Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-b5cpw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-13T07:06:03.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Foster care research in the US and Australia: An update

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Frank Ainsworth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews recent reform, research and trends in foster care (family foster care, kinship care and group care) in the US. In presenting this data attention is drawn to the lack of comparable Australian materials. Practitioners are also cautioned against embracing US initiatives too eagerly as the time lag in the transfer of information means that these developments may have been modified by research findings by the time they come to notice in Australia.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , 1997 , pp. 9 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Adams, P. and Nelson, K. 1995, Reinventing human services, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. 1991, ‘A ‘no blame’ approach to work with the families of children and adolescents in residential care’ Child and Youth Care Forum, 20, 5, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F. 1993, ‘Family preservation services: a cautionary note’, Children Australia, 18, 2, 10–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F. 1994, ‘Rethinking child welfare’, unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. 1996, ‘Parent education and training or family therapy: does it matter which comes first?’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 25, 2, 101–110.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. & Small, R. W. 1994, ‘Family centered group care: concept and implementation’, Children Australia, 19, 4, 22–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angus, G. & Golley, L. 1995, Children under care and protection orders Australia 1993–94, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.Google Scholar
Angus, G. & Woodward, S. 1995, Child abuse and neglect Australia 1993–94, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.Google Scholar
Barth, R. P. 1990, ‘On their own: the experience of youth after foster care’, Child and Adolescent Social Work, 7, 5, 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, H. 1994, ‘Out-of-home care in Australia: a state by state comparison’, Children Australia, 19, 4, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bath, H. & Haapala, D. 1994, ‘Family preservation services: what does the outcome research really tell us?’. Social Services Review, 68, 9, 386–404.Google Scholar
Bath, H. & Haapala, D. 1993, ‘Intensive family preservation services with neglected and abused children: an examination of group differences’, Child Abuse and Neglect, 17, 2, 213–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beker, J. 1996, ‘Editorial: Articles of faith’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 24, 4, 213–214.Google Scholar
Beker, J. and Magnuson, D. (Eds.) 1996, Residential education as an option for at-risk youth, Haworth Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blythe, B. J., Selley, M. P. & Jayaratne, S. 1994, ‘A review of intensive family preservation services research’, Social Work Research, 18, 4, 213–224.Google Scholar
Borgman, B. 1985, ‘The influence of family visiting upon boys’ behavior in a juvenile correctional institution’ Child Welfare, 64, 6, 629–638.Google Scholar
Braziel, D. J. (Ed.) 1996, Family-focused practice in out-of-home care. A handbook and resource directory, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Broadbent, A. 1996, Child Welfare Statistics News. No. 2. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. 1994, ‘The Families First program in Victoria: cuckoo or contribution’, Children Australia, 19, 2, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cashmore, J. & Paxman, M. 1996, Wards leaving care: a longitudinal study. New South Wales Government, Department of Community Services, Sydney.Google Scholar
Child Welfare League of America 1995, Children’s legislative agenda 1995, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Costin, L. B. 1985, ‘The historical context of child welfare’, in Laird, J. and Hartman, A. (eds) A handbook of child welfare, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Costin, L. B., Karger, H. J. & Stoesz, D. 1996, The politics of child abuse in America, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Curry, J. F. 1991, ‘Outcome research on residential treatment: implications and suggested direction’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 3, 348–357.Google Scholar
Curtis, P. 1994 ‘A research agenda for child welfare’, Child Welfare, 73, 5, 355–357.Google Scholar
Davies, I. J., Landsverk, J., Newton, R. & Ganger, W. 1996, ‘Parental visiting and foster care reunification’, Children and Youth Services Review, 18, 4/5, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Health and Human Services 1995, National study of residential care for children, Emprise Designs, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Dubowitz, H. 1994, ‘Kinship care: suggestion for future research’, Child Welfare, 73, 5, 553–564.Google Scholar
Fanshel, D. & Shinn, E. B. 1978, Children in foster care: a longitudinal investigation, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fanshel, D., Finch, S. J. & Grundy, J. F. 1990, Foster children in life course perspective, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Fairhurst, S. K. 1996, ‘Promoting change in families: treatment matching in residential treatment centers’, Residential Treatment for Children and Youth, 14, 2, 21–32.Google Scholar
Fernandez, E. 1996, Significant harm: Unraveling child protection decisions and substitute care careers of children, Avebury, Aldershot.Google Scholar
Festinger, T. 1994, Returning to care: Discharge and reentry to foster care. Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Forsythe, P. 1992, ‘Homebuilders and family preservation’, Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 1. 37–47.Google Scholar
Fraser, M. W., Pecora, P. J. & Haapala, D. 1991, Families in crisis: the impact of intensive family preservation services, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Gelles, R. J. 1996, The book of David: How family preservation can cost children’s lives, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. & Liddell, M. 1993, ‘Child abuse and the media: Victoria introduces mandatory reporting after an intensive media campaign’, Children Australia, 18, 3, 23–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goerge, R. M. 1990 ‘The reunification process in substitute care’, Social Services Review, 64, 3. 422–457 Google Scholar
