Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:42:16.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working together works well: A longitudinal evaluation of a family-based placement program for children with a disability and very high support needs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Julie Hind  and
Judith Woodland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is based on a three-year longitudinal evaluation of a family-based placement and support program for children with disabilities and high support needs. Particular lessons emerged about the importance of partnerships: between caseworker and alternative family; the alternative family and the birth family; and the caseworker and the birth family.

The evaluation used case studies, following ten children through the life of the study. A qualitative approach drew on people's experiences to understand individual perspectives and to identify patterns and themes to gain insight into the factors contributing to success.

The study was informed by international literature, including: Maluccio et al (1983, 1986) and Smith (1995) in relation to permanency planning; Thoburn (1986, 1990, 1994) and Wedge (1986) in relation to hard-to-place children; and Argent and Kerrane (1997) who demonstrate that continuing contact between birth and alternative families can work well with support from workers.

This article focuses on one part of the evaluation - the development of relationships. The relationship between the caseworker and the alternative family is a key to the success of the placement. In the best examples of good practice, the relationship is one of partnership, with both partners having the interests of the child as their central focus.

The partnership is not evident in dealing with birth families. We note the strongest relationships are where birth families have an ongoing role in caring for their child. In some cases, the alternative family takes on a role of supporting the birth family's ongoing involvement with their child. The paper explores the different relationships and points to further possible areas of future research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , 2004 , pp. 27 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

Argent, H. & Kerrane, A. (1997) Taking Extra Care: Respite, shared and permanent care for children with disabilities, BAAF, London.Google Scholar
Berridge, D. (1999) ‘Partnership with parents with children in foster care or residential care’, in Masson, J., Harrison, C. & Pavlovic, A (eds.), Lost and Found: Making and remaking working partnerships with parents of children in the care system, Ashgate Arena, Vermont.Google Scholar
Dunst, C., Trivette, C. & Deal, A. (1988) Enabling and Empowering Families: Principles and Guidelines for Practice, Brookline Books, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Early, T. & GlenMaye, L. (2000) ‘Valuing Families: Social Work Practice with Families from a Strengths Perspective’, Social Work, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 118–130.Google Scholar
Kermode, S. (1990) Professional Fostering Scheme… Report on 100 Placements, Barnardo's North West Division, UK.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A. (1981) ‘An ecological perspective on practice with parents of children in foster care’, in Maluccio, A. & Sinanoglu, P. (eds.), The Challenge of Partnership: Working with Parents of Children in Foster Care, University of Connecticut School of Social Work and Child Welfare League of America Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N. & Fein, E. (1983) ‘Permanency Planning: A Redefinition’, Child Welfare, 62 (3), pp. 195–201.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N., Fein, E. & Olmstead, K.A. (1986) Permanency Planning for Children: Concepts and methods, Tavistock Publications, New York.Google Scholar
Masson, J. & Harrison, C. (1999) in Masson, J., Harrison, C. & Pavlovic, A (eds.), Lost and Found: Making and remaking working partnerships with parents of children in the care system, Ashgate Arena, Vermont.Google Scholar
Phillips, R. (1998), ‘Disabled Children in Permanent Substitute Families’, in Stalker, K., Robinson, C. and Kingsley, J. (eds.), Growing Up with a Disability, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.Google Scholar
Redding, R., Fried, C. & Britner, P. (2000) ‘Predictors of Placement Outcomes in Treatment Foster Care: Implications for Foster Parent Selection and Service Delivery’, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.425–447.Google Scholar
Reich, D. & Lewis, J. (1986) ‘Placements by Parents for Children’, in Wedge, P. and Thoburn, J. (eds.), Finding families for ‘hard-to-place’ children: Evidence from research, British Agencies for Adoption & Fostering, Research series 4, pp. 30–39.Google Scholar
Smith, S. (1995) ‘Permanence revisited: Some practice dilemmas’, Adoption and Fostering, Vol.19, No. 3.Google Scholar
Thoburn, J. (1986) ‘The experience of The Child Wants a Home’, in Wedge, P. & Thoburn, J. (eds.), Finding families for ‘hard-to-place’ children: Evidence from research, British Agencies for Adoption & Fostering, Research series 4, pp.51–60.Google Scholar
Thoburn, J. (1990) Success and Failure in Permanent Family Placement, Gower Publishing Company, Aldershot, England.Google Scholar
Thoburn, J. (1999) ‘Working in partnership with parents of children being looked after: Issues of theory, research and practice’ in Masson, J., Harrison, C. & Pavlovic, A. (eds.), Lost and Found: Making and remaking working partnerships with parents of children in the care system, Ashgate Arena, Vermont Google Scholar
Thoburn, J., Lewis, A. & Shemmings, D. (1995) Paternalism or Partnership? Family Involvement in the Child Protection Process, Studies in Child Protection, HMSO.Google Scholar
Triseliotis, J. (1983) ‘Identity and security in adoption and long-term fostering’, Adoption & Fostering, 7, 1.Google Scholar
Turnbull, A.P., Turbiville, V. & Turnbull, H.R. (2000) ‘Evolution of family-professional partnership models: Collective empowerment as the model for the early 21st century’, in Meisels, S.J., & Shonkoff, J.P. (eds.), Handbook of early intervention, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 630–650.Google Scholar
Wedge, P. (1986) ‘Lessons from research into permanent family placement’, in Wedge, P. & Thoburn, J. (eds.), Finding families for ‘hard-to-place’ children: Evidence from research, British Agencies for Adoption & Fostering, Research Series 4.Google Scholar
Wolkind, S. & Kozaruk, A. (1986), “Hard to place'? Children with medical and developmental problems’, in Wedge, P. & Thoburn, J. (eds.), Finding families for ‘hard-to-place’ children: Evidence from research, British Agencies for Adoption & Fostering, Research Series 4, pp. 16–29.Google Scholar
Woodland, J. & Hind, J. (2001) Evaluation of the Family Options Program, Department of Human Services, Victoria.Google Scholar