Yvonne Unrau, Michael Wells and Mary Ann Hartnett describe a US family-centred, needs-based foster care programme named Promise and present evaluation findings based on a comparison group design evaluation. Promise allowed for greater discretion among line-level workers to meet the unique service needs of families served, promoted greater team-oriented communication and involved more foster family involvement than the comparison group. An initial statistical comparison revealed that foster children in the Promise group (n = 380) experienced greater stability in their caseworker assignment and, to a lesser degree, greater placement stability over a 15-month period when compared to foster children served under the conventional model (n = 436). However, only the caseworker continuity effect remained when further analysis was undertaken. Similar rates of permanency achievement were reported for both models. Implications for foster care policy, practice and research are presented.
BadeauSGesiriechS, A Child's Journey through the Child Welfare System, The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, 2003; available online at http://pewfostercare.org/docs/index.php?DocID=24. Retrieved 2 January 2004.
2.
Children and Family Research Centre, Outcomes Report 1999, School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Children and Family Research Centre, 1999.
3.
DavisILandsverkJNewtonR, ‘Duration of foster care for children reunified within the first year of care’, in BerrickJBarthRGilbertN (eds), Child Welfare Research Review (Vol. 2), New York: Columbia Press, 1997.
4.
GoergeR, ‘The reunification process in substitute care’, Social Service Review64, pp 422–57, 1990.
5.
HudsonJNutterBGalawayB, ‘A survey of North American specialist foster family care programmes’, Social Service Review66: 1, pp 50–64, 1992.
6.
LewandowskiCPierceL, ‘Assessing the effect of family-centered out-of-home care on reunification outcomes’, Research on Social Work Practice12: 2, pp 205–21, 2002.
7.
MoxleyDManelaR, ‘Expanding the conceptual basis of outcomes and their use in the human services’, Families in Society82, pp 569–77, 2001.
8.
PecoraPMaluccioA, ‘What works in family foster care’, in KlugerMAlexanderGCurtisP (eds), What Works in Child Welfare, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 2000.
9.
UnrauYHartnettM A, Catholic Social Service Foster Care Reform Initiative: The Promise Programme, final report, Urbana, IL: Children and Family Research Centre at the School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, June 2001.
10.
WehrmannKUnrauYMartinJ, ‘Family foster care in the United States’, in ColtonMWilliamsM (eds), Global Perspectives on Foster Care: A comparative international analysis of foster family care systems, Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing, in press.
11.
Westat, Chapin Hall Centre for Children and James Bell Associates, Evaluation of the New York City Home Rebuilders Demonstration, Submitted to DHHS, ASPE, contract No HHS-100-94-0020, 1998.
12.
Westat, Evaluation of the Illinois Subsidised Guardianship Waiver Demonstration: Preliminary findings, Rockville, MD: Westat, 1999.
13.
WulczynF, ‘Closing the gap: are changing exit patterns reducing the time African-American children spend in foster care relative to Caucasian children?’, Unpublished manuscript, Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Centre for Children at the University of Chicago, 2002.
14.
WulczynFZeidmanDSvirskyA, ‘Home rebuilders: A family reunification demonstration programme’, in BerrickJ DuerrBarthRGilbertN (eds), Child Welfare Research Review, New York: Columbia University Press, 1997.
