Using leisure in foster care to generate advantage

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this qualitative study was to explain whether leisure’s social and cognitive benefits could be found within a group of 12 young people in the Australian foster care system; representative of a highly vulnerable population, and how those benefits might be used to improve life opportunities post care. Case studies generated a cross-case thematic analysis which provided an explanatory framework for an explanation building process. Participants were found to be creating and using contextually based cognitive artifacts to resource, plan for, learn from or about, and resource their leisure.

KEYWORDS:

• Foster care
• leisure
• vulnerable groups
• artifacts

Introduction

Foster care research tends to focus on the negative outcomes of the system missing the opportunity to share the positive experiences of children in foster care, particularly in reference to personal agency (Hernandez, 2021). The research reported in this article focuses exactly on the lived experiences and forms of agency enacted by foster youth. The lens for that focus is leisure, though that may seem unusual to some. Used as an investigative tool leisure, as defined and used here, can enable a view past the vicissitudes of life; ordinary or otherwise, real or perceived, powerfully influential or not, and look at what are sometimes everyday experiences that can often be taken for granted.

Leisure experiences, even the most mundane, can house learning and capabilities that can reach far beyond the experiences and their contexts. The purpose of this article is to describe a potential, derived from a small study, an opportunity for practitioners and researchers to recognize and exploit behaviors and capacities used by young people in foster care while they are at their leisure. Young people’s behaviors and capacities could be directed into the development and utilization of life skills that will be practically useful to these young people beyond childhood and adolescence.

Forkey and Szilagyi (2014) note the temporary aims of foster care as a place of healing refuge for children and their families.

Despite the hard, dedicated, and passionate work of many of those involved in foster care, from bureaucrats and front-line service providers to foster parents and families, the intention as described by Forkey and Szilagyi (2014) is, met less often than many would like. The reasons for this are not the subject of this article, though they are a contextual background and those thought pertinent will be mentioned here. Care-experienced children, a term used to describe foster children, “are a relatively ‘hidden group’ in sport and physical activity research even though they might have much to gain … regarding, for example, personal and social development (Quarmby, Sandford, Hooper, & Duncombe, 2021, p. 435).

The study reported here was undertaken following a realization, gained in working with a group of young people who were in foster care and were undertaking an after-school robotics program through various activities such as play, that more was happening in the interaction between the young people and their activities than first met the eye. The study, though small, produced results that indicate a potential for realization of more than the commonly understood benefits of leisure for young people and others in foster care that there might be a rich area for practitioners and researchers to investigate and apply, to help create advantage.

Case studies are used to produce a cross-case thematic analysis. Providing the basis for a process of explanation building that, in turn, reveals the creation and use of often cognitively based skills to achieve planned goals and outcomes, referred to using the concept of artifacts. While most would understand the concept of an artifact being a tangible, physical ‘thing,’ we understand it also as a flexible concept used in several literatures to describe resources that are often less than tangible but necessary for achievement.

Literature

Young people in foster care

Children enter foster care with poor physical health and difficulties with language than their peers as a consequence of early maltreatment and deprivation (Murray, Tarren-Sweeney, & France, 2011). They may be considered one of the most vulnerable and marginalized members of society at risk of adverse educational, health, and social outcomes (Quarmby et al., 2021). Experiencing more developmental health problems including dental, mental, and physical health than their peers (Cabarez & Kim, 2019). In the United States, it has been estimated that children in foster care with disabilities make up “30–40% of foster care children” that “receive special education services, and children demonstrated significantly poorer academic and social outcomes than their peers in foster care who did not have disabilities” (Mires, Lee, & McNaughton, 2018, p. 62).

Issues can persist in care and also become issues for foster parents (Köhler, Emmelin, Hjern, & Rosvall, 2015; Leathers, Spielfogel, Geiger, Barnett, & Vande Voort, 2019; Pasztor, Hollinger, Inkelas, & Halfon, 2006). Foster parents care for young people with disabilities and trauma more frequently than parents in the general population (Miller, Bourke, & Dharan, 2021). The availability of parental time is an issue for foster children. Foster parents undertake a complex role that is “demanding and includes multi-level stressors that consistently exceed the ordinary challenges that parenthood poses” (Mancinelli, Dell’Arciprete, & Salcuni, 2021, p. 1). Foster parents of traumatized children need to be unrelenting at finding new information to enable them to adequately support their children (Riggs, 2021). “Providing foster care requires a significant time commitment, and insufficient time for fostering can have detrimental effects on foster parents” (Cherry, Orme, & Rhodes, 2009, p. 147). Foster parents of children with mental health needs describe the need to take time to come to terms with and learn to deal with the psychological behavior of the children (York & Jones, 2017); foster parents must take time to deal with the child’s care plan related medical and justice appointments (Geiger, Hayes, & Lietz, 2013). The requirements of caring for a child in foster care take parenting time away from the children.

The responsibility for the lack of time available by foster parents to share with a foster child does not solely rest with the foster parent. Foster care social workers experience rapid staff turnover (Thomson, 2007). Each turnover provides relationship difficulties, requiring time to renegotiate relationships with children. High turnover rates occur “even among more experienced workers” Schwartz (2011, p. 38). The result of the burden, including time, that the high turnover rate places on workers is a disruption of their efforts to connect with foster children and therefore a disruption in services provided (Lindahl & Bruhn, 2018).

Placement setting (Leslie et al., 2000; Mitchell & Kuczynski, 2010), placement instability (Leake, Wood, Bussey, & Strolin-Goltzman, 2019; Leathers et al., 2019; McGuire et al., 2018), frequent changes of primary health-care providers (Köhler et al., 2015) and foster childrens’ ability to adapt to change (Stone, Jackson, Noser, & Huffhines, 2021) are all issues that contribute to the persistence of health and behavioral issues among foster children. Multiple placements can cause the poor dissemination of the foster child’s medical information (Greiner, Ross, Brown, Beal, & Sherman, 2015).

