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.

New Name, New Format, New Publisher, Same Principles and Values

This issue of the Journal of Family Strengths is an opportunity for a fresh start, as the Family Preservation Journal is renewed and revived under a new name and a new format. Still keen on being a definitive record on developments in family strengths and parenting, the Journal is devoted to presenting theory, practice and evaluation articles on the strengths perspective in family preservation practice, all to assure and improve services and programs that promote and sustain family systems.

Generalized resistance resources of informal caregivers: A study of demands for care, competing demands, perception of burden and cognitive stress

This study examines the relationship among psychological resources (generalized resistance resources), care demands (demands for care, competing demands, perception of burden) and cognitive stress in a selected population of primary family caregivers. The study utilizes Antonovsky's Salutogenic Model of Health, specifically the concept of generalized resistance resources (GRRs), to analyze the relative effect of these resources on mediating cognitive stress, controlling for other care demands. The study is based on a sample of 784 eligible caregivers who (1) were relatives, (2) had the main responsibility for care, defined as a primary caregiver, and (3) provided a scaled stress score for the amount of overall care given to the care recipient (family member). The sample was drawn from the 1982 National Long-Term Care Survey (NLTCS) of individuals who assisted a given NLTCS sample person with ADL limitations.^ The study tests the following hypotheses: (a) There will be a negative relationship between generalized resistance resources (GRRs) and cognitive stress controlling for care demands (demands for care, competing demands, and perceptions of burden); (b) of the specific GRRs (material, cognitive, social, cultural-environmental) the social domain will represent the most significant factor predicting a decrease in cognitive stress; and (c) the social domain will be more significant for the female than the male primary family caregiver in decreasing cognitive stress.^ The study found that GRRs had a statistically significant mediating effect on cognitive stress, but the GRRs were a less significant predictor of stress than perception of burden and demands for care. Thus, although the analysis supported the underlying hypothesis, the specific hypothesis regarding GRRs' greater significance in buffering cognitive stress was not supported. Second, the results did not demonstrate the statistical significance or differences among the GRR domains. The hypothesis that the social GRR domain was most significant in mediating stress of family caregivers was not supported. Finally, the results confirmed that there are differences in the importance of social support help in mediating stress based on gender. It was found that gender and social support help were related to cognitive stress and gender had a statistically significant interaction effect with social support help. Implications for clinical practice, public health policy, and research are discussed. ^

Motivational interviewing and feedback for college drinkers: Handling missing values with complete case analysis and multiple imputation

Objective: In this secondary data analysis, three statistical methodologies were implemented to handle cases with missing data in a motivational interviewing and feedback study. The aim was to evaluate the impact that these methodologies have on the data analysis. ^ Methods: We first evaluated whether the assumption of missing completely at random held for this study. We then proceeded to conduct a secondary data analysis using a mixed linear model to handle missing data with three methodologies (a) complete case analysis, (b) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, and the interaction of time and treatment, and (c) multiple imputation with explicit model containing outcome variables, time, the interaction of time and treatment, and additional covariates (e.g., age, gender, smoke, years in school, marital status, housing, race/ethnicity, and if participants play on athletic team). Several comparisons were conducted including the following ones: 1) the motivation interviewing with feedback group (MIF) vs. the assessment only group (AO), the motivation interviewing group (MIO) vs. AO, and the intervention of the feedback only group (FBO) vs. AO, 2) MIF vs. FBO, and 3) MIF vs. MIO.^ Results: We first evaluated the patterns of missingness in this study, which indicated that about 13% of participants showed monotone missing patterns, and about 3.5% showed non-monotone missing patterns. Then we evaluated the assumption of missing completely at random by Little's missing completely at random (MCAR) test, in which the Chi-Square test statistic was 167.8 with 125 degrees of freedom, and its associated p-value was p=0.006, which indicated that the data could not be assumed to be missing completely at random. After that, we compared if the three different strategies reached the same results. For the comparison between MIF and AO as well as the comparison between MIF and FBO, only the multiple imputation with additional covariates by uncongenial and congenial models reached different results. For the comparison between MIF and MIO, all the methodologies for handling missing values obtained different results. ^ Discussions: The study indicated that, first, missingness was crucial in this study. Second, to understand the assumptions of the model was important since we could not identify if the data were missing at random or missing not at random. Therefore, future researches should focus on exploring more sensitivity analyses under missing not at random assumption.^