In response to increased funding for programs to avoid unnecessary out-of-home placements, family preservation programs are being implemented by private and public agencies. The authors identify the organizational supports that are required to sustain family preservation programs over time. These supports include ongoing training, a broad view of supervisory responsibilities, and careful attention to maintaining relationships with referring and other agencies. Future issues facing family preservation programs also are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AustinM. J.BrannonD., & PecoraP. J. (1984). Managing staff development programs in human service agencies.Chicago: Nelson Hall Publishers.
2.
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation. (1985). Keeping families together: The case for family preservation.New York: Author.
3.
FeldmanL. (1990). Target population definition. In YvanY. T., & RivestM. (Eds.), Preserving families: Evaluation resources for family preservation services (pp. 16–38) Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
4.
GambrillE. D., & SteinT. J. (1985). Working with biological parents: Important procedural ingredients. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 173–189.
5.
HaapalaD., & KinneyJ. (1979). Homebuilders approach to the training of in-home therapists. In MaybanksS., & BryceM. (Eds.), Home-based services for children and families.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
6.
HaapalaD.KinneyJ., & McDadeK. (1988). Referring families to intensive, home-based family preservation services: A guidebook.Federal Way, WA: Behavioral Sciences Institute.
7.
HollidayM., & CroninR. (1990). Families first: A significant step toward family preservation. Families in Society, 71, 303–306.
8.
KinneyJ.HaapalaD., & BoothC. (1991). Keeping families together: The Homebuilders model.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
9.
KinneyJ.HaapalaD.BoothC., & LeavittS. (1990). The Homebuilder model. In WhittakerJ. K.KinneyJ.TracyE. M., & BoothC. (Eds.), Reaching high-risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services (pp. 33–64). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
10.
KnitzerJ., & ColeE. S. (1989). Family preservation services: The program challenge for child welfare and child mental health agencies.New York: Bank Street College of Education.
11.
NelsonK. (1989, Fall). Professional education for family-based services. Prevention Report, p. 5.
12.
PecoraP. J.KinneyJ. M.MitchellL., & TolleyG. (1990). Selecting an agency auspice for family preservation services. Social Service Review, 64, 228–307.
13.
StroulB. A. (1988). Home-based services.Washington, EC: CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
14.
TizdaleR. (1958). Peer group supervision. Social Casework, 39, 443–450.
15.
TracyE. M.HaapalaD. A.KinneyJ., & PecoraP. J. (Eds.). (1991). Intensive family preservation services: An instructional sourcebook.Cleveland, OH: Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.
16.
University of Kentucky. (1989). Collaboration for competency.Lexington, KY: College of Social Work.
17.
WhittakerJ. K.KinneyJ.TracyE. M., & BoothC. (Eds.). (1990). Reaching high-risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services.New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
18.
WhittakerJ. K., & TracyE. M. (1990). Family preservation services and education for social work practice: Stimulus and response. In WhittakerJ. K.KinneyJ.TracyE. M., & BoothC. (Eds.), Reaching high-risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services (pp. 1–11). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