Young people in foster care” face unique educational and life circumstances … which often result in low academic achievement” (Miller et al., 2021, p. 2). They are more prone to emotional and behavioral issues (Tucker & MacKenzie, 2012). They are known to have multiple changes in care families and schools, and this increases their feelings of isolation and lack of belonging (Leathers et al., 2019; McGuire et al., 2018; Townsend, 2012). Suspension from school is a significant issue for children and young people in care as it places a systemic strain on the child’s placement and disrupts their schooling, with some children citing suspension as the reason they left school (McDowall, 2011). The more a young person moves schools, the higher the level of negative impact on their secondary schooling (Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation, 2016). “Adult attitudes, usually from teachers and foster caregivers, can act as barriers if they have low expectations for the child/young person, and lack of understanding of the unique challenges faced by children and young people in foster care” (Miller et al., 2021, p. 3; Muir & Hand, 2018).

Leisure

Leisure has been identified through four domains; the use of time, experience, lifestyle choice, and consumption related to expenditure (Raz-Yurovich, 2022). Following the advice of John Neulinger (1981), a progenitor of leisure theory, that “Definitions are what we make them” (p. 1), we will use a definition of leisure specific to the context and results reported here and derived from two pieces of Neulinger’s work. The first, is that: “leisure understood as a state of mind, is valuable regardless of content. Content may be qualitatively related to the experience of leisure, but its critical components are certain essential conditions … primarily that of perceived freedom (Neulinger, 1979, p. 173).

This state of mind is,

a universally desired one … emerging from the perception of freedom and involvement in intrinsically motivated activities … the conditions that lead one to perceive oneself as being an origin rather than a pawn – a desire that overrides all other motives. [involving] behavior that makes a person feel competent and self-determined [and being] necessary conditions to engage in the search for meaning, a core motivational propensity. In short, these are the conditions underlying the need for and fulfillment of being rather than having (Neulinger, 1979, pp. 174-175).

We are drawn to this conception of leisure because it seems to us particularly applicable to the lives of young people in foster care and the risks that they accrue from being in the foster care system, some of which are noted in the preceding section. This psychological conception occurs across the lifespan and involves all elements of an individual’s life daily (Neulinger, 1979).

The second piece of Neulinger’s work expands on the concept of ‘perceived freedom.’

a state in which the person feels that what he/she is doing by choice and because one wants to do it. … Whether such a perception is true freedom or only the illusion of it is irrelevant … Even illusions have real consequences and the crucial consequence of the illusion of freedom is leisure … perceived freedom … is to be definitely understood as a continuous variable (Neulinger, 1981, pp. 15-16).

Neulinger also expands the role of motivation, having now two types; intrinsic, where the satisfaction comes from the engagement in the activity itself and extrinsic motivation involves an external reward from the activity (Neulinger, 1981). In this study, we define leisure as valuable regardless of content and a state of mind requiring only two components to be active: a perception of freedom and motivation for the leisure, whether intrinsic or extrinsic or both.

Leisure offers opportunities for young people to experiment with identity and social roles allowing individual preferences and the development of skills when responding to diverse situations where they can develop friendships by exercising self-determination (Doistua, Lazcano, & Madiaraga, 2020).

Ooi, Rose-Krasnor, Shapira, and Coplan (2020) wrote that hobbies and other informal, unstructured leisure events can be developmentally valuable and an important source of happiness for young people as those that are structured and active. A study involving all young people from 13 to 14 years of age in long-term foster care in Ireland found a significant relationship between social support from friendships and participation in activities or hobbies (Daly & Gilligan, 2005). Leisure has the potential to be used as a resource for experience in decision-making and resilience (Doistua et al., 2020). Spaaij (2009) considers leisure as a tool for the development and integration of vulnerable young people. Rodríguez-Bravo, Lopez-Noguero, and González-Olivares (2018) discuss leisure for youth in vulnerable situations as a resource for social revitalization and socio-educational intervention. In terms of ‘at risk’ youth, the fact that leisure is intrinsically chosen makes it a good vehicle for the engagement of youth and the sharing of experiences and positive connections (Hopper & Iwasaki, 2017).

Artifacts

The common concept of an artifact is something made by people and is frequently applied to tangible objects (Oxford Dictionary, 2018). However, artifact is a term used differently within the literature. Artifacts can, for example, be a representation of learning (Morales, 2013), evidence of learning having taken place (Miller-Foster, Foster, Thoron, & Barrick, 2015), or a way to view the world (Gergen, 1985). Cultural artifacts are what we see, hear, and feel (Schein, 2009). A social artifact can also be behaviors that are practiced and understood by individuals (Simonici & Contissa, 2013). Within health care, the term is used to encapsulate organizational knowledge and learning (Eriksson, Ujvari, & Robin Gauld and Dr Simon Horsburgh, 2015). Resiliency and personal community are seen as artifacts that are developed from leisure participation (Cameletti, Lee, & Frappier, 2016). Artifacts such as self-awareness can be personal leisure resources (Heyne & Anderson, 2012; Stumbo & Peterson, 1998). The use of artifacts can be contextualized as individuals give meaning to objects but also as individuals give meaning to their lives (Miller, 2007).

Research purpose and question

This study was undertaken to explain whether leisure’s social and cognitive benefits could be found within a group of young people in foster care (a highly disadvantaged population) and how those benefits could be used to improve opportunities for young people. The primary research question was: How can leisure be utilized to enable young people in foster care to be better prepared for aging out of care into independent living?

Methods

The study was explanatory, with a pragmatic approach, and used qualitative methods where “an explicitly contextual perspective recognises the influence that the situation has on behaviour and that behaviour has on situations” (Cassell & Symon, 1995, p. 5).

The research sourced data from twelve participants, aged between nine and 16 years, living in foster care in New South Wales (NSW) Australia. All participants volunteered their involvement in the study and their participation was approved by their guardians. Participants were involved in an after-school activity learning about robotics, which was conducted by one of the authors and resourced by a local university. The study has relevant institutional ethical approval. Participants and their guardians were issued written information about ethical approval, the study and its aims, and containing ‘opt-out’ instructions.