Goerge, R. M., Wulczyn, F. & Fanshel, D. 1994, ‘A foster care research agenda for the 90’s’, Child Welfare, 73, 5, 525–549.Google Scholar
Goldstein, H. 1996, The home on Gorham Street and the voices of its children, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.Google Scholar
Hess, P. M. & Proch, K. 1993, ‘Visiting the heart of reunification’, in Pine, B. A. Warsh, R. and Maluccio, A. N., Together again: Family reunification in foster care. Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Illinois Department of Children and Family Services 1900, Executive Summary, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Ingrassia, M. & McCormick, J. 1994, ‘Why leave children with bad parents?’, Newsweek, April 25, 52–58.Google Scholar
Kapp, S. A., Schwartz, I. & Epstein, I. 1994 ‘Adult imprisonment of males released from residential childcare: a longitudinal study’, Residential Treatment of Children and Youth, 12, 2, 19–36.Google Scholar
Kusserow, R. P. 1992, Using relatives for foster care. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Washington DC.Google Scholar
Kinney, J., Haapala, D., Booth, C. & Leavitt, S. 1990, ‘The Homebuilders model’, in Whittaker, J. K. Kinney, J. Tracy, E. M. and Booth, C. (eds), Reaching high risk families, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Lahti, J., Green, K., Emlen, A., Clarkson, J., Quentin, D., Kuehnel, M. & Casciato, J. 1978, A follow-up study of the Oregon project, Regional Research Center for Human Services. Portland State University, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Lindsey, D. 1994 ‘Family preservation and child protection: striking the balance’, Children and Youth Services Review, 16, 5/6, 279–294.Google Scholar
MacDonald, H. 1994, ‘The ideology of family preservation’, The Public Interest, 115, Spring, 45–60.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A. N. 1995, Review of the book, ‘Putting families first: an experiment in family preservation’, Family Preservation Journal, 1, 1, 115–117.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A, N., Warsh, R., & Pine, B. A. 1993, ‘Family reunification an overview’, in Pine, B. A. Warsh, R. and Maluccio, A. N. (eds), Together again: Family reunification in foster care, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A. N., Abramcyzk, L. W. & Thomlison, B. 1996, ‘Family reunification of children in out-of-home care: research perspectives’, Child and Youth Services Review. 18, 4/5, 287–305.Google Scholar
Maunders, D. 1994, ‘Awakening from the dream: the experiences of childhood in Protestant orphan homes in Australia, Canada and the United States’, Child and Youth Care Forum, 23, 6, 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, B. S. & Link, M. K. 1990, Kinship foster care: the double edged dilemma. Task Force on Permanency Planning for Foster Children Inc, Rochester, NY.Google Scholar
McGowan, B. G. & Meezan, W. 1983, Child welfare: current dilemmas – future directions, F. E. Peacock Publishers, Itasca, IL.Google Scholar
National Commission on Family Foster Care 1991, A blueprint for fostering infants, children and youth in the 1990’s, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. K. 1996, Review of the book, Putting families first: an experiment in family preservation, Family Preservation Journal, 1, 1, 117–118.Google Scholar
Nelson, E. K., Landsman, M. J. & Deutelbaum, W. 1990, Three models of family- centered placement prevention services, Child Welfare, 69, 1, 3–21.Google Scholar
Palmer, S. E. 1995, Maintaining family ties: Inclusive practice in foster care. Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pecora, P. J., Fraser, M. W., Nelson, K. E., McCroskey, J & Meezan, W. 1995, Evaluating family-based services, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Petr, C. G. & Entriken, C. 1995, ‘Service system barriers to reunification’, Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76, 11, 523–533.Google Scholar
Pine, B., Warsh, R. & Maluccio, A. N. 1993, Together again: Family reunification in foster care, Child Welfare League of America, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H. 1991, Evaluating family preservation services, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, New York.Google Scholar
Schuerman, J. R., Rzepnicki, T. L. & Littell, J. H. 1994, Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Scott, D. 1995, ‘Child protection: paradoxes of publicity, policy and practice’ Australian Journal of Social Issues, 30, 1, 71–94.Google Scholar
Scott, D. & O’Neil, D. 1996, Beyond child rescue: Developing family centered practice at St. Luke’s, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards.Google Scholar
University of Melbourne 1993, Families First: Report of the evaluation of the pilot program. School of Social Work.Google Scholar
VanderVen, K. & Stuck, E. N. 1996, ‘Preparing agencies and workers for family contract services’. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 10, 3, 13–25.Google Scholar
Van Krieken, R. 1991, Children and the state, Allen and Unwin, Sydney.Google Scholar
Wald, M. S. 1988, ‘Family preservation: are we moving too fast’, Public Welfare, 45, 33–46, Summer.Google Scholar
Walton, E., Fraser, M. W., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J. & Walton, W. K. 1993, ‘In-home family focused reunification: an experimental study’, Child Welfare, 72, 3, 473–487.Google Scholar
Warsh, R., Pine, B. & Maluccio, A. N. 1995, ‘The meaning of family preservation, shared mission, diverse methods’, Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76, 12, 625–626.Google Scholar
Weiner, A. & Weiner, E. 1990, Expanding our options in child placement: Israel’s dependent children in care from infancy to adulthood. University Press of America, New York.Google Scholar
Weisman, M. 1994, ‘When parents are not in the best interest of the child’, The Atlantic Monthly, July, 43–63.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. K., Tripodi, T. & Grasso, A. J. 1990, ‘Youth and family characteristics: treatment histories, and service outcomes: some preliminary findings from the Boysville research program’, Child and Youth Services Review, 16, 1, 139–153.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. K., Kinney, J., Tracy, E. M. & Booth, C. 1990, Reaching high risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services, Aldine de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J. K. & Pfeiffer, S. J. 1994 ‘Research priorities in residential group care’, Child Welfare, 73, 5, 583–601.Google Scholar
Zmora, N. 1994, Orphanages reconsidered: child care institutions in progressive era, Temple University Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar