ENGAGING FAMILIES TO SUPPORT CHILDREN IN CHILD WELFARE CARE

Brad McKenzie

Abstract


Introduction. Child welfare has been dominated by policies and practices that focus on child safety and protection while much less attention has been given to supporting families to improve parenting and child care. This article examines recent models of family engagement and support in North America, including a new practice model for children in care.  

Purpose. Research evidence is reviewed to demonstrate the need to balance the focus on child protection with services that engage and support families. A new practice model that develops lifetime networks for children in care is summarized.

 Results. Although the child protection approach has given needed attention to child safety, it has also resulted in increased investigations for abuse and neglect and more children in care. Evidence suggests that more attention to family involvement leads to increased collaboration with families with related benefits in parenting and child care, although more research is required to assess long term results. Family Finding, a new approach to locating and supporting family members who will provide continuing support for children in care, has the potential to overcome early childhood adversity.

Originality. Child safety and protection remains an important focus in child welfare but it must be balanced with approaches that engage and support families. Research evidence supports more investment in family involvement in child welfare. Although most family support programs focus on preventing children from coming into care, the Family Finding practice model locates and supports family members who play a significant role in nurturing and supporting children in care through to adulthood.  

Conclusion. Family Finding for children in care builds on previous models of family engagement and support in child welfare by establishing networks of caring adults for children in care. These have the potential to help overcome early childhood adversity and the trauma experienced by children in care. Social workers and other child welfare workers must develop the knowledge and skills to implement Family Finding and other types of family support models to help build a new paradigm for practice in child welfare. It is also important that professional social work education programs incorporate these approaches within their curricula they are to play an important role in changing the way we practice child welfare.

 


Keywords


Keywords. Child welfare; Family Findin; family engagement; family support; family involvement; social work education

References


References

Gilbert, R., Fluke, J., O’Donnell, M., Gonzalez-Izquierdo, A., Brownell, M., Gulliver, P. et al. (2012). Child maltreatment: Variations in trends and polices in six developed countries. The Lancet, 379 (9817), 758-772.

Public Health Agency of Canada (2010). Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect – 2008: Major findings. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Retrieved from http://cwrp.ca/sites/default/files/ publications/en/CIS-2008-rprt-eng.pdf.

Brownell, M., Chartier, M., Au, W., MacWilliam, L., Schultz, J., Guenette, W., & Valdiva, J. (2015). Education outcomes of children in care. Winnipeg, Manitoba: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy, University of Manitoba.

McKenzie, B., & Shangreaux, C. (2011). From child protection to community caring in First Nations child and family services. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Connecting research, policy, and practice in child welfare (2nded.) (pp. 323-338). Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2016). Mental and physical health of children on foster care. Pediatrics. doi:10.1542/peds. 2016 –1118.

National Technical Assistance and Evaluation Center for Systems of Care (2010). Family involvement in the improving child welfare outcomes through systems of care initiative. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Youth and Family Children’s Bureau. 7. Miller, W., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Antle, B., Christenson, D., Barbee, A., & Martine, M. (2008). Solution-based casework: A paradigm shift to effective, strengths-based practice for child protection. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, 197-227.

Antle, B., Christenson, D., van Zyl, M., & Barbee, A. (2012). The impact of the solution-based casework (SBC) practice model on federal outcomes in public child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36, 342-353.

Dill, K. (2011). Finding the best home: A comparative analysis of kinship and foster care placements. In K. Kufeldt & B. McKenzie (Eds.), Connecting research, policy, and practice in child welfare (2nded.) (pp. 173-185). Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Allan, H., Corwin, T., Fluke, J., Harlaar, N., Hollinshead, D., Horner, A., et al. (2015). No place like home. Denver, Colorado: The Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse & Neglect and Casey Family Programs.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2016). Family engagement: Partnering with families to improve child welfare outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety: A solution and safety approach to child protection casework. New York: Norton. 14. Turnell, A. (2013). Signs of Safety: A comprehensive briefing paper. Retrieved from www.signsofsaety.net/products-page/booklet/signs-of-safety-briefing-paper/.

McKenzie, B., Taylor, A., & Maksymyk, S. (2011). Evaluation of the General Child and Family Services Authority’s differential response/family enhancement pilot projects. Winnipeg: The General Child and Family Services Authority.

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2014). Differential response to reports of child abuse and neglect. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov.

Loman, L., & Siegel, G. (2014). Ohio alternative response evaluation extension: Final report to the Ohio Supreme Court. St. Louis, Missouri: Institute of Applied Research. Retrieved from http:/iarstl.org/papers/OhioARFinalExtensionReportFINAL.pdf. 18. Loman, L., & Siegel, G. (2005). Alternative response in Minnesota: Findings of the program evaluation. Protecting Children, 20, (2/3), 78-92.

Family Finding website at www.familyfinding.org/

Dewey, J., Tipon, G., DeWolfe, J., Sullins, C. & Park, C. (2013). The path from process to outcome: A crosssite evaluation of 24 Family Connection grantee projects. Child Welfare, 92(6), 9-38.

Vandivere, S., & Malm, K. (2015). Family Finding evaluations: A summary of recent findings. Bethesda, Maryland: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org.

Malm, K., Vandivere, S., Allen, T., Williams, S., & McKlindon, A. (2014). A rigorous evaluation of family finding in North Carolina. Bethesda, Maryland: Child Trends.

Bringwatt, E., Allen, T., & Williams, S. (2013). Client voices: Youth, parent and relative perspectives on Family Finding. Bethesda, Maryland: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org.

Schreiber, E. (2016). ACEs and child trauma leave lasting scars. Retrieved from www.rawhide.org.


Full Text: PDF (Українська)

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.
   
Archive
2015 343 353 365 367 370  
2016 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18
2017 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12
13-14 15 16 17-18    
2018 1 2 3 4 5 6
  7 8 9 10-11 12 13
  14 15 16 17 18
2019 1 2        

User

Information

Journal Content

Browse

Language

Font Size