PRESERVING THE GENERATIONS 1
Preserving the Generations:
A Look at Wraparound
Programs in the United States
PRESERVING THE GENERATIONS 2
Preserving the Generations:
A Look at Wraparound Programs in the United States
Defining Family Prevention Programs
A family preservation program as defined in a publication by Westat, Inc. (1995) is, “A social service program that is in effect in most states, which is designed to keep families together by providing support and intervention services to children and families in their home, where the family unit can be observed, evaluated, and treated together. It is based on the premise that birth families are the preferred means of providing family life for children, whenever that is possible.” In a nut shell, these programs are there to act as preventative measures to families about to lose their children. The Child Welfare League of America (2010) discusses the philosophy of these programs resting on the idea that children need to be with their families. When children are removed from homes, it is distressing not only for the child, but also for the family, no matter how unstable they may be. CWLA believes that most families are capable of taking care of their children, they just need adequate assistance. It is believed that if you focus on the strengths of the family, they can be molded into qualified caregivers. These programs do not just focus on the needs of the children, they make sure to also evaluate the issues with the rest of the
PRESERVING THE GENERATIONS 3
immediate family. Throughout the United States, these programs have shared intentions, some being more effective at reaching those goals than ...
... middle of paper ...
...of Intensive Family
Preservation Services on Disproportionality of Out-of-Home Placement of Children of Color in One State’s Child Welfare System. Child Welfare.
Nelson, K. E.; Landsman, M. J.; and Deutelbaum, W. (Jan.-Feb. 1990) "Three Models of Family-Centered Placement Prevention Services." Child Welfare vol. 69, 3-21
Westat, Inc. A REVIEW OF FAMILY PRESERVATION AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION PROGRAMS. Chicago: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 1995. Print.
U.S. Social Security Administration. (2010). Social Security Act Title IV. Social Security Online. Retrieved July 10, 2010, from http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm
Youth Service, Inc. | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Programs & Services. (2007). Youth Service, Inc.. Retrieved July 11, 2010, from http://ysiphila.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=6 &Itemid=37
Kaplan , L. & Girard, J. (1994). Strengthening high risk families. New York: Lexington Books.
The current system has not been good for children. In 1965 there were 3.3 million children on AFDC; by 1992, that had risen to over 9 million children despite the fact that the total number of children in this country has declined. Last year, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated if we do nothing, 12 million will be on AFDC in 10 years. Instead of working up, we find more and more children being trapped in a system and into dependency on welfare. 90 percent of the children on AFDC live without one of their parents. Only a fraction of welfare families are engaged in work. There are always the sad accounts of how, again and again, women would get off of welfare, they would be doing well on their own, but their child-care would fall apart just as they were getting back on their feet. The new bill provides $3.5 billion more than current for that needed child care.
Child welfare system was originated with the goals that social workers would try and alleviate poverty and its impact; however as the years have passed, the child welfare system turned into a child protection system directed toward investigating abuse and neglect, and removing children from families and placing them in foster care, and is no longer prepared to assist in resolving the problems of child poverty (Lindsey, 2004). Child welfare system has been developed around the residual approach which demands that aid should be given only after the family is in crisis or other support groups have failed to meet a child’s minimal needs. However, over the years, there have been different focuses for the child welfare system, whether it involved
Equally, there has been many studies suggesting parent participation through family engagement as the most effective means to achieving permanency (Boldis, & Tomlinson, 2014; Crampton, Usher, Wildfire, Webster, & Cuccaro-Alamin, 2011; Dolan, & Grotevant, 2014; Léveillé, & Chamberland, 2010). In other words, reunification is more likely to be achieved when the biological families are active members of the child welfare team (Boldis, & Tomlinson, 2014). Studies suggest when service providers include families as members of the child welfare team they are more likely to meet their children’s needs, which increase the chances of reunification (Epstein, 1995; Boldis, & Tomlinson, 2014). For some, it is still a new concept of biological family members being an active member of the child welfare team; this mindset can reduce the likelihood of reunification Boldis, & Tomlinson, 2014). Studies suggest positive family engagement between the foster family and biological families increase the chances of reunification being achieved Boldis, & Tomlinson,
In the United States there are approximately 397,000 children in out-of home care, within the last year there was about 640,000 children which spent at least some time in out-of-home care. More than 58,000 children living in foster care have had their biological parental rights permanently terminated (Children’s Rights, 2014). Due to the rising number of children in foster care and the growing concerns of the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families, the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was signed into law. On November 19, 1997, President Bill Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, to improve the safety of children, to promote adoption and other permanent homes for children who need them, and to support families (Child Welfare League of America). The Adoption and Safe Families Act also promotes adoption by offering incentive payments for States. During the FY of 1999-2003 the payment to states which had exceeded the average number of adoptions received $20 million (Child Welfare League of America). The ASFA improved the existing federal child welfare law to require that the child’s health and safety be a “paramount” concern in any efforts made by the state to preserve or reunify the child’s family, and to provide new assurances that children in foster care are safe (Shuman, 2004).