Data were gathered from a single, face-to-face, focused, semi-structured interview with each participant, ranging in duration from 10 to 45 minutes, and conducted by the corresponding author. Interview questions were developed following a literature review. Each participant represented a case study, bounded (Miles & Huberman, 1994) by their leisure environment. The unit of analysis (Yin, 2018) for each case was the leisure experience of the participant. Data analysis took place in two stages, the first author defined the theme and the second verified the definition.

Stage 1: The Ladder of Analytical Abstraction (Carney, 1990 in Miles & Huberman, 1994). Essentially, an abstraction process was used to analyze individual case study data by summarizing and packaging, repacking, and aggregating interview data, then developing and testing propositions to construct an explanatory framework. Stage 1 resulted in a thematic analysis of each case study and then a cross-case analysis (Yin, 2018) of the cohort.

Stage 2: Explanation building (Yin, 1994). Explanation building is an iterative process whereby the fact that a majority of the derived themes that occurred persistently (in >50% of the cases or with >50% of participants), were investigated with the use of two simple questions: ‘Why?’ and ‘How?.’ The process was repeated until it exceeded the efficiency of its use or the limits of the data, revealed the participants’ use of tangible artifacts as tools to undertake or facilitate the undertaking of leisure. The use of this type of leisure artifact in these ways is well documented in the leisure literature. More interestingly though, this process also revealed the participants’ use of intangible artifacts; in leisure itself, and in resourcing, decision-making about, learning from and planning for leisure. Further, it became apparent that these artifacts were applied via combinations of skills such as working for the future, self-guidance and analysis, to achieve, or work toward, planned outcomes such as personal skills development, general improvement, and particular leisure activities. Development and application of, particularly, intangible artifacts via developing skills to achieve planned outcomes is not apparent in the leisure literature, nor have we seen it in the literature on foster children.

Participants

There were twelve participants, aged between nine and sixteen years. Among the participants, there were a variety of life experiences including the reasons for being taken into care, amount of time in care, experiences in care, number of school changes, number of foster family changes and consequent number of times that friendships and other social relationships had been created, lived, and lost. Table 1 outlines characteristics of the participants involved in the study. Note the word ‘some’ in the last line of the table. Some participants were not willing to discuss the number of school changes apart from the descriptor ‘some.’

Table 1. Participant characteristics.

Characteristic		Number of Participants	% of Participants
Age	9–11 years	3	25%
	12–16 years	9	75%
Gender	Female	3	25%
	Male	9	75%
Education	Primary	4	33%
	Secondary	8	66%
Age Entered Care	Birth – 1 year	8	66%
	1–5 years	1	8%
	6–10 years	2	16%
	11–16 years	1	8%
School Changes While in care	0	3	25%
	1	1	8%
	3	1	8%
	4	2	16%
	5	3	25%
	‘Some’	2	16%

Limitations

The study cohort of 12 young people in foster care is small and the number of children versus number of adolescents (Table 1) likewise. The fact that three of the 12 participants were female is also a limitation. Only three members of the original cohort canvased for participation in the study were female and all volunteered. The information gathered at interview represents a view of the participants’ individual worlds from their perspective only. Participants lived in a variety of socio-economic environments and attended a variety of educational establishments, ranging from private religious school to publicly funded schools. The effects of this variety of socio-economic backgrounds and educations among the participants were not a part of this study. The explanatory nature of the research is a limitation, although this does not limit the validity of the study.

Results

At interview, the 12 participants did not share a definition of leisure; some did not have one. When asked to describe their idea of leisure the responses ranged from “I don’t know” to “ For me it means you know, it’s like having a bit of leisure time, like a bit of free time, a bit of time in your space, a bit of time in your personal … ”.

One aspect of participants’ leisure as described at interview and remaining clear during the abstraction process was the delineation of leisure into two distinct areas: 1) The type, availability, and experience enabled by a leisure environment constrained by family behaviors and compounded by the exigencies and sometimes apparently arbitrary decision-making of the foster care system; and 2) Participants’ personal experiences of leisure. The basis for this separation is the individual case study analyses, where participants clearly discriminated between environmental influences or impositions and their leisure experiences.

Stage 1

Themes. Table 2 shows descriptions of the themes from both categories; those derived from descriptions of the leisure environment and those derived from descriptions of leisure experiences.

Table 2. Descriptions of themes.

Theme	Description
Purposive	Drawn from both leisure environments and leisure experiences. Leisure had a purpose, regardless of whether the purpose was that of an authority figure in the leisure environment or of a participant.
Disrupted	Drawn from both leisure environments and leisure experiences. Leisure could be disrupted by an authority figure in the leisure environment; for example, or equipment, space or time might be temporarily withheld. Leisure experience might be disrupted by a participant; for example, interrupting solo leisure to take advantage of an opportunity for leisure with others.
Restricted	Drawn uniquely from leisure environments. Applied to participants by one or more authority figures. Existing leisure was restricted by, for example, a change of schools requiring a cessation of team membership, or a change of foster families requiring the breakdown of social relationships that were shared at leisure.
Disassociated	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was undertaken as a solo experience; for example running.
Associated	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was undertaken as a social experience; to meet a social need, for example creating new friendships, or to undertake an activity that required the presence of others.
Active	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was undertaken as a physical activity, for example riding a bicycle or running.
Creative	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was a creative outlet, for example drawing, playing with dolls or learning the guitar.
Passive	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was passive, for example reading, or writing in a journal.
Goals	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure involved setting and achieving individual goals, for example competing in the Olympics or riding a bike without touching the handlebars.
Initiative	Drawn from leisure experiences. Initiative was used in the creation or uptake of leisure activities; for example using bike riding in a new area to find new friends with a similar interest.
Commitment	Drawn from leisure experiences. Participants displayed a commitment to their leisure via either the amount of time devoted or the frequency of undertakings, or both.
Enabling	Drawn from leisure experiences. Leisure was specifically mentioned as enabling, for example diversion, achievement, aspiration and goals.
Learning	Drawn from leisure experiences. Participants used leisure specifically to learn; for example, particular skills at karate or a particular type of singing.
Impromptu	Drawn from leisure experiences. Participants picked up impromptu leisure opportunities.

