|
Supporting Rationale (continued)
In the adult welfare model, with more thorough and comprehensive service provisions (similar to those found in family drug courts), a great deal of therapeutic and holistic interventions can be not only applied to the children but also to the adults. Children can be given a multitude of "home preservation and youth services" (see Appendix G, Phase III) allowing them to remain in their natural homes while abusive parents undergo treatment. In the crucible of the new adult welfare system, adults will be able to change abusive patterns and, simultaneously children can be protected and safe while they continue to live in familiar environments.
As the research suggests, the existing child welfare system fails to consistently provide successful long-term outcomes (Blome, 1997). Finding placements for children is not necessarily a true measure of success. Once permanency planning (the idea of moving a child to a final placement) became a priority, placement became a focus with little attention paid to family supportive services (Schorr, 2000); Schorr suggests that children would often be returned home after having "received little service in foster care. [And] when they were returned home, the reasons they had been removed had not even been addressed" (p. 130).
Ultimately, short-term outcomes must show stability in the young lives of children, while long term outcomes must show that transitions into adulthood, lead to productive lives. Additionally, assistance to parents, and whether or not they are successful once treatment is applied, must be factored into what child welfare professionals define as desired outcomes.
The Adult Welfare Project Format
Public Presentation Details
A large part of the Adult Welfare project is contained in these pages, consumed by more than 100 pages of text, which also includes a sizable literature review; it is very much research based. But that is only one part of the Adult Welfare project.
The second component of the Adult Welfare project is the public presentation. The project, while largely research oriented, ultimately results in a public presentation that is delivered to social service professionals, college professors, agency directors, social workers, professional therapists, child abuse victims, members of the clergy, and former foster parents.
In the context of a group setting, where social service professionals and others are gathered, a presentation is given that outlines the various strengths and weaknesses of existing child welfare practices, and the idea of an adult welfare system iss propagated. During the presentation not only are existing child welfare programs reviewed and discussed, but also a diagrammed model (Appendix F) of an adult welfare system is highlighted and distributed. In conjunction with recent developments in child welfare (such as family drug courts) the adult welfare system is promulgated as a better way for dealing with abuse and neglect. The model is a flow chart (Appendix F) for the proposed system, which begins with the origination of an abuse report, to the termination of treatment provisions.
The format of the presentation includes the use of Power Point® slides (Appendix D). Power Point® provides a dynamic medium where computer generated slides are shown on a large screen, and the slides include a wide range of text and graphics. Various adult welfare handouts (for example, the 5 Phase Adult Welfare Flowchart, and the diagrammed adult welfare model) are given to each attendee so that they have materials that can easily be reviewed and referenced at a later time.
A presentation to professionals is a good way, and perhaps the easiest way, to promote the suggestion of an adult welfare system to those who already have an interest in child welfare. Such a format provides the forum where this new idea can be discussed, dissected, and analyzed. And with a multitude of different levels of child welfare professionals in attendance, from direct care to administration, intelligent and realistic expectations of adult welfare are discussed during the final 30-minute question and answer period.
Public Presentation of Adult Welfare Concepts
Outline (public presentation details intentionally omitted)
Presentation Section One - Opening Remarks
Presentation Section Two - Introduction of Problem - Child Welfare in Disarray
Presentation Section Three - Does Anybody Really Know the Answer?
Presentation Section Four - Interactive - How Do You Determine Success?
Presentation Section Five - Introducing the adult welfare system
Presentation Section Six - Reality Check
Presentation Section Seven - What Next?
Presentation Section Eight - Let the Dialogue Begin
Criteria for Presentation Evaluation
In addition to the literature review and research references used to discuss the current child welfare system, there are a couple other evaluative components for the adult welfare proposal. A presentation evaluation form (Appendix H) was developed and is used for each presentation) and distributed so that attendees of the Adult Welfare public presentation could/can complete the evaluation. The evaluation form includes six questions about the presentation. Five of the questions include a four-point scale ranking various areas of the presentation and the overall proposal of adult welfare. A desired outcome of the evaluation was that at least 80% of those who attend(ed) the presentation complete the evaluation (96% actually did so), and that at least 80% of those who completed the evaluation would rate each questioned area favorably, as good or excellent (86% actually did so). Additionally, a video recording of the actual presentation was made (Appendix I).
Conclusions for the Adult Welfare Project
Presentation Outcomes
100% of those who completed the evaluation form agreed or strongly agreed that the current child welfare system is in need of transformation; compared with the total number in attendance (for one presentation) 96% agreed with the presented concepts. Numerous professionals agreed that the current system is lacking, and that they were willing to consider far-reaching and new concepts for change; 82% of the evaluations indicated that the idea of adult welfare was either "good" or "excellent."
Agreeing that the system falls gravely short is only the first step in moving toward change. If true change is going to be implemented, the professionals in the field of child welfare will have to, as they did in the initial presentation, agree and buy into the idea that concerted rehabilitation efforts logically belong to those who are abusers, and not only to those who are victims.
It was anticipated that many child welfare professionals were going to perceive adult welfare as too idealistic, or too radical to be promoted to the larger child welfare community. To the contrary, 91% of the evaluations clearly revealed that those who attended the presentation would recommend that others in social services also attend. Ultimately, several members of the audience suggested that the presentation be duplicated for very large organizations such as the Florida Department of Children and Families. Regardless, the possibility that child welfare professionals would be resistant to changing the system, which they often perceive as being as good as it gets, was highly expected, however that assumption proved to be erroneous.
Even as there has been a long-standing convention that says removing children from their homes is "in the best interest of the child," the opposite idea of leaving children in their homes appeared to be widely accepted. Conceptually, adult welfare was reported to be both believable and persuasive by 91% of the responders. Social service professionals not only endorsed the idea of adult welfare, but all of the comments made were highly supportive of adult welfare (see Appendix I, question and answer segment). To attempt to keep children in their homes, and to protect children while simultaneously treating the abusers, and then attempting to put the families back together again, was widely endorsed and accepted.
Those who evaluated the presentation rated the professionalism of the presenter as either "good" or "excellent" however not everyone noted full agreement or endorsement of adult welfare ideologies. One comment, likely in response to the idea that parents can undergo treatment or instead go to jail, simply stated that "social services already oversteps their bounds…Power in one's hand becomes destructive." Another comment questioned the feasibility of keeping children in their homes: "I do somewhat like the idea of keeping the child in the home. But is it realistic?"
Several people suggested changing the name from "adult welfare" to something that does not imply welfare. The argument was that adult welfare can be perceived not as something related to child abuse and neglect. One author, Amy Price, who has done a great deal of child welfare research (who has been referenced in this report on several occasions) said in a personal email that maybe a better suited name for the model would be "family welfare system" (July 24, 2003). Nevertheless, a name change is likely in order.
|
|
