Editorial: The Demands of Protection, Preservation,and Permanency: Where Has Family Preservation Gone?

This Journal issue provides three important articles that will aid us in explaining what we do in service to families. We are very pleased to have the opportunity to print a major address delivered by William Meezan on "Translating Rhetoric to Reality: The Future of Family and Children's Services." The challenges of serving families under an evolution of models in Kansas is presented in "Family Preservation Services Under Managed Care: Current Practices and Future Directions" by Melanie Pheatt, Becky Douglas, Lori Wilson, Jody Brook, and Marianne Berry. What people doing the work think is addressed by the piece titled, "Perceptions of Family Preservation Practitioners: A Preliminary Study" by Judith Hilbert, Alvin L. Sallee, and James K. Ott. Finally, this issue presents a number of very interesting reviews of new resources.

Family Preservation Journal, 2000, Volume 5, Issue 1. (Entire issue)

Entire issue (large pdf file) Articles include: Translating Rhetoric to Reality: The Future of Family and Children's Services. William Meezan Family Preservation Services under Managed Care: Current Practices and Future Directions. Melanie Pheatt, Becky Douglas, Lori Wilson, Jody Brook, and Marianne Berry Perceptions of Family Preservation Practitioners: A Preliminary Study Judith C. Hilbert, Alvin Sallee, and James K. Ott

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.