One theme, Restricted, is drawn uniquely from the leisure environment. A series of tables is now used to display various aspects of the frequency of occurrence of the environment and experience themes. Table 3 shows themes drawn from descriptions of leisure environments and their frequency of occurrence among participants.

Table 3. Frequency of environment themes among participants.

Theme	Number of Participants	% of Participants
Purposive*	8	66%
Disrupted*	6	50%
Restricted	3	33%

Note. * = Persistent.

Table 4 shows themes drawn from descriptions of leisure experiences and their frequency of occurrence among participants.

Table 4. Frequency of experience themes among participants.

Theme	Number of Participants	% of Participants
Purposive*	12	100%
Disassociated*	11	92%
Active*	9	75%
Associated*	9	75%
Creative*	8	66%
Goals*	7	58%
Passive*	7	58%
Initiative*	6	50%
Commitment	5	42%
Disrupted	4	33%
Enabling	4	33%
Learning	4	33%
Impromptu	4	33%

Note. * = Persistent.

We define persistence and majority as follows: Themes are persistent if they occur with 50% or more of environments or experiences, respectively. Themes are in the majority if they make up 50% or more of the themes occurring across the 12 environments or experiences, respectively.

Table 5 shows how themes drawn from descriptions of leisure environments are distributed across the cases. Between them five of the twelve cases contain a majority of the available themes and among the themes held by those cases persistent themes are prominent.

Table 5. Distribution of themes drawn from the leisure environments across cases.

Number of Cases	% of Cases	Number of Themes Contained	% of Themes	Themes
2	16.7%	3+	100%	Purposive* Disrupted* Restricted
		3+	100%	Purposive* Disrupted* Restricted
3	25%	2+	66%	Purposive* Disrupted*
		2+	66%	Purposive* Disrupted*
		2+	66%	Purposive* Restricted
5	41.7%	1		Purposive*
		1		Purposive*
		1		Purposive*
		1		Disrupted*
		1		Disrupted*
2	16.7%	0

Note. * = Persistent, + = Majority

Table 6 shows that between them a majority of participants hold a majority of themes drawn from descriptions of leisure experiences. As in Table 5, persistent themes are prominent.

Table 6. Distribution of themes drawn from leisure experiences.

Number ofParticipants	Number of Themes	%	Themes	Number of Participants	Number of Themes	%	Themes	Number of Participants	Number of Themes	%	Themes
1	10+	83%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Creative* Goals* Commitment Disrupted Enabling Learning	2	8+	66%	Purposive* Disassociated* Associated* Creative* Passive* Initiative* Enabling Learning	3	6+	50%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Passive* Initiative*
3	9+	75%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Creative* Goals* Passive* Commitment Disrupted		8+	66%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Creative* Goals* Passive* Initiative* Learning		6+	50%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Creative* Impromptu
	9+	75%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Goals* Initiative* Commitment Disrupted Impromptu	2	7+	58%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Associated* Creative* Goals* Commitment		6+	50%	Purposive* Disassociated* Active* Goals* Passive* Enabling
	9+	75%	Purposive* Active* Associated* Goals* Passive* Initiative* Commitment Disrupted Impromptu		7+	58%	Purposive* Disassociated* Creative* Passive* Enabling Learning Impromptu	1	5	42%	Purposive* Disassociated* Associated* Creative* Initiative*

Note. * = Persistent, + = Majority

Comparing the variations across the participant cohort described above to the commonalities seen at the completion of the thematic analysis, the following questions occur:

1. Why was the level of homogeneity as high as it appeared to be at the completion of the thematic analysis?

2. How was the high level of homogeneity across the themes accomplished?

Stage 2

Explanation building

An explanatory framework had now been established in Stage 1. The picture painted, despite the individuality of expression encountered with each participant, indicated a level of homogeneity of leisure environments and, to a greater extent, leisure experiences. Explanation building, an iterative process, was now used to answer the questions posed at completion of the thematic analysis.

The foundation for the process of deriving themes from interview transcripts was the extraction of the characteristics of leisure environments and leisure experiences described by each participant. All unique because they were each participant’s expression of leisure environment and leisure experiences in terms of age, gender, language, concepts, experiences, and opinions. Not only were participants themselves unique, so were the ways in which they described the world and their experiences in it. Explanation building followed several steps:

Step 1: Randomly select three case studies as pilots, return to the data in each and examine the first-round abstraction of the leisure characteristics. The abstraction process is a search for trends, relationships, emphases, and gaps in the data (Carney, 1990 in Miles & Huberman, 1994). However, rather than foundations for themes, we searched for common initial meanings, specifically about environments and experiences. We were prepared to randomly mix cases until every combination had been exhausted in our effort to find some commonalities. As it happened, the first random combination produced the contents of Table 7 and as a result, we noted a recurrence of types of experiences and environments to a lesser extent. Both types are flagged.

Table 7. Three random first round abstractions across the data.

