshot on Foster Care Placement". 2011. Data Snapshot on Foster Victory 115

Care Placement. Kids Count, The Annie E. Foundation. (http://www.aecf.org/resources/kids-count-data-snapshot-on-foster-care-placement/).

Kitsuse, John I. 1962 . “Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior: Problems of Theory and Method”. Social Problems Vol. 9, No. 3 (Winter, 1962) , pp. 247-256 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems. http://www.jstor.org/stable/799235

Klodnick, Vanessa V., Kristin E. Davis, Marc A. Fagan and Allison Elias. 2014. "Launching into Adulthood from Institutional Care with a Serious Mental Health Condition." Community Mental Health Journal 50(2):209-15

Lee, Bethany R., and Ron Thompson. 2008. “Comparing Outcomes for Youth in Treatment Foster Care and Family-Style Group Care.” Children and Youth Services Review 30, no. 7: 746–57.

Lerman, Paul. 1968. “Evaluative Studies of Institutions for Delinquents: Implications for Research and Social Policy”. Social Work, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 55-64

Lipsky, Michael. 2010. “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services”. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.

Lipsitz, George. 1998. “The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics”. Philadelphia : Temple University Press.

Longhofer, Wesley; Winchester, Daniel. 2012. “Social Theory Rewired; New Connections to Classical and Contemporary Perspectives”. Routledge, Inc. Taylor & Francis, New York & London -- Patricia Hills Collins, excerpts from “Black Feminist Thought”. Copyright 2000 by Patricia Hill Collins. Reprinted with the permission of Routledge, Inc. a member of Taylor & Francis Group via Copyright Clearance Center. -- http://routledgesoc.com/profile/feminist-social- theoryhttp://routledgesoc.com/profile/feminist-social-theory --Dorothy Smith, excerpts from “The Conceptual Practices of Power.” Copyright 1990 by Dorothy Smith. Reprinted with the permission of Northeastern University Press.

Lorber, Judith. 2006. “Shifting Paradigms and Challenging Categories”, Brooklyn College and Graduate Center, Cuny. Social Problems, Vol. 53, Issue 4, pp. 448–453, ISSN 0037-7791, electronic ISSN 1533-8533. © 2006 by Society for the Study of Social Problems, Inc.

Mann, Susan A. and Lori R. Kelley. 1997. “Standing at the Crossroads of Modernist Thought: Collins, Smith, and the New Feminist Epistemologies”. Gender & Society 11(4): 391-408.

Mallon, Gerald P.; McCartt, Peg. 2005. “Child Welfare for the Twenty-first Century: A Victory 116

Handbook of Practices, Policies, and Programs.” Columbia University Press. New York.

Mattingly, Cheryl. 2008. “Reading Minds and Telling Tales in a Cultural Borderland.” Ethos 36, no. 1: 136-54.

Milner, John G. 1964. “The Residential Treatment Center”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 355, Programs and Problems in Child Welfare pp. 98-104.

O’Hare, Dr. William P., 2008. “Data on Children in Foster Care from the Census Bureau”. A Working Paper, Kids Count, The Annie E. Foundation. (http://www.aecf.org/m/pdf/FosterChildren-July-2008.pdf).

“Ready to Succeed, Changing Systems to Give California’s Foster Children the Opportunities They Deserve to be Ready for and Succeed in School”. 2008. The California Education Collaborative for Children in Foster Care. Prepared by The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning and Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. (http://www.wested.org/wp-content/files_mf/139940954832064.FCsumreport.pdf).

Perry, Brea L. 2006. "Understanding Social Network Disruption: The Case of Youth in Foster Care." Social Problems 53(3):371-391

Pescosolido, Bernice and Judith A. Levy. 2002. “The Role of Social Networks in Health, Illness, Disease, and Healing: The Accepting Present, the Forgotten Past, and the Dangerous Potential for a Complacent Future.” Social Networks and Health 8:3–25.

Polvere, Lauren. 2011. “Youth Perspectives on Restrictive Mental Health Placement: Unearthing a Counter Narrative.” Journal of Adolescent Research 26, no. 3: 318–43.

“Residential Treatment Centers”. 2010. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Prepared by Development Services Group, Inc., under Contract #2010-MU-FX-K001.

Rosen, Marvin. 1999. “Treating Child Welfare Children in Residential Settings.” Children and Youth Services Review 21, no. 8: 657–76.

