Defining permanency is important

In the child welfare system, the word “permanency” is used to describe a legally permanent, stable living situation — ideally one in which family, culture, and community connections are preserved. Safe reunification with parents always is the primary goal, but other acceptable alternatives include adoption and legal guardianship. Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) is another option but should be considered a last resort as it rarely translates into stable living situations or meaningful relationships for youth.

In 2024, Kansas became the first state to introduce the SOUL (Support, Opportunity, Unity, and Legal Relationship) Family framework as an additional permanency option. SOUL allows older youth to establish legal family bonds without severing ties to their biological family. For all these options, success is measured by assigning legal status and closing cases.

For those with lived experience of the child welfare system — youth, parents, kinship caregivers, guardians, and foster and adoptive parents — legal status is only one aspect of permanency. Legal permanency alone does not guarantee the lifelong connections needed to thrive. To achieve a broader sense of safety and security, children and older youth need stable homes, community, and people they can count on today and for years to come.

Research demonstrates that relational permanency, the enduring bonds that provide a true sense of belonging, may result in more positive long-term outcomes than legal status. Yet most child welfare systems are structured around legal outcomes rather than important relational milestones. Both relational and legal permanency need to be part of planning and decision-making to ensure that children and older youth benefit from the sense of belonging and stability that comes with having a lifelong family.

In this brief, lived experts share their perspectives on the meaning of permanency and how systems can support family stability and a sense of belonging beyond case closure.

Insights from lived experts

Five themes emerged during conversations with lived experts in relation to permanency, based on how they experienced it during their involvement with the child welfare system:¹

1. Permanency means different things to different people
2. Legal and relational permanency are different — and both are necessary
3. Children often are excluded from decisions about their future
4. The “rush to permanency” prioritizes case closure over the conditions needed to succeed
5. Stability — in school, community, culture, and relationships — is critical for permanency 

Permanency means different things to different people

For those directly impacted by child welfare, there is no single definition of permanency. For some, the very idea of permanency is a misnomer. “I don’t see permanency as being this actual permanent thing,” says Mars Presswood, a young adult in Indiana with lived experience in child welfare. “I think it is temporary stability. It’s very fair to say that everything is shifting all of the time.”

James Ray, a parent and advocate in Oklahoma, says families may find the term permanency confusing or even threatening, signaling that separation from loved ones is imminent: “Just the terminology of it is like, ‘We’re going to decide where your child stays permanently forever.’”

Others associate permanency with reunification and belonging. “Permanency means my home, my life, my child, forever,” says Melissa Zimmerman, a parent in Arizona.

How families understand permanency affects how they engage with the process — and whether they trust it. Caseworkers and other child welfare professionals should not assume a shared definition of permanency but rather understand the term will evoke varied responses. Communicating with clarity and transparency about goals and processes can help build partnership and trust.

Legal and relational permanency are different — and both are necessary

The lived experience advisory board members largely agree that relational permanency is just as important as legal permanency, and that both should come together to create long-term stability and belonging. Both are needed, they say, because legal permanency alone does not guarantee lifelong connections beyond foster care.

Tiffany Jones, a young adult with lived experience in Louisiana, wished for legal permanency as a child: “I thought the only way I could be permanent in someone’s life was if they adopted me and did all the paperwork.” After being adopted at the age of 20 — by a friend with whom she no longer is in contact — she realized legal permanency did not mean lasting connection. “It’s about the actions and who’s going to continuously show up for you,” she says.

For some lived experts, legal permanency means identity and validation. Kathy Coleman, who runs a nonprofit in Louisiana that supports grandparents who are parenting their grandchildren, says she spent years and tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to gain custody of her first granddaughter: “That piece of paper meant so much to her. And she didn’t use the word ‘permanent,’ she just said, ‘This is who I am, and this is where I belong.’”

Legal and relational permanency serve different, but equally real needs. The two do not always come in the same package, and either one can exist without the other. The goal, however, always should be for a child to have both relational and legal permanency, and child protection agencies should be assessing the strength and quality of relationships as part of permanency planning. Otherwise, Presswood says, a placement can look good on paper but still leave a child without safety or connection: “You’re getting one more case completed and it looks great for your numbers, but ultimately it may not be great for the youth.”