Participant	Participant	Participant
Discontinued a socialized activity■		Discontinued a socialized activity■
No friends involved in leisure
Joint physical activity with other/s
Individual passive activity■		Individual passive activity■
Leisure enables achievement■		Leisure enables achievement■
Master a skill
Same activity on multiple occasions weekly		Same activity on multiple occasions weekly■
Self-directed	Self-directed	Self-directed
Formally directed■♦	Formally directed■♦	Formally directed■♦
Exploiting opportunities
Feelings of enjoyment■	Feelings of enjoyment■	Feelings of enjoyment■
Friends and belonging
Relaxed attitude to friendship
	Leisure to create performance■	Leisure to create a performance■
	Using leisure to create art
	Shared leisure activity with foster family
	Activity directed by another
	Scheduled activity that restricts availability of leisure time
	Leisure during counseling
	Individual physical activity
		Joint physical activity with a small group
		Team based activity
		Individual electronic game playing
		Stopped leisure due to health risks
		Stopped activity due to clash
		3 different styles of the same activity
		Birth family facilitates leisure

Note. ■ = Drawn from experiences, ♦ = Drawn from environments

At the completion of this small pilot, we returned to the remainder of the case studies and repeated the process. So as not to confuse this exercise with the abstraction process already conducted, we decided to rename the characteristics of leisure as messages about leisure.

Step 2: Messages. A total of sixty-five messages were sourced from the 12 participants. A summary of the occurrence of these messages is shown in Table 8. The majority of messages refer to leisure experiences. Nine of the sixty-five messages occurred with at least 50% of the participants, making them persistent. Shown individually in Table 9.

Table 8. Summary of 65 leisure messages derived from interviews.

Number of Participants	% of Participants	Number of Messages Issued	% of All Messages	Participants Issuing Each Message	Messages About Environment	Messages About Experiences
12	100%	1	1.5%	12*		1
12	100%	3	4.6%	8*		3
7	58.3%	1	1.5%	7*		1
10	83.3%	4	6.2%	6*		4
7	58.3%	3	4.6%	5		3
10	83.3%	3	4.6%	4		3
10	83.3%	8	12.3%	3	3	5
10	83.3%	10	15.4%	2	1	9
9	75%	32	49.2%	1	8	24

Note. * = Persistent 65 Total Messages = 12/18.5% 53/81.5%

Table 9. Distribution of individual persistent messages across participants.

Message	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Leisure is self-directed*	12	100%
Feelings of enjoyment*	8	66%
Individual passive activity*	8	66%
Individual physical activity*	8	66%
Individual electronic game playing*	7	58%
Exploiting opportunities*	6	50%
Joint physical activity*	6	50%
Achievement enabled*	6	50%
Friends and belonging*	6	50%

Note. * = Persistent.

There was now at least some evidence of a collection of persistent messages. Agency, taking action or choosing what action to take, was also seen at this point, with participants taking action to direct their leisure, or making choices about using leisure to exploit opportunities and to enable achievement. It was apparent though that some of the remaining messages, while not recurring as frequently among participants as those listed in Table 9, also required consideration; for example: Leisure is used to create, or leisure is used to learn a skill, also evidence of agency. Another observation was that many of the messages had similar meanings. It was then decided to group messages with similar meanings and form message groups.

Step 3: Message Groups. Resulted in 13 message groups. Shown in Table 10 in order of their frequency of occurrence across the participants. Persistence of occurrence was again a feature.

Table 10. Distribution of message groups across participants.

Message Group	Messages Contained	% of All Messages	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Leisure is self-chosen*	2	3%	12	100%
Leisure is taken individually*	3	4.6%	12	100%
Leisure is shared*	9	13.8%	11	92%
Leisure is undertaken for enjoyment*	3	4.6%	10	83%
Leisure activities are discontinued*	5	7.7%	8	66%
Leisure is used to create*	5	7.7%	8	66%
Availability or choice of leisure can be restricted*	17	26%	8	66%
Leisure is used to enable*	2	3%	7	58%
Leisure is facilitated*	2	3%	6	50%
Leisure involves opportunities taken*	1	1.5%	6	50%
Leisure is used for personal development*	3	4.6%	6	50%
Leisure requires particular commitment	5	7.7%	5	42%
Leisure is not shared	3	4.6%	3	25%
Messages not grouped	5	7.7%	3	25%

Note. * = Persistent.

The sheer number of messages (65) about leisure derived from the 12 participants’ data was an indication to us of the variety of ways in which participants described the world. Despite this variety of expression, successful grouping of messages indicated an underlying commonality of meaning.

The most commonly occurring messages among the participants (Table 9) and the persistent message groups seen (Table 10) began to answer the first question posed at the completion of the thematic analysis: Why was the level of homogeneity as high as it appeared to be at the completion of the thematic analysis? Leisure was enjoyable, it could be self-directed, it was useful, it facilitated social engagement, it enabled achievement, it was creative, it fostered friendships and a sense of belonging. Leisure offered this and more to a majority of the participants.

Step 4: Artifacts. Question 2 at the completion of the thematic analysis was: How was the high level of homogeneity across the themes accomplished? Amongst the elements of the leisure characteristics articulated by participants at interview were tools and resources for enabling or participating in leisure. Closer inspection showed that while some of these were tangible, for example a bicycle or a skate park; some would be better described as intangible, for example creativity, discipline, or optimism. The derived artifacts took several forms, from the material to the emotional, social, and physical. They could be different and differently utilized for each participant depending on the participant’s personal leisure circumstances. The concept of an intangible artifact was as readily applicable to the study as was the more commonly held concept of a tangible artifact. Both are considered tools and resources.

Tangible artifacts were used by all participants to enable and motivate leisure experiences and were accessible to participants within their environments. They bundled readily into four groups: Location, Equipment, People, and Motivators. Table 11 shows the artifacts and the frequency of their occurrence. Table 12 shows the groups and the distribution of artifacts as group contents. Tangible artifacts were used to ensure that leisure occurred, and their uses were varied for each participant, with similar tangible artifacts sometimes being used by more than one participant for different reasons. Note that none are occurring persistently.

Table 11. Distribution of tangible Artifacts across participants.

Artifacts	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Electronic game	4	33%
Television	3	25%
Shopping center	3	25%
Drawing materials	2	16%
Bicycle	2	16%
Book	2	16%
Scheduled time	2	16%
Guitar	1	8%
Journal	1	8%
Barbies	1	8%
Dance space	1	8%
Yard	1	8%
Skate park	1	8%
Scooter	1	8%
Football	1	8%
Motor bike	1	8%
Bush	1	8%
Park	1	8%
Home	1	8%

Table 12. Distribution of groups of tangible Artifacts across participants.

