Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-lphnv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-29T04:28:00.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family preservation, family reunification and related issues: Recent news

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Frank Ainsworth
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
Edith Cowan University, School of International, Cultural and Community Studies, Joondalup Campus, Perth, WA 6027. Email: f.ainsworth@cowan.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sets the context for a review of family preservation and family reunification research by briefly noting the national and international crisis that currently surrounds foster care. It then presents the recent family preservation and family reunification research from the US and Australia. Some of this material is drawn from the book by Maluccio, Ainsworth and Thoburn (2000), ‘Child welfare outcome research in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia’. The decision to focus on the US material stems from the fact that these terms originated there in the 1980s and this is where the major research studies are to be found The final comments focus on the re-emphasis on permanency planning and adoption, at least in New South Wales (NSW), and the implications of this for family preservation and reunification services.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , 2001 , pp. 29 - 35
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ainsworth, F. & Maluccio, A.N. (1998a) ‘The policy and practice of family reunification’, Australian Social Work, 51, 1, 3–7.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. & Maluccio, A.N. (1998b) ‘Kinship care: New dawn or false hope?’, Australian Social Work, 51, 4, 3–8.Google Scholar
Barber, J.G., Delfabbro, P.H. & Cooper, L. (2000) ‘Placement disruption and dislocation in South Australian substitute care’, Children Australia, 25, 2, 16–20.Google Scholar
Bath, H. & Haapala, D. A. (1993) ‘Intensive family preservation services with abused and neglected children: An examination of group difference’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 2, 213–225.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1997) The family at risk: Issues and trends in family preservation, Columbia: SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Berry, M., Cash, S.J. & Brook, J.P. (2000) ‘Intensive family preservation services: An examination of critical service components’, Child and Family Social Work, 5, 2, 191–203.Google Scholar
Bickman, L. & Doucette, A. (2000) Therapaeutic alliance scale, Vanderbilt University, Center for Mental Health Policy, Nashville Tennessee.Google Scholar
Blythe, B., Selley, M.P. & Jayaratne, S. (1994) ‘A review of intensive family preservation research’, Social Work Research, 18, 4, 213–224.Google Scholar
British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (2000) Adoption a new approach, www.baaf.org.uk Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1994) ‘The Families First program in Victoria: Cuckoo or contribution’, Children Australia, 19, 2, 4–10.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1997) ‘Child neglect and intensive-family-preservation practice’, Families in Society. Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 78, 3, 280–290.Google Scholar
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act, 1998, Sydney: Government Printing Office, Sydney.Google Scholar
Community Services Commission (2000) Inquiry into the practice and provision of substitute care in NSW: New directions – from substitute care to supported care, Sydney:Google Scholar
Curtis, P., Dale, G. Jr. & Kendall, J.C. (1999) The foster care crisis: Translating research into policy and practice, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Department of Family and Children’s Services (1999) Annual Report, Perth.Google Scholar
Department of Community Services (2001) ‘Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Permanency Planning) Bill 2000’, Issues Paper, Sydney.Google Scholar
Festinger, T. (1994) Returning to care: Discharge and reentry into foster care, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
Festinger, T. (1996) ‘Going home and returning to foster care’, Children and Youth Services Review, 8, 4/5, 383–402.Google Scholar
Fox Harding, L. (1991) Perspectives in child care policy, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Frame, L., Berrick, J.D. & Brodowski, M.L. (2000) ‘Understanding reentry to out-of-home care for reunified infants’, Child Welfare, 79, 4, 339–369.Google Scholar
Geen, R. (2000) ‘In the interest of the child: Rethinking federal and state policies affecting kinship care’, Policy and Practice, 58, 1, 19–27.Google Scholar
Gill, A. (1997) Orphans of the Empire, Sydney: Millennium Books.Google Scholar
Gunn, M. & Walker, V. (2001) ‘Our 16,000 lost children’, Weekend Australian, March 24–25, pp 1, 25–26.Google Scholar