Children often are excluded from decisions about their future

Lived experts emphasize how rarely children and older youth are included in decisions about their futures. This observation is consistent with research. A systematic review of child welfare studies found that children’s participation in decision making is generally limited or nonexistent, with age serving as a key determining factor in whether they are given the opportunity to participate at all.²

Presswood describes that throughout his years in the child welfare system, he had little input about where he was placed, who he lived with, or even the activities that mattered to him: “The only say that I truly had was whether or not I wanted to stay with my sibling. Everything else felt entirely out of my hands.”

The age of youth shapes not only whether they are included in decisions, but whether they feel able to speak up at all. Coleman notes that young children may be afraid to say what they really feel, especially when it means choosing between adults they love or risking upsetting someone. Their silence, she observes, often gets interpreted as consent when that may not be the case. For youth of any age, having a trusted adult who can help them identify what they want and advocate on their behalf is essential to ensuring their voices are actually heard.

The “rush to permanency” prioritizes case closure over the conditions needed to succeed

Advisory board members note that timelines for case closure — even more than family circumstances — drive decision making. This rush to permanency is backed by federal policy, which rewards states with incentives for moving children into permanent adoptive or guardianship families. No similar incentive exists for stabilizing families so that children can return home, which might require more time.

Ray has seen firsthand how parents are assigned classes or recovery programs they are unable to complete in short time frames, especially while maintaining housing and jobs: “When parents aren’t able to meet all those requirements within the first three to six months, the system says, ‘Oh well, we’re already going to start looking at other permanency options.’”

Timelines for case closure also impact youth aging out of foster care. Lived experts describe an “aftershock” when the focus on achieving permanency stops, support ends, and they are forced to navigate adult responsibilities on their own. Gabriel Foley, a young adult with lived experience in Illinois, explains: “I did not feel well-prepared for that. I don’t think that anyone ever sat me down and said, ‘Hey, Gabe, you’re going to be a grown-up one day.’” For youth on the cusp of adulthood, not having legal permanency means needing ongoing support to achieve independence — but transition supports vary by jurisdiction, leaving some youth without the stability they need.

Stability — in school, community, culture, and relationships — is critical for permanency

Lived experts identify community, culture, school, and caring adults as important anchors of support. Foster parent Kimberly Fowler says permanency “is stability for the child — not only just where are they going to lay their head at night, but what does their education look like? Who are their group of friends going to be for the next 10 years?”

Parent Kristen Castleberry also makes the connection between permanency and stability. “The more stable we are, the more I’m able to offer my children permanency.” She adds that stability allows you to feel “grounded… into your home, and into your family, your values and morals, however that may look.”

The story of Tiffany Jones, a young adult with lived experience in Louisiana, illustrates what a more responsive practice can look like. Early in her time in foster care, she begged a judge to let her stay in her current high school even though she was changing placements, and the judge agreed. Although she was moved several times over her time in the system, her school and community stayed stable. “I was still able to keep my same friends and I had that constant in my life when everything else was changing,” she says. Her caseworkers also made a point of placing her with families where she felt culturally at home, and when one placement did not feel right to her, the system listened and moved her.

Not all youth have that positive experience, however. Presswood was moved to a small, rural town against his will and cut off from the art communities where he had built connections. “I was very much taken away from every sense of stability that I had,” says Presswood, adding that the losses caused him real and lasting harm. Research confirms that placement instability affects safety, permanency, and well-being – with each move increasing safety risks, delaying permanency, and negatively impacting educational and mental health outcomes.

Practices that strengthen permanency

Lived experts identify eight practices that can strengthen permanency:

1. Define permanency goals early and share with families in plain language
2. Engage in early and thorough family finding
3. Hold private, age-appropriate conversations with youth
4. Maintain a focus on permanency while preparing youth for independence
5. Continue support after reunification, guardianship, or adoption
6. Connect families and youth with peer support networks
7. Consider siblings, school continuity, cultural connection, and community as placement criteria
8. Include youth in permanency planning

Define permanency goals early and share with families in plain language

Some members of the advisory board reported they never received a clear explanation of what permanency meant for their specific case. Others learned that permanency goals had shifted only after the fact, with no communication or collaboration. Rather than assuming a shared understanding of what permanency means, caseworkers should engage each family by naming goals clearly and transparently from the start, and by asking families how the system can best support them.

Engage in early and thorough family finding

Identifying kin, including tribal connections, from the very start of a case can prevent children from lingering in foster care and build relational ties that contribute to long-term stability. Based on their experiences, the lived experts express doubt that kin searches are conducted thoroughly, and they note families have little recourse when they are not. Accountability structures must also be clear to ensure that kin are prioritized for placement and that kinship caregivers are adequately supported since they often take on significant responsibilities without sufficient preparation or financial resources. Placement data should be analyzed to identify trends in kinship placement, so that both barriers and best practices can be identified. Effective family search and engagement strategies help agencies strengthen practice.