Groups	Artifacts	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Equipment	Electronic game	4	33%
	Television	3	25%
	Drawing materials	2	16%
	Bicycle	2	16%
	Book	2	16%
	Barbies	1	8%
	Scooter	1	8%
	Football	1	8%
	Motor bike	1	8%
	Guitar	1	8%
	Journal	1	8%
Location	Shopping center	3	25%
	Dance space	1	8%
	Yard	1	8%
	Skate park	1	8%
	Bush	1	8%
	Park	1	8%
	Home	1	8%
People	Friends	4	33%
	Soccer team	3	25%
	Birth family	2	16%
	Foster Family	2	16%
	Netball team	1	8%
	Softball team	1	8%
	Cricket team	1	8%
Motivators	Scheduled time	2	16%
	Music	1	8%
	The song	1	8%
	Black Belt (karate)	1	8%

Compared to tangible artifacts, there was a greater duplication of the occurrence of intangible artifacts across the cohort and a more limited collection of these artifacts in use. While most were described by participants, a small number were inferred from participants’ descriptions of leisure activities. These are shown in Table 13. Intangible artifacts were used by all participants and fell into four groups: Resourcing, Decision Making, Learning and Planning. Table 14 shows the distribution of participants across these groups and their contents.

Table 13. Distribution of participants across intangible Artifacts.

Artifacts	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Enjoyment*	9	75%
Motivation*	8	66%
Creativity*	7	58%
Communication*	7	58%
Relationship*	7	58%
Scheduled time*	7	58%
Self-efficacy*	6	50%
Networks*	6	50%
Optimism*	6	50%
Sense of identity	5	42%
Focus	5	42%
Discipline	5	42%
Commitment	5	42%
Aspiration	3	25%
Self-awareness	3	25%
Initiative	2	16%
Resilience	2	16%
Spontaneity	1	8%

Note. * = Persistent.

Table 14. Distribution of participants across groups of intangible Artifacts.

Groups	Artifacts	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Resourcing	Enjoyment*	9	75%
	Motivation*	8	66%
	Creativity*	7	58%
	Scheduled time*	7	58%
	Communication*	7	58%
	Networks*	6	50%
	Optimism*	6	50%
	Sense of identity	5	42%
	Self-awareness	3	25%
	Resilience	2	16%
	Spontaneity	1	8%
Decision Making	Motivation*	8	66%
	Communication*	7	58%
	Relationship*	7	58%
	Discipline	5	42%
	Aspiration	3	25%
	Initiative	3	25%
	Initiative	2	16%
Learning	Enjoyment*	9	75%
	Motivation*	8	66%
	Creativity*	7	58%
	Communication*	7	58%
	Relationship*	7	58%
	Self-efficacy*	6	50%
	Sense of identity	5	42%
	Focus	5	42%
	Discipline	5	42%
	Commitment	5	42%
	Aspiration	3	25%
	Self-awareness	3	25%
Planning	Motivation*	8	66%
	Communication*	7	58%
	Focus	5	42%
	Discipline	5	42%
	Aspiration	3	25%
	Initiative	2	16%

Note. * = Persistent.

The artifact Scheduled Time lists as both tangible and intangible because, for some participants, a block of time was allocated for them by an authority figure within the care system; for example a foster parent or counselor and is generally a planned allocation of time; as an intangible because; while for some participants, scheduled time is required on an ad hoc basis, for example an opportunity for an unexpected occasion to share leisure with friends or to participate in a desired activity. We see evidence, again, of agency in the groups of intangible artifacts, with participants combining artifacts to resource their leisure, make decisions, learn, and plan. The collections of both types of artifacts and their groupings were reminiscent of lists of tools, or sets of tools, with the intangibles often cognitively based, brought by participants to the leisure experience or developed for the leisure experience. “A tool requires skills not only to use it but also to understand the intent behind it” (Bunker, Kautz, & Anhtuan, 2008, p. 72). This begs two further questions: What skills were involved?: For what outcomes?

Step 5: Skills. In the leisure literature, when skills are referred to they are commonly mentioned in terms of physical skills, such as running with a correct posture or angling a cricket bat correctly. The skills shown in Table 15 are different and when not available directly from the data were ascertained by asking a question of the data: “what skills could be necessary to apply or utilize the intangible artefacts so that leisure outcomes stated by the participants could be achieved?” There is no assumption that this collection of skills is by any means complete.

Table 15. Distribution of skills across participants.

Skills	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Self-directing*	11	92%
Setting goals*	9	75%
Actioning*	9	75%
Adapting*	9	75%
Organization*	8	66%
Self-assessment*	8	66%
Planning*	7	58%
Networking*	6	50%
Social interaction*	6	50%
Learning*	6	50%
Managing time	5	42%
Imagination	4	33%
Predicting	2	16%
Exploring	1	8%

Note. * = Persistent.

Table 15 shows the distribution of skills across participants. The majority appeared to be using many skills and, in the main, these appeared to be commonly held and could be gathered into three natural groups; Working for the future; Self-guidance; and Analysis. Table 16 shows these groups and the skills they contain.

Table 16. Distribution of groups of skills across participants.

Groups	Skills	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Working for the Future	Organization*	8	66%
	Planning*	7	58%
	Adapting*	6	50%
	Networking*	6	50%
	Social interaction*	6	50%
	Setting goals*	6	50%
	Learning*	6	50%
	Imagination	4	33%
	Managing time	4	33%
	Planning	2	16%
	Predicting	2	16%
	Exploring	1	8%
Self-Guidance	Self-directing*	12	100%
	Actioning*	9	75%
	Self-assessment*	8	66%
	Planning*	7	58%
	Imagination	4	33%
Analysis	Actioning*	9	75%
	Adapting*	9	75%
	Organization*	8	66%
	Self-assessment*	8	66%
	Planning*	7	58%
	Imagination	4	33%

Note. * = Persistent.

