The following posts, by NA and AG meet these requirements: Post an explanation of the role of family preservation in child welfare. Then, explain whether research supports the assumption that foster care is harmful for children, as presented by the cornerstone argument for family preservation. Be sure to include whether you agree with this assumption and why you agree or disagree. Subsequently, identify the gaps in your state foster care system that contribute to the idea that foster care is harmful to children. Then, compare the benefits and shortfalls of permanency planning and family preservation. Finally, provide a description of whether you prefer the permanency or the family preservation approach as a child welfare social worker and why you prefer it.
Paper For Above instruction
Child welfare policies aim to promote the well-being and safety of children by balancing family preservation initiatives with foster care interventions. Family preservation focuses on maintaining the child's placement within their biological family whenever it is safe and feasible, emphasizing support services to strengthen the family unit. This approach aims to prevent unnecessary removal and reduce trauma associated with foster care, aligning with the idea that staying connected to one's family supports healthy psychosocial development (Popple & Leighninger, 2019).
Research offers mixed insights into the assumption that foster care is inherently harmful for children. Numerous studies highlight the adverse effects of multiple foster placements, including attachment disruptions, psychological distress, and difficulties in forming secure relationships (Newton et al., 2000). Children in foster care often experience feelings of abandonment, loss, and identity disruptions, which can have long-lasting implications (Zeanah et al., 2014). Since foster care can be a traumatic experience if not managed carefully, the cornerstone argument for family preservation rests on the premise that maintaining family ties—or restoring them—can mitigate these risks (Doyle, 2007).
I agree with the assumption that foster care can be harmful if it results in repeated disruptions, lack of permanent attachment, or placement instability. Therefore, prioritizing family preservation aligns with efforts to minimize these harms, provided that safety and well-being are not compromised (Davis et al., 2007). When children are safely maintained within their biological families, they are more likely to experience continuity in routines, relationships, and cultural identity, which supports healthier development (Epstein, 2017).
In examining the gaps within our state foster care system, it becomes evident that issues such as case overload, inadequate mental health services, and systemic biases contribute to environments where foster care may inadvertently cause harm. For instance, in Ohio, case workers face large caseloads that limit their capacity to provide individualized, timely support (Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 2014). Furthermore, interventions often focus predominantly on addressing immediate safety concerns, sometimes neglecting the broader familial context or long-term solutions. This can result in premature removals or serial placements, exacerbating trauma and instability (Benedict et al., 2019).
Comparing permanency planning and family preservation reveals distinct benefits and shortcomings. Permanency planning aims to establish a stable, long-term living arrangement—be it reunification, guardianship, or adoption—that provides the child with consistent and lasting connections (Sstate et al., 2014). Its benefits include fostering attachment security and reducing the risk of repeated placement disruptions. However, a potential shortfall is that it may prioritize permanency over family reunification without adequately addressing the underlying issues or the quality of caregiving environments (Neigh et al., 2019).
Family preservation, on the other hand, seeks to strengthen families to enable safe reunification or stability within the biological family. Its benefits include preserving cultural identity and reducing trauma linked to removal. Nonetheless, its shortfalls include possible cases where insufficient resources or assessment lead to the preservation of unsafe or neglectful environments, thereby compromising child safety (Morton, 2016). Additionally, poorly implemented preservation efforts might allow for superficial compliance rather than meaningful family change.
As a child welfare social worker, I prefer the permanency approach because it prioritizes establishing a stable, lasting environment for children when family reunification is unviable or unsafe. I believe that a focus on permanency—when thoughtfully combined with family preservation efforts—can ensure children’s needs for stability, routine, and healthy attachments are met. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that a balanced approach, where preservation is pursued vigorously before considering permanent placement, is critical for adequately supporting children and families (Pecora et al., 2012). Ultimately, my stance aligns with the belief that permanency provides children with the best foundation for healthy development, provided it is pursued ethically and with sensitivity to their individual circumstances.
References
Benedict, J., Zoltan, C., & Orel, K. (2019). Addressing placement instability in foster care: Strategies and outcomes. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 28(6), 1650-1662.
Davis, J. M., Smith, A., & Johnson, L. (2007). Family-centered practice in child welfare: Supporting safe and stable families. Child Welfare, 86(4), 123-137.
Doyle, J. (2007). Child welfare and child outcomes: The role of placement stability and family connections. The Future of Children, 17(2), 39-55.
Epstein, H. R. (2017). Kinship care is better for children and families. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov
Neigh, D., Ross, K., & Williams, M. (2019). Evaluating the impact of permanency planning on child outcomes. Social Service Review, 93(3), 392-418.
Newton, R. R., Litrownik, A. J., & Clearwater, C. (2000). Understanding attachment among children in foster care. Child & Family Social Work, 5(4), 251-262.
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. (2014). State of Ohio Child and Family Services Plan. https://jfs.ohio.gov
Popple, P. R., & Leighninger, L. (2019). The policy-based profession: An introduction to social welfare policy analysis for social workers (7th ed.). Pearson.
Zeanah, C. H., Berlin, L. J., & Boris, N. W. (2014). State of the science of early childhood development: Research and implications for practice. Child Development Perspectives, 8(4), 245–250.