Howe, D. (1991) Half a million women, London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (1997) ‘Bringing them home. National inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families’, Sydney, Author.Google Scholar
Jackson, A. (1996) ‘The reconnections and family admission programs: Two models for family reunification within Melbourne, Australia’, Community Alternatives, International Journal of Family Care, 8, 1, 53–75.Google Scholar
Kapp, S.A. & Vela, R.H. (1999) ‘Measuring consumer satisfaction in family preservation services: Identifying instruments domains’, Family Preservation Journal, 4, 1, 20–37.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N. (1995) ‘Review of the book, Putting Families First: An experiment in family preservation’, Family Preservation Journal, 1, 1, 115–117.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N. (1999) ‘Foster care and family reunification’, in Curtis, P. Dale, G. Jr. and Kendall, J. C. (eds), The foster care crisis. Translating research into policy and practice, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N., Ainsworth, F. & Thoburn, J. (2000) Child welfare outcome research in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press.Google Scholar
McCroskey, J. & Meezan, W. (1997) Family preservation and family functioning, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
Meezan, W. & McCroskey, J. (1996) ‘Improving family functioning through family preservation services: Results of the Los Angeles experiment’, Family Preservation Journal, 2, 1, 9–29.Google Scholar
Nelson, E.K. (1996) ‘Review of the book, Putting Families First: An experiment in family preservation’, Family Preservation Journal, 1, 1, 117–118.Google Scholar
New South Wales Legislative Council (2000) Releasing the past. Adoption practice 1950–1998, Sydney, Author.Google Scholar
Pecora, P. (1991) ‘Family preservation and home based services: A select literature review’, in Fraser, M.W. Pecora, P.J., & Haapala, D.A. (eds.), Families in crisis: Findings from the family-based intensive treatment project, (pp. 17–47). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pecora, P. (1994) ‘Are intensive family preservation services effective? Yes’, in Gambrill, E. & Stein, T.J. (eds.), Controversial issues in child welfare, (pp. 303–307), Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Pecora, P.J., Williams, J., Downs, C., White, J., Schockner, L., Judd, B.M. & Stenslie-Franko, M. (2001) ‘Assessing key results in family fostering: A comparison of case record reviews, retrospective alumni interviews and prospective collection of functional outcome data’, Working paper given at the International Research Seminar on Outcome-based evaluation: A cross-national comparison, Zancan, Foundazione E., Volterra, Italy, March.Google Scholar
Roche, T. (2001) ‘Is adoption the solution?’, Time, February 7.Google Scholar
Roche, T. (2000) ‘The crisis of foster care’, Time, November 13.Google Scholar
Rhodes, K.W., Orme, J.G. & Buehler, C. (2001) ‘A comparison of family foster parents who quit, consider quitting and plan to continue fostering’, Social Services Review, 75, 1, 45–59 Google Scholar
Rindfleisch, N., Bean, G. & Denby, K. (1998) ‘Why foster parents continue or cease to foster’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 15, 1, 5–24.Google Scholar
Rzepnicki, T.J. (1994) ‘Are intensive family preservation services effective? No’, in Gambrill, E. & Stein, T. J. (eds.), Controversial issues in child welfare, (pp. 303–307). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Schuerman, J.R., Rzepnicki, T.L. & Littell, J. (1994) Putting families first; An experimental in family preservation, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Thomlison, B., Maluccio, A.N. & Wright, L.W. (1996) ‘Protecting children by preserving their families: A selective research perspective on family reunification’, International Journal of Child and Family Welfare, 2, 2, 127–136.Google Scholar
University of Melbourne (1993) ‘Families first: Report of the evaluation the pilot program’, School of Social Work, Melbourne.Google Scholar
Voigt, L. & Tregeagle, S. (1996) ‘Buy Australian. A local family preservation success’, Children Australia, 21, 1, 27–30.Google Scholar
Vollard, J., Baxter, C. & Da Costa, C. (1993) ‘Recruiting out-of-home caregivers for children with an intellectual disability in a shared family care program’. Children Australia, 18, 4, 23–27.Google Scholar
Walton, E. & Dodini, A.C. (1999) ‘Intensive in-home family based services: Reactions from consumers and providers’, Family Preservation Journal, 4, 1, 39–51.Google Scholar
Webster, D., Barth, R.P. & Needell, B. (2000) ‘Placement stability for children in out-of-home care’, Child Welfare, 74, 5, 614–655.Google Scholar
Wells, K. & Biegel, D.E. (1991) Family preservation services: Research and evaluation, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar