Using a screening intake

 

As an aspiring social worker, I have been thinking of ways that I can make the most impact working with families in the foster care system.  One of the major issues that the system is dealing with presently is finding ways to reduce the overrepresentation of African American children in the system. The overrepresentation of African American children in the foster care system is serious problem that has plagued the system and families affected for many decades. After reading and reviewing several literature on this issue, I think one the ways of dealing with the problem is to put into practice using preventive measures for families that are encountering difficulties, but the real question is, how do we identify these families before foster care intervention process starts? Once children enter the foster care system the process becomes more like a quick fix which does not really help the children, families or the foster care system. 

How do we identify at risk families and children in our communities? From my pervious blog, we know that poverty is one of the factors that contribute to the cause of African American children in the foster care system. Perhaps adding a screening process for families who apply for federal benefits will help us identify at risk families earlier. While social services intake forms usually focus on the financial aspects of why families need federal assistance, the screening process aspect can focus on what is working and what is not working for that family. In doing so, social workers will be able to recognize other needs  that put the family  at risk and be able to provide them with strength- based tools and resources. For example, it is fact that poverty correlates with stress; therefore empowering families with de-stress techniques such as free yoga classes or even modeling de-stress techniques such as breathing exercises  will help them de-stress without becoming aggressive toward their children.

My question is, will it violate the privacy of individuals seeking federal assistance to ask them on their screening intakes if they are aggressive to their children or not?

What is your definition of reunification?

The child welfare system serve many functions in our communities, but its primary function is to reunify children from the foster care to their biological families or kinship care. Creating a successful reunification program is essential to providing stability and hope for these children. The reunification process has several working definitions and usually when people think about reunification, they think about children going home to be reunified with their biological parents or kin members, but that is not the case. I came across this definition and I thought it was unique. According to the definition, “Family reunification aims to help each child and family to achieve and maintain, at any given time, their optimum level of reconnections from full re-entry into the family to other forms of contact, such as visiting that affirm a child membership in the family (Pine, Warsh and Maluccio, 1993).  Although the definition may not serve the traditional purpose that most people think about immediately, it does serve a purpose.  My question is, do you think the definition can be deceiving for some individuals, for the mere fact that reunification could be a visit only?

 Here are a couple of tips for a successful reunification process:

     Agency leadership that demonstrates a strong commitment to family-centered practice and champions’ family engagement as a priority.

     Systems change initiatives and Program Improvement Plans with detailed strategies for achieving family and youth involvement.

 

   Policies and standards that clearly define expectations, identify requirements, and reinforce family engagement in case practice.

    Manageable caseloads and workloads allowing caseworkers to attend to the time-consuming efforts of building rapport, engaging families, actively participating in team decision-making meetings, and maintaining frequent, meaningful contact with children and families.

  Availability and accessibility of diverse services that can respond specifically to the families identified needs and conditions.

 

What is your solution?

It is no secret that African American children are overrepresented in the foster care system but one of the primary contributing factors is poverty.  According to the Bread for the World article, 27.6 % of African Americans live in poverty and that the African American child hunger and poverty rates are even greater than the national averages (bread for the world).

African American families living in acute poverty are at a disadvantage for getting housing, physical and mental health needs.  While many families facing acute poverty receive supplemental government assistance, it is not enough to meet their daily needs. Therefore children go hungry and unkempt, which  could attract the attention of children advocates and could lead to child welfare involvement.

 My question is,  what other ways can the government assist families who are experiencing acute poverty?   Will providing more housing vouchers or building more affordable housing help lower the percentage of African American children in the foster care system? Or carrying the minimum wage up, so that families can afford to purchase food and clothing for their children? Or perhaps, the government can provide these families with car vouchers so that they do not  feel limited to work certain jobs or work certain amount of hours because of the public transport schedule? What is your view??

 

                                                  

Are parents being condemned long before their day in court?

The foster care system serves hundreds of thousands of children and families every year. The primary goal of the foster care system is either to find permanent homes for the children or assist families with the reunification process.  According to Child Welfare information gateway in 2011, 400,540 children received care from the child welfare system. While some children were reunified with their families others were not, especially children who had experienced domestic or physical abused. Abused children along with others who have not been abused are placed in the concurrent process. The concurrent process is about finding a stable or permanent home for children, just in case their parents’ rights are revoked.  The child welfare system has gotten several critiques about the concurrent process practice. Opponents of the concurrent process argue that case workers do not spend ample time helping biological families work through issues in order to be reunified with their children because of the concurrent process option; therefore the concurrent process is undermining the reunification process.

The reunification process allows families 12 to 18 months to solve their challenges or their parental rights are revoked. Personally I feel this is too short of a time period, especially for parents facing acute poverty and challenges.

While the concurrent process seems like a good strategy to plan ahead for the worst outcome, it also sends out a negative a message to children and families involved. Parents coming out of a difficult situation may already feel defeated by the system and may be suffering from  low self-efficacy issues. Therefore learning another option is being examined long before they have their day in court, may be very discouraging and may cause them not try hard enough to follow the required guidelines, giving up prematurely on themselves and children. 

 My question is, what other approach is available without causing parents to feel condemned by the system?

 

What is your verdict?

 

Kinship care is the fastest growing placement in the foster care system today. It provides a safety net for about 3.2 million children living either in formal, voluntary, or informal kinship care in the United States.  Although kinship care is an ancient concept that has provided support for family units across the globe for many centuries, it became more prominent in the United States since the 1970s. There have been many studies done concerning the pros and cons of kinship care and the benefits it provides for children. These studies have become an ongoing debate among advocates and opponents. The purpose of this blog is to allow the readers to weigh in on the debate and state their opinions concerning kinship care.  

According to several studies, kinship care offers stable living conditions for children in the absence of their parents. While this is a proven fact, some opponents of kinship care argue that although living conditions are stable, they are not permanent. Children in kinship care seldom got adopted by their family members. Therefore children tend to remain under state guardianship until they are emancipated or reunified with parents. Another crucial fact that researchers tend to disagree on is children being placed with familiar people and environments.  Whereas some researchers claim that kinship care offers children familiar faces, homes and neighborhoods, which enhances the smoothness of transitioning; conversely, other researchers disagree and argue that children are exposed to overcrowded homes, poverty and similar negative situations to the homes they were initially removed from.  Lastly, according to several researchers, kinship care provides more frequent contact with parents and siblings than that of non- kinship care. Advocates of kinship care believe that allowing children to maintain contact with their parents or siblings is an excellent way to give children a sense of hope and remove the stigma of abandonment. However, some opponents feel, visitations are not as stringently supervised as they should, therefore causing children to become vulnerable to negative influences.   

Now, that you have read some facts from both sides of the debate concerning kinship care, what is your verdict?