Intensive Family Reunification Services: A Conceptual Framework and Case Example

Recent federal mandates require child welfare agencies to make reasonable efforts to reunify families after out-of-home placement. Consistent with those mandates, agencies are increasingly employing techniques from family preservation services intended initially to prevent out-of-home placement. The purpose of this article is to articulate a conceptual framework and practice guidelines for family reunification services and to describe an experimental reunification program based on a family preservation model. A case example illustrates the way in which the services affected one family that participated in the experiment.

A Renewed Day for Family Preservation

The philosophy and principles of family preservation have emerged in new forms over the past eight years. From the Family Preservation and Support Act of 1993 to the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of today, the value of the family to individuals and society is clear. While family preservation "programs" per se may not be as plentiful, the principals are founding almost every array of services from children, corrections, D.D. to mental health and work with the elderly. The Administration's priorities of healthy marriage, fatherhood, incarcerated parents, and faith-based programs reflect a family-centered approach to social issues. This redefining of the village will require our renewed efforts to articulate the importance of family centered practice and policy.

Social Workers' Perceptions of Family Preservation Programs

The passage of the Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997, with its focus on child safety and concurrent planning, has presented family preservation workers with new challenges and new opportunities. Twenty volunteers from a large comprehensive social service agency were interviewed to determine their experiences with two models of family preservation—Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Traditional Family Preservation Service (TFPS) or practice as usual. Workers from both programs were able to articulate values consistent with family preservation as important strengths of the programs— keeping families together and empowering families for example. Information from referring agencies was described as variable and not especially useful when working with seriously troubled families, especially as it related to risk and child safety. Both groups indicated that the jargon of family preservation had permeated their agencies, and that working with other agencies was at times a challenge, though for different reasons. Finally, despite some reservations about the effectiveness of short-term treatment with families that face serious challenges, both groups of workers were generally satisfied with family preservation as an approach to practice.