A variety of skills were seen to be in use by the participants. Participants were using skills that were not traditional leisure activity-based skills, which were cognitively based, involving analysis and sometimes multipurposed; for example, undertaking activities to create or maintain social networks for future leisure.

Step 6: Outcomes. Often explicitly stated and, less often, implied. Participants were sometimes using leisure for traditional activity-based outcomes. These are shown in Table 17. As well though, they were seeking and achieving outcomes that allowed for their personal development and improvement. For example, learning to sing a song until the song was not just known but mastered. Outcomes grouped quite naturally into the following: Personal skills development, Improvement and Leisure activity (Table 18). Some outcomes were multipurpose and occurred across more than one grouping.

Table 17. Distribution of outcomes sought or achieved across participants.

Outcomes	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Enjoyment*	8	66%
Achievement*	8	66%
Network*	7	58%
Knowledge*	7	58%
Self-expression*	6	50%
Purpose	5	42%
Choice	4	33%
Skill	4	33%
Self-awareness	3	25%
Mastery	3	25%
Compliance	2	16%
Leisure variety	2	16%
Control	2	16%
Opportunity	2	16%
Challenge	2	16%

Note. * = Persistent.

Table 18. Distribution of outcomes groups across participants.

Groups	Outcomes	No. of Participants	% of Participants
Personal Skills Development	Enjoyment*	9	75%
	Achievement*	8	66%
	Network*	7	58%
	Knowledge*	7	58%
	Self-expression*	6	50%
	Purpose	5	42%
	Skill	4	33%
	Choice	4	33%
	Self-awareness	3	25%
	Mastery	3	25%
	Control	2	16%
	Opportunity	2	16%
	Challenge	2	16%
	Compliance	2	16%
	Control	2	16%
Improvement	Achievement*	8	66%
	Network*	7	58%
	Knowledge*	7	58%
	Purpose	5	42%
	Choice	4	33%
	Skill	4	33%
	Self-awareness	3	16%
	Mastery	3	25%
	Compliance	2	16%
	Challenge	2	16%
Leisure Activity	Achievement*	8	66%
	Knowledge*	7	58%
	Choice	4	33%
	Skill	4	33%
	Mastery	3	25%
	Challenge	2	16%
	Leisure variety	2	16%

Note. * = Persistent.

The second question posed at the completion of the thematic analysis was: How was the high level of homogeneity across the themes accomplished? It appeared to us at this stage that the answer was in the relatively high number of commonly used intangible artifacts that were in practice among participants (Table 13). Of the total intangibles, 50% were persistently in use among 50% of the participants. When artifacts were grouped (Table 14) they showed that participants were using them to resource; make decisions about; learn about or from; and plan their leisure. To accomplish this, the participants were utilizing a range of skills (Table 15), of which 72% occurred persistently with 50% or more of participants. When grouped (Table 16), skills were used to work for the future of; guide the participant in direction and attainment; and analyze achievement and possibilities in the participants’ leisure. We now have a group of 12 participants applying a group of 18, generally cognitive, intangible artifacts ranging from enjoyment through networks and sense of identity to spontaneity, through the application of generally commonly held skills were directed at outcomes. In outcomes (Table 17) we see a lower level of persistence, with only 33% being so. However, across 12 participants we see only 15 outcomes, so again a commonality though more widely spread. When grouped (Table 18) we see that the outcomes sought or achieved were about personal development from and improvement of leisure activity. In essence then, it appears to us that these 12 participants are utilizing a selection of equipment, locations, people, and motivators to accomplish a number of outcomes related to personal development, improvement, and leisure activities via the application of intangible, cognitively based, artifacts related to resourcing, decision-making, learning and planning, to bring into play skills, or sets of skills, related to working for the future, self-guidance, and analysis.

It is not known with specificity if the artifacts, skills, and outcomes apparent at the conclusion of the explanation building process represent the totality for each participant. It is also not known with specificity how artifacts; skills and outcomes directly relate to each other and in what specific circumstances the relationship occurs, nor with what level of success. However, Figure 1 shows what, at the time of writing, we consider one suggested way of linking leisure environments, leisure resources, and leisure experiences as derived from the analysis.

Figure 1. A suggested linking of leisure environments, resources and experiences.

Discussion

This was not a study of leisure among the general population of young people. The study was limited within to a small group of young people in foster care; subjects of a system attempting to care for disadvantaged and vulnerable young people. The study was undertaken with the aim of explaining whether leisure’s social and cognitive benefits could be found within a such a group and then how those benefits could be used to improve opportunities for these young people. The study was conducted without knowledge of the participants’ histories, apart from time in care, age entering care and number of schools attended while in care. Nor was anything known of the participants’ home environments, interactions with the foster care system, school environments, or particular stressors in their lives. For information on any of these we are dependent on the literature, from which we will draw as necessary.

Young people in foster care are considered among the most vulnerable in society, they enter care with poor physical, mental, and dental health experience learning and language issues and ongoing developmental issues compared to the general population (Cabarez & Kim, 2019; Murray et al., 2011, 2011; Quarmby et al., 2021).

Leisure can help alleviate some of the harmful stressors of foster care and may help foster care youth. Leisure environments provided or restricted opportunities and sometimes resources for participants. An important understanding: firstly because a child’s capacity to make choices can be taken away by protecting adults; and secondly because it demonstrates that environments can be opportunities to improve outlooks and the development of agency at the child’s level, speed, need, and desire, even if the system does not recognize the opportunities. When participants took up these opportunities they required the use, or creation and use, of tangible and intangible artifacts. The artifacts participants utilized were dependent on their understanding of their environments and their sought outcomes, they were contextualized. For some participants, outcomes were clearly known, at times designed. For others, this was not the case.

