Intensive Family Preservation Services: A Short History but a Long Past

Intensive family preservation services (IFPS) is a program model that has been disseminated widely throughout the country, and has received federal recognition and monetary support since the early 1980s. Recently, IFPS has been criticized for seemingly being unable to prevent out-of-home placements. The authors contend that many evaluators and policy analysts have lost sight of the historical roots of IFPS, and are focusing only on recent fiscal and policy contexts when assessing IFPS program effectiveness. This article reviews the therapeutic and programmatic origins of IFPS including desired treatment outcomes, and suggests that evaluators and policy analysts redirect their focus accordingly.

Community participation in health services

This study critically analyzes and synthesizes community participation (CP) theory across disciplines, defining and beginning to map out the elements of CP according to a preliminary framework of structure, process, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate outcomes. The first study component sought to determine the impact of Sight N' Soul, a CP project utilizing neighborhood health workers (NHWs), on appointment missing in an indigent urban African-American population. It found that persons entering the vision care system through contact with an NEW were about a third less likely to miss an appointment than those persons entering the system through some other avenue. While theory in this area remains too poorly developed to hypothesize causal relationships between structure, process, and outcomes, a summary of the elements of Sight N' Soul's structure and process both developed the preliminary framework and serves as a first step to mapping these relationships. The second component of the study uncovered the elements of structure and process that may contribute to a sustained egalitarian partnership between community people and professionals, a CP program called Project HEAL. Elements of Project HEAL's structure and process included a shared belief in the program; spirituality; contribution, ownership, and reciprocation; a feeling of family; making it together; honesty, trust, and openness about conflict; the inevitability of uncertainty and change; and the guiding interactional principles of respect; love, care, and compassion; and personal responsibility. The third component analyzed the existing literature, identifying and addressing gaps and inconsistencies and highlighting areas needing more highly developed ethical analysis. Focal issues include the political, economic, and historical context of CP; the power of naming; the issue of purpose; the nature of community; the power to muster and allocate resources; and the need to move to a systems view of health and well-being, expanding our understanding of the universe of potential outcomes of CP, including iatrogenic outcomes. Intermediate outcomes might include change in community, program, and individual capacity, as well as improved health care delivery. Ultimate outcomes include increased positive interdependencies and opportunities for contribution; improved mental, physical, and spiritual health; increased social justice; and decreased exploitation. ^