As a matter of fact, on the one hand, PHFS emerged from the efforts of a group of Presbyterian churches that came together to address their welfare responsibility by founding an orphanage. However, as the status of orphan was changing, the federal government was fostering children’s’ return to a family or community setting rather than group care. Consequently, demand for group homes declined and, although the organization included adult housing services for individuals with disabilities and later on offered a few community-based services, it faced a declining donor base and was losing its relevance. On the other hand, the Family Alliance resulted from a community outreach tentative by several churches in Lynchburg. FA focused on services targeted at the Lynchburg community, fostering neighborhood leadership, young training, prevention, and intervention. However, the organization was approximately 85% funded, thus relied heavily on federal and local grants. As the state of the economy declined, the statewide support on foster care declined. The organization lost funds and had to stretch the funds it had left while keeping the quality of its services. Ultimately, both companies were facing challenges that drew attention to the need to modify their tactics and respond to ...
The foster system intends to place children in homes where they will remain until they can find permanent residence with an adoptive family. Sadly, this is often not the case with children placed privatized homes and they end up bouncing from home to home until they eventually age out of the system forced to enter into adulthood with no permanent family ties. Over the past decade the number of teenagers aging out of the system without a permanent family has risen from 19,000 to 23,000 per year. These teenages enter into the world without emotional, relational, or financial support and therefore possess a greater risk of poverty as well as low academic achievement. This causes many of these teenagers to rely on government benefits during their adult lives which places a heavier burden on taxpayers. The National Council for Adoption reported that the 29,000 teenagers that aged out of the system in 2007 will cost over one billion dollars per year in public assistance and support. These teenagers who age out are also found to be at greater risk of concerning behaviors, such as: creating disciplinary problems in school, dropping out of school, becoming unemployed and homeless, becoming teenage parents, abusing alcohol and drugs, and committing crimes. The privatized system does not have the best interest of the children in mind and
The topic of child welfare is quite a broad one. There are numerous programs and policies that have been put in place to protect children. One of these policies is that of Adoption. Adoption was put into place to provide alternate care for children who cannot live with their biological families for various reasons. One of the more controversial issues surrounding adoption is that of Transracial adoption. Transracial Adoption is the joining of racially different parents and children (Silverman, 1993).
Wheeler, Peter. "Social Security Programs in the United States." Programs in the United States. Social Security Administration, 1 July 1997. Web. 4 May 2014.
Half the children in this country live in homes in which one or both parents work. Twelve million children in this country do not have health insurance, and over 4.5% of all children are victims of suspected child abuse or neglect (Doktor and Poertner). Believe it or not, these are all indicators of the demand for Family Resource Centers within our school systems. Many question whether Family Resource Centers are worth the money the state pours into them. However, in serving students, parents and teachers, there should be no question of their significance. Due to The Kentucky Education Reform Act in the early 1990's we have seen the development of Family Resource Centers in Kentucky, and they are fulfilling expectations and serve a valuable purpose in spite of some skepticism. Being a social work major and growing up in a school system under KERA, I know that family resource centers are important and that all parents, students and teachers need to be informed of all the good they do for a community. To address these points we will discuss the purpose of family resource centers the controversy that surround them and their effectiveness.
Downs, S., Moore, E., McFadden, E., & Costin, L. (2004). Child welfare and family services: Policies and practice. (7th. Ed., pp. 319-363) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Wetzel, JR. N.p.: n.p., n.d. American Families: 75 Years of Change. 1990. Web. 7 Mar. 2014.
Problems in the society such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, unequal education, family and community violence, and racism all can affect families and impact child welfare and the system itself (Chipungu and Goodley, pp. 76, 2004) There is often a incongruity between the services being offered to children and families in foster care and what they actually need. One example that Chipungu and Goodley (2004) made was birth parents being offered training and counseling when services such as housing assistance and childcare are more critically needed but not available (pp. 79).
intervention. Families in Society. Vol. 88, pg. 42. Proquest Direct database. Retrieved February 25, 2015.
Wilson, A (2012). The Business of Influence. International Journal of Market Research, 54(3), 439-440. doi:10.2501/IJMR-54-3-439-440