The leisure experience appears to be crafted with the environment in mind and sometimes can be limited or facilitated by the environment. Within the noted limitations of the research the study provides examples of young people in foster care utilizing leisure as a vehicle with which many of them actively engage with the world, which they plan for and in which they incorporate decisions about and goals for the future, as a number of authors have previously noted (Hopper & Iwasaki, 2017; Neulinger, 1979; Sanford, Quarmby, Hooper, & Duncombe, 2021).

In seeking to answer some questions about leisure in this vulnerable group, the study’s participants are planning and making decisions, generated when leisure is used, often quite unconsciously, as a vehicle to engage the wider world. The young people in the study are often taking advantage of their environments to create an advantage for their own personal outcomes. Behaviors such as understanding the environment, identifying opportunities, identifying and developing applicable artifacts and applying them via skills to achieve designed outcomes, are just as applicable to other aspects of life as they are to leisure; for example in job seeking, accommodation seeking, education choices, and life choices more broadly. They did not need a commonly held or stated definition of leisure, they were engaged via a perception of freedom and motivation that was provided by others or personally located. They were engaged via a state of mind that was often tailored to their environment to deliver their own outcomes.

Leisure usage did not need to be consciously engaged to be of practical use or valued. Nor did the engagement need to be the sole or prime purpose to be said to be occurring. As already noted, each participant’s leisure had a purpose, whether that of the participant or somebody else. The participant who considered mandated weekly swimming lessons to be a chore rather than an enabler of future leisure was, nevertheless, engaged with the world on those lessons so that they may continue that avenue of engagement in the future in safety. Equally, the participant who used bike riding leisure time to seek out new friends is engaging with the world with a view to the future. For both participants, the future is the focus. The purpose of leisure need not be the idea of the young person for the activity to be useful. In both examples, and in most other participants, leisure was either an outcome itself or a means to an outcome.

Leisure provided enjoyment as well as escape. The small sub-group of study participants whose leisure was restricted by others, particularly with time and resourcing restrictions, still managed to find opportunities to use leisure for themselves as a vehicle for escape (Øksnes, 2008; Zurawik, 2020), for creativity (Dattilo, 2015) and for thinking to the future.

Those participants who undertook active leisure almost always did so with a view to the future, a view expressed on the usefulness of leisure by Spaaij (2009).

These findings indicate another use for the participants’ leisure; decision making, a process also described by Doistua et al. (2020). It would be unreasonable to think that a majority of the members of this cohort could think about and plan for the future, albeit often in the short term, without considering also that a natural accompaniment to this thinking and planning is decision-making. Participants were making decisions about resourcing, timing, types of leisure necessary, priorities, choices, personal capabilities and the capabilities of others and the balance between their aspirations, goals, relationships, behavior, the effort required and even enjoyment. Undoubtedly these decisions are not always made alone, perhaps not, at times, made by the participant at all but by a parent, mentor, counselor, social worker, or friend. This does not discount the fact that members of this cohort are learning and practicing decision-making in their leisure and, further, putting what has been learned into practice. And perhaps this is not always successfully done, or the decision-making advice is not always correct. Again, this discounts neither the effort nor the results, particularly when success is achieved, in whatever form. Participants were quite often working on improving their futures themselves.

Implications for practitioners and researchers

This study of a small cohort of young people in foster care demonstrates that sets of behaviors that become evident during everyday activities that are often considered as ‘just leisure’ are in fact behaviors that could be exploited in preparation for a post-care life and as care leavers. Consideration now needs to be given to ways in which these findings can be confirmed and exploited to the benefit of those in the foster care system.

In terms of practical principles for practitioners to put into immediate practice the following points are offered: The study, notwithstanding limitations, demonstrated that within this group of participant young people in the foster care system leisure was a tool already being used to achieve desired outcomes. Therefore, the inclusion of leisure in an overall treatment plan, including leisure assessments, seems to us to be a, relatively, easy-entry starting point for further investigation. Leisure could be included in care planning goals with a view to understanding the transferability of the generation and use of cognitively based artifacts and the generation and use of skills and outcomes to other aspects of life for a young person in foster care.

Researchers could test the effect of the availability of appropriately trained staff who understand leisure, its benefits, theories, outcomes, and potentials. Being applicable to not only young people in foster care but also to important people in their lives who would benefit from an understanding of leisure, its benefits, barriers, and resourcing. Accomplished through the offering of leisure literacy programs to foster parents and front-line staff within foster care. Recreational therapists, trained allied health staff, could trial the implementation of a leisure framework into foster care systems.

Conclusions

The current study explored how can leisure be utilized to enable young people in foster care to be better prepared for aging out of care into independent living with a small sample of young people in foster care in Australia. Leisure was found to be more useful to young people in foster care for more than the immediate achievement, it contains the future as an opportunity. Leisure experiences were found to influence their leisure environments and in turn the leisure environments provided or restricted opportunities and sometimes resources for participants. The current study’s results indicate that young people in foster care utilized leisure as a vehicle with which many of them actively engaged with the world, which they plan for and in which they incorporate decisions about and goals for the future. Demonstrating that the study’s participants are planning and making decisions, generated when leisure is used, often quite unconsciously, as a vehicle to engage the wider world. Leisure is already being used by children and young people in foster care to improve their choices and personal agency, it now needs to be recognized and prioritized by all stakeholders in their life as an important component of making positive changes for the narrative of the most vulnerable group in society.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions. The data that support the findings of this study are available by contacting the corresponding author, np. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions that could comprise the privacy of research participants.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Nicole Peel

Nicole Peel is a lecturer in Recreation Therapy at, and received her doctorate from, Western Sydney University, Australia. Her Research focuses on the use of therapy with disadvantaged groups to assist with progressing their lives within complex and complicated support systems.

Graydon Davison

Graydon Davison is an Adjunct Fellow in the School of Health Sciences at Western Sydney University, Australia. He received his doctorate from the University of Western Sydney. His research interests focus on understanding disadvantaged groups as organisations and institutions to better understand their responses to complex environments.