Scheper-Hughes. Nancy. 2004.”Two Feet Under and a Cardboard Coffin. In Violence in War and Peace: An Anthology”. Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Philippe I. Bourgois, eds. Pp. 275-280. Maiden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Shelden, Randall. 2008. “Controlling the Dangerous Classes: A History of Criminal Justice in America ”. Second Edition. Boston: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.

Sigrid, Jame. 2011. “What Works in Group Care? — A Structured Review of Treatment Models for Group Homes and Residential Care.” Children and Youth Services Review 33, no. 2: 308–21. Victory 117

Silver, J. Lauren. 2015. “System Kids: Adolescent Mothers and the Politics of Regulation”. The University of North Carolina Press

Silverman, Marvin. 1977. “Children’s Rights and Social Work.” Social Service Review 51, no. 1: 171–78. (http://www.jstor.org/stable/30015464).

Skinner, B.F., 1953. “Science and Human Behavior”. New York: MacMillan.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. “The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology”. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E.1990a. “The Conceptual Practices of Power, A Feminist Sociology of Knowledge”. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1990b. “Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling”. New York: Routledge.

South, Scott, Dana Haynie, and Sunita Bose. 2007. “Student Mobility and School Dropout.” Social Science Research 36(1 ):68-94.

Stiglitz, Joseph, 2002. “Globalization and its Discontents”. New York: W.W. Norton.

Summers, Alicia, Wood, Steve, and Donnovan, Jennifer. 2013. “Disproportionality Rates for Children of Color in Foster Care”. Technical Assistance Bulletin. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. University of Nevada, Reno Nevada.

Teitelbaum, L. E. and Harris, L.J. 1977. “Some Historical Perspectives on Governmental Regulation of Children and Parents.” Beyond Control: Status Offenders in the Juvenile Court. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

“The AFCARS Report”. 2013. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFCARS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, Preliminary Estimates for FY 2013 as of July 2014 (21), Page 6. ( http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb).

“Trends in Foster Care and Adoption (FFY 2002‐FFY 2012)”. 2013. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau, (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. “Administration for Children and Families, Child Welfare Outcomes 2007-2010”. Report to Congress 11. (https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo09_12.pdf).

Victory 118

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2011. The AFCARS Report: Preliminary Estimates for FY 2010 as of June 2011. Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children's Bureau. (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cwo09_12.pdf).

Vorhies, Vanessa, M.S.S.W., Kristin E. Davis PhD., Frounfelker, Rochelle L,M.P.H., M.S.S.W. and Susan M. Kaiser M.P.H. 2012. "Applying Social and Cultural Capital Frameworks: Understanding Employment Perspectives of Transition Age Youth with Serious Mental Health Conditions." The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 39(3):257-70

Walby, Sylvia. 2000. “Beyond the Politics of Location: The Power of Argument in a Global Era.” Feminist Theory 1:189–206.

Whittaker, J. K. 2004. “The re-invention of residential treatment: An agenda for research and practice. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13 (2), 267−278.

Wylie, Lauren. 2014. “Closing the Crossover Gap: Amending Fostering Connections to Provide Independent Living Services for Foster Youth Who Crossover to the Justice System”. Family Court Review. Volume 52., pages 298-315.

Yosso, Tara J. 2005. “Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth”. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8:1, 69-91.

"Young People in Care and Placed in Families; Initiative Policy Goal". Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (http://www.jimcaseyyouth.org/policy-goal/228/young-people-care-are-placed-families).

“42 CFR 435.1010 - Definitions relating to institutional status.” Legal Information Institute. Cornell Law School. Ithaca, NY.

Victory 119

Appendix A

Victory 120

Appendix B

INFORMED CONSENT - YOUTH EXPERIENCES IN INSTITUTIONAL CARE

INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE

My name is Olivia Victory and I am a current graduate student in the Master of Arts in Sociological Practice program at California State University San Marcos. I am dedicating my master’s thesis to honoring the experiences and voices of youth who have lived in institutional care. Specifically, I am interested in learning about youth experiences living in residential treatment centers or group homes and how these forms of care affect their transition into adulthood. I believe it is important to listen to the voices of those who have experienced such forms of institutional care in order to gain a true understanding of their effects. I am asking for you to consider participating in my study, because you have directly lived in either a residential treatment center or group home and you are over 18 years of age.

DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES

If you agree to be in this study, the following will happen:

I will schedule an interview with you that works with your schedule. The interview will take place wherever you choose and it will last for approximately 40-60 minutes. The interview will be tape-recorded.

