Perceptions of Family Preservation Practitioners: A Preliminary Study

This exploratory, qualitative study examined practitioners' perceptions about family preservation practice. Findings reveal a wide range of identified strengths as well as the limitations of such a model. Interestingly, the most frequently identified strengths were value based rather than practice based in perspective whereas limitations were practice based. Keeping families together was the most common perceived strength but concern about children's safety by keeping the family intact was a frequently reported limitation. Further, lack of support and a lack of theoretical clarity were identified as considerable limitations. Implications suggest these practitioners (mostly child welfare/mental health workers) believe in the approach for the sake of keeping families together but are concerned with endangering the child in the process and recognize the need for theoretical guidance.

Family Preservation: Perceptions of Effectiveness

This qualitative study examines the attributes or perceptions of service providers and overseers as to the effectiveness of intensive family preservation services provided by a social services agency in Tucson, Arizona. The services provided are patterned after the Homebuilders' model developed in 1974 in Tacoma, Washington. Data collection was generated from interviews and focus groups with the in-home service providers, the program supervisor, and investigators and case managers with Child Protective Services (CPS). Although placement prevention rates (PPR) are the dependent variable in most studies on this form of intervention, this study seeks to understand those characteristics of the model that contribute to successful outcomes with client families. Those appear to be the short-term intervention coupled with a non-judgmental approach to client families and the clinical supervision provided by the program supervisor.

Perceptions of institutional support of community -based participatory research within prevention research centers

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) report on the future of health care states that the focus on health needs to shift to the management and prevention of chronic illnesses and that academic health centers (AHCs) should play an active role in this process through community partnerships (IOM, 2002). Grant funding from the National Institutes of Health and the creation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Prevention Research Centers (PRC) across the county represent a transition toward more proactively seeking out community partnerships to better design and disseminate health promotion programs (Green, 2001). ^ The focus of the PRCs is to conduct rigorous, community-based, prevention research, to seek outcomes applicable to public health programs and policies. The PRCs work is to create and foster partnerships among public health and community organizations, to address health promotion and disease prevention issues (CDC, 2003). ^ The W.K. Kellogg Foundation defines CBPR as "a collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community with the aim of combining knowledge and action for social change to improve community health." ^ In 1995, CDC asked the IOM to review the PRC program to examine the extent to which the program is providing the public health community with strategies to address public health problems in disease prevention and health promotion (IOM, 1997). No comprehensive evaluation n of the individual PRCs had ever been done (IOM, 1997). ^ The CDC was interested in understanding how it could better support the PRC program through improved management and oversight to influence the program's success. The CDC only represents one of the entities that influence the success of a PRC. Another key entity to consider is the support of and influence of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside. Using evaluation criteria similar to those that were developed by the IOM, this study examined how aspects of structural capacity of the Schools of Public Health in which the PRCs reside are perceived to influence PRC community-based research activities. ^