Hold private, age-appropriate conversations with youth

Some lived experts shared that as youth, they could not speak honestly with caseworkers knowing that their words could be reported back to their caregivers. When youth cannot speak freely, caseworkers receive an incomplete or inaccurate picture of how a placement is going, making it harder to identify problems before they escalate and determine the best permanency plan. Play-based and trauma-informed approaches allow younger children to communicate their needs and experiences even when they don’t have the vocabulary to express them directly. Child protection agencies should create space for children to share their feelings and opinions confidentially, regardless of age, without being filtered or monitored by adults. Specific policy and training are required to make this practice consistent rather one that relies on individual caseworker discretion.

Maintain a focus on permanency while preparing youth for independence

Most jurisdictions have transitional living programs and extended care options for youth aging out of foster care, but the lived experts say these supports tend to fall short and that young people often do not learn about available services until it is too late, or they felt that they had to choose between permanency and services. In some states, for example, youth adopted at age 16 or older are eligible for continued foster care subsidies and support under the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoption Act, but awareness of this option is inconsistent. Tools like a permanency pact can help youth and the adults in their lives detail what support will entail going forward, and prompt conversations about options.

Continue support after reunification, guardianship, or adoption

For families impacted by child welfare, the need for support does not always end at case closure. Children and families may benefit from additional services that keep them healthy and stable. This does not mean families want or should have the system in their lives forever. Programs like Success Coach — a voluntary, relationship-based program that provides individualized coaching to reunified, adoptive, and guardianship families after the children exit foster care – offers a promising example. The Family First Prevention Services Act provides federal funds for evidence-based mental health services, substance use disorder treatment, and parenting support for up to 15 months after family reunification.

Connect families and youth with peer support networks

Advisory board members cite the importance of programs where peers with common experiences in the child welfare system offer support. Parent partner programs connect parents currently involved with the system with mentors who already have navigated it. Research shows these programs contribute to higher rates of family reunification and lower rates of re-entry into foster care. Kinship navigator programs offer similar peer-to-peer support specifically for kinship caregivers. While evidence on the benefits of youth peer mentoring programs is scant, some research has shown that they can promote educational success for youth in foster care and those transitioning out.  Child protection agencies play a role in ensuring that youth, parents, and kinship and adoptive families know about — and have access to — these peer support networks, even after case closure.

Consider siblings, school continuity, cultural connection, and community as placement criteria

Placement decisions always should take into account whether children can remain with their siblings and in their schools, and maintain ties to their communities and culture. Leveraging available data can help agencies track some of these factors, such as the proximity between a child’s home and their placement. Consideration also should be given to maintaining the connection between children and their pets, which often are important in their lives. For many children, these connections are the anchors that create stability when everything else around them is changing. When continuity and connections are treated as priorities rather than afterthoughts, placement decisions become investments in a child’s long-term stability. The lived experts describe starkly different outcomes depending on whether established connections were honored or ignored.

Include youth in permanency planning

Youth should be active participants in their permanency planning. Lived experts describe being excluded from decision making, or participating in discussions only to have their preferences ignored. Agency staff and courts must ensure that what youth share is documented and considered as decisions are made about their lives. This requires open communication and transparency to help youth understand when decisions do not go the way they had hoped. Youth peer support is one strategy to ensure youth are advocated for in permanency planning while also helping child welfare professionals communicate with youth.

Questions for child protection agencies to consider

1. What does your agency know about each child as an individual — including their school activities and interests, relationships, and cultural identity — beyond what is in the case file? How does this information impact placement decisions and permanency planning?
2. What structures exist in your agency to ensure children are participants in decision making, including private, developmentally appropriate conversations about their placements? What needs to change to make these practices routine and meaningful?
3. What would caseworkers in your agency need in terms of training, caseload size, documentation requirements, or other working conditions to consistently support children’s relationships to people, culture, and community, and to ensure that relational permanency is at the heart of permanency planning?
4. When foster care placements change, how does your agency actively support the relationships to people, places, and culture that give that child a sense of belonging? What does your agency do to ensure youth and families receive support beyond case closure?
5. How does your agency use data to hold family placement practice accountable, and ensure kinship placements are prioritized?