During the interview, you will be asked a series of open-ended questions about your experiences living in either residential treatment centers or group homes and how it has affected your life. I will ask you to discuss whether or not you have faced any challenges as a result of living in these forms of care. I will also ask you about your feelings in leaving these forms of care and entering into adulthood. In addition, I will have a discussion with you about any possible challenges you are currently facing in your adulthood.

If you would like a copy of my findings you may contact me and let me know. My contact information is at the end of this consent form. I will not be able to contact you because I will not be collecting any personal or contact information from you.

RISKS AND SAFEGUARDS Risk 1: You may feel upset when you discuss your experience with living in residential treatment centers or group homes.

Safeguard: I will remind you that you can stop the interview at any time or skip any questions that you find upsetting.

Risk 2: You may feel discomfort at the idea of being recorded

Victory 121

Safeguard: I will remind you that the recordings will have no identifying information on them, that you can stop the recording or the interview at any time, and/or request that a portion or all of the interview not be recorded.

Risk 3: You may have limited time because of work and personal obligations and this experience will take time away from your day.

Safeguard: The time, day, and location of the interview will be established by you. You will also know up front that the interview is expected to take approximately 40-60 minutes. However, you will be reminded before and throughout the interview that you can stop or delay the interview at any time. Although you will have to take a bit of time out of your day to do the interview, I will try to make it as convenient as possible.

Risk 6: You might be afraid that talking to me might expose illegal behaviors or other behaviors or status that you do not want others to know about.

Safeguard: I will remind you that as a researcher I am under no obligation to divulge any behavior or status to others that you tell me about. I will also remind you that my interview is not about your behavior, but about your thoughts, opinions, and feelings about residential treatment centers or group homes. However, it is important to note that if I discover that you have engaged in or are engaged in an incident of child or elder abuse I am mandated by law to report these two specific behaviors to the authorities.

BENEFITS Although you may not receive any direct benefit from the study, you may receive comfort knowing that your perceptions of the effects of institutional care will be taken into account and that I will share the results of my study with the wider community. There is the potential that the results of this study could one day be used to influence lawmakers and other decision makers who make laws that affect your community.

INCENTIVE You will receive $5 gift card for participating in the interview.

CONFIDENTIALITY I am not collecting any identifying information, including your name on the audio file. The only place your name is recorded is on this consent form which will be kept separate from the audio files. The audio file of your interview will be stored in password-protected files my computer. The only people who will listen to the interview are the researcher and the transcriber who will be held to the confidentiality standards that I am promising you. The transcription of the interview will not have your name attached to it in any way. The transcription of the interview will also be stored as a password- protected file on my computer.

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may skip any questions that you do not want to answer. You can also end the interview at any time.

QUESTIONS Victory 122

If you have any questions about the study, please contact Olivia Victory by telephone ((619) 972-7346) or email ([email protected]). You can also contact my faculty advisor Dr. Bates by telephone ((760) 750-8051) or e-mail ([email protected]).

This study has been approved by the California State University San Marcos Institutional Review Board. Questions about your rights as a research participant should be directed to the Institutional Review Board at [email protected] or (760) 750-4029. You will be given a copy of this form to keep for your records.

AGREEING TO PARTICIPATE By signing the bottom line, you are signifying that you voluntarily agree to participate in the study. (Remember, you can always withdraw from the study at any time.)

______Participant’s Signature Date

______Researcher’s Signature Date

Thank you for your consideration!

This document has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at California State University San Marcos Expiration Date: December 6, 2016

Victory 123

Appendix C. Interview questions

1. What is a typical day like for you right now? Are you working on in school?

2. Can you tell me about how you got to where you are today?

3. What are the main challenges you are now facing in your adulthood?

4. Did you feel prepared for the challenges? If so what helped to prepare you those challenges? If not then what would you have needed to be prepared?

5. Who do you go to for support in your life?

6. Can you describe what a typical day is like living in the group home?

7. Do you have any good memories you want to share from living in the group home?

8. Was there any staff that you liked? Why did you like them?

9. Can you tell me about any staff that you didn’t like?

10. What do you think about the rules and restrictions in the group home?

11. How would you change the ways things are in the group home?

12. What are some things you wish you had when you were in the group home that would have helped you more for when you aged out?

13. What parts of the group home helped you the most?

14. If you could talk directly to the people who make the rules of the group home or any of the staff members you knew what would you tell them?

15. Knowing what you know now after aging out, what parts of the group home should change in order to help youth who in live in them have better lives?