Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:35:21.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a global perspective of family continuity: The effects of international exchange on child welfare practice programs and policy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Emily Jean McFadden  and
Jill Worrall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The International Foster Care Organisation (IFCO) has been a significant vehicle of change within the steadily evolving field of foster care. In two decades of international transfer of knowledge, the organization has examined critical and controversial issues such as the colonization of indigenous people, the insensitivity of ‘Westernized’ systems of care to the kinship networks of children of color, and the needs of families stricken by poverty, dysfunction or oppression. Concurrently, the exchange of knowledge and skill on case planning, dynamics of change, legal issues, foster parent training; and systems of administration led to greater understanding between people working in foster care systems of different countries. IFCO became a moving and reconstituting global village of committed individuals, families, groups and organizations that transcended national boundaries.

Type
Section Five: Looking forward – International and cross-cultural perspectives
Information
Children Australia , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , 1999 , pp. 89 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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.)

References

American Humane Association (1996) ‘The Practice and Promise of Family Group Decision Making’, special issue, Protecting Children, 12(3).Google Scholar
Andrews, A. & Ben-Arieh, A. (1999) ‘Measuring and Monitoring children’s well being across the world’, Social Work, 44(2), 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ban, P. (1994) ‘Preliminary findings on family decision making project in the Victorian child protection system’, Australian Social Work, 47(1), 34–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chidey, J. (1996) ‘A fight to save the children: Activists battle the sexual exploitation of kids’, Maclean’s, Sept 2 1996, 109(36), 20–23.Google Scholar
Cotton, M. & Williams, M. (1997) ‘Global Trends in Foster Care. Community Alternatives’, International Journal of Family Care, 9(1), 21–32.Google Scholar
Department of Social Welfare (1988) ‘Puao-Te-Ata-Tu’, Mnisterial Advsory Committee Report, Wellington NZ: Government Printers.Google Scholar
Downs, S., Costin, L. & McFadden, E.J. (1996) Child Welfare and Family Services, 5th ed., White Plains NY: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
Hardin, M. (1996) Family group conferences in child abuse and neglect cases. Learning from the experience of New Zealand, Washington DC, American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law.Google Scholar
Hegar, R. & Scannapieco, M. (1999) Kinship Foster Care. Policy, practice and research, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFadden, E.J. (1998) ‘Kinship Care in the United States’, Adoption & Fostering, 22(3), 7–5.Google Scholar
McFadden, E. J. & Downs, S. (1995) ‘Family Continuity: The new paradigm in permanence planning’, Community Alternatives: International Journal of Family Care, 7(1), 39–60.Google Scholar
McNitt, M. (1999) ‘Family Continuity International: Understanding Families of Color in a Westernized World’, unpublished manuscript, Allegan Michigan USA.Google Scholar
Merkel-Holguin, L., Alsop, R., Race, C. &, Harolds, K. (1998) 1997 National Roundtable Series on Family Group Decision Making: Summary of Proceedings, Englewood, Colorado: American Humane Association.Google Scholar
Pennell, J.& Burford, G. (1994) Journal of Child and Youth Care, 9(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
Ryburn, M. & Atherton, C. (1996) ‘Family Group Conferences. Partnership in practice’, Adoption & Fostering, 20(1), 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scannapieco, M. & Jackson, S. (1996) ‘Kinship care: The African American response to family preservation’, Social Work, 41(2), 190–196.Google Scholar
Smith, D., Featherston, T. et al (1991). Family Decision Making, Lower Hutt NZ, Practitioners Publishing.Google Scholar
Walsh, C., (1997) ‘Street children around the world’, America, Sept 27, 177(8), p. 18.Google Scholar
Weaver, H., (1998) ‘Indigenous people in a multicultural society: Unique issues for human services’, Social Work, 43(3), 203–212.Google Scholar
Wessels, M. (1997) ‘Child soldiers: In some places, if you’re tall as a rifle you’re old enough to cany one’, Bulletin of the atomic scientists, Nov-Dec., 53(6), 32–38.Google Scholar
Worrall, J. (1996) Because we’re family: A study of kinship care of children in New Zealand, Albany, New Zealand: Massey University.Google Scholar