What is Family Preservation and Why Does it Matter?

This paper describes competing ideas about family preservation, defined both as a defined program of social services and a philosophical approach to helping troubled families. A straightforward definition has become almost impossible because the phrase has taken on so many different meanings, provoking controversy about its "real" meaning and value. Indeed, "family preservation" has become the proverbial elephant whose splendors and horrors are described with great certainty by those impressed by only one of its aspects. While skirmishes between "child savers" and "family preservers" have been part of the child welfare field since its beginning at the turn of the last century, recent debates over family preservation have been especially heated, generating more confusion and animosity than might be expected from the ranks of the small and usually mild-mannered social work profession. The debate is so heated that the director of one of the nation's largest child welfare agencies said recently that he is afraid to "even use the two words on the same page." <1> While the debate about the value of family preservation is unresolved, experimentation with different approaches to service delivery over the last two decades has helped to lay the groundwork for a resurgence of interest in family and community-centered reforms. Better understanding of the family preservation "debates" may be helpful if these reforms are to be successful over the long term. The paper discusses the competing ideas, values, and perceptions that have led observers to their different understandings of family preservation. It briefly chronicles the history of child welfare and examines key theories that have helped lay the groundwork for the resurgence of interest in family-centered services. It concludes with observations about how the competing values at stake in family preservation may affect the next generation of reforms.

A comprehensive framework for evaluating funder's performance

Evaluation methods for assessing the performance of non-profit funders are lacking. The purpose of the research was to create a comprehensive framework that systematically assesses the goals and objectives of a funder, how these relate to the funder's allocation of resources, and the potential impact of programs and services selected by the funder for resource allocation to address organizational goals and objectives. The Houston Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure, a local chapter of a national breast cancer awareness advocacy organization, was selected as the funding agency whose performance assessment was to assist in the creation of this framework. Evaluation approaches from the government sector were adapted and incorporated into the research to guide the methods used to answer the three research questions corresponding to the three phases of research within the study: (1) what are the funding goals and objectives of the Affiliate?; (2) what allocation scheme does the organization use to address these goals and objectives and select programs for funding?; and, (3) to what extent do the programs funded by the Affiliate have potential long-term impact? ^ Within the first stage of the research, document reviews of the Affiliate's mission-based documents and bylaws and interviews with organizational and community informants revealed a highly latent constellation of broad objectives that were not formalized into one guiding document, thus creating gaps in management and governance. Within the second phase of the research, reviews of grant applications from the 2008-2009 funding cycle and interviews with employees and volunteers familiar with the funding process revealed competing ideas regarding resource allocation in light of vague organizational documents describing funding goals and objectives. Within the final stage of the research, these findings translated to the Affiliate selecting programs with highly varying potential long-term impact with regards to addressing goals and objectives relating to breast cancer education, screening, diagnostics, treatment, and support. The resulting performance assessment framework, consisting of three phases of research utilizing organizational documents and key informant interviews, demonstrated the importance of clearly defined funding goals and objectives, reference documents and committee participation within the funding process, and regular reviews of potential long-term impact for selected programs, all supported by the active participation and governance of a funder's Board of Directors.^