Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T21:03:04.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Permanency Planning: An Overview

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2024

Denzil McCotter
Denzil McCotter*
Affiliation:
Department for Community Welfare, Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Most of the pioneering work in relation to permanency planning has been carried out in Oregon by the Regional Research Institute for Human Services and the State Children's Services Department. As the Oregon project has been documented in great detail in five excellent volumes:

  1. 1. Barriers to Planning for Children in Foster Care (1976) Regional Research Institute for Human Services Portland State University;

  2. 2. Overcoming Barriers for Children in Care, (Emlen et al. 1977);

  3. 3. Permanent Planning for Children in Foster Care: A Handbook for Social Workers (Pike et al.) 1977);

  4. 4. Permanent Planning in Foster Care: A Guide for Programme Planners (Dreyer, 1978);

  5. 5. Permanent Planning in Foster Care: Resources for Training (Downs & Taylor, 1978);

and as the utilisation of the Oregon model has been encouraged by the allocation of federal funds to those States wishing to develop it for their own use, it seems appropriate to examine the model and its operation in some detail. Following this, efforts to develop permanency planning elsewhere will be examined and analysed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , Summer 1982 , pp. 3 - 7
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Regional Research Institute for Human Services (1976). Barriers to Planning for Children in Foster Care, Portland State University, Oregon.Google Scholar
2. Emlen, A: Lahti, J:Downs, G: McKay, A: & Downs, S (1977). Overcoming Barriers to Planning for Children in Care, U.S. Department of Health Education & Welfare.Google Scholar
3. Pike, V: Downs, S: Emlen, A: Downs, G: & Case, D. (1977). Permanent Planing for Children in Foster Care: A Handbook for Social Workers, U.S. Department of Health Education & Welfare.Google Scholar
4. Dreyer, L (1978). Permanent Planning in Foster Care: A Guide for Program Planners. Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, Oregon.Google Scholar
5. Downs, S, & Taylor, C. (1978). Permanent Planning in Foster Care: Resources for Training. Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, Oregon.Google Scholar
6. Lahti, J. (1978). Follow-up Study of the Oregon Project: A Summary. Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State University, Oregon.Google Scholar
7. Adcock, M. (1980). Dilemmas in Planning Long-term Care. In “New Developments in Foster Care & Adoption.” Triseliotis, J. (ed.), Routledge Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
8. Jones, M.A. (1976). Care through service to Families, Children To-Day, November-December, 7 - 10.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Benn, D. (1979). Permanency Planning & Intensive In-Home Services, Department of Health & Social Services, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
10. Atherton, C.R. (1974). Acting Decisively in Foster Care, Social Work (19), 658.Google Scholar
11. Jones, M.L. (1977). Aggressive Adoption: A Program's Effect on a Child Welfare Agency. Child Welfare LVI (6), 401–407).Google Scholar
12. Festinger, T.B. (1976). The Impact of the New York Court Review of Children in Foster Care: A Follow-up Report. Child Welfare LV (8), 515–544.Google Scholar
13. Ministry for Human Resources (1978) British Columbia. Guidelines for Family Support Worker Service, Ministry for Human Resources.Google Scholar
14. Boyd, P.E. (1979) They Can Go Home Again. Child Welfare LVIII (9), 609–615.Google Scholar
15. Ministry of Community & Social Services, Ontario (1980). Child Welfare Act, 1975 - 78.Google Scholar
16. Krymow, V.L. (1979). Obstacles Encountered in Permanent Planning for Foster Children. Children Welfare LVIII(2), 97–104.Google Scholar
17. McKay, M. (1980). Planning for Permanent Placement. Adoption & Fostering, 99 (1), 19–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. The Association of British Adoption & Fostering Agencies (1977). Which Children, Which Plan. The Association of British Adoption & Fostering Agencies.Google Scholar
19. Community Welfare Advisory Committee (1980). The Report of the Community Welfare Advisory Committee on the delivery of Community Welfare Services in South Australia.Google Scholar
20. McParland, B. (1979). 49 Children, One Year Later. Ministry for Human Resources, British Columbia.Google Scholar
21. Bowyer, M. (1980). Integrating Adoption & Fostering. Adoption & Fostering, 99 (1), 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Gill, M. (1975). The Foster Care/Adoptive Family: Adoption for Children not Legally Free. Child Welfare LIV (10), 712–720.Google Scholar
23. Raynor, L. (1980). The Adopted Child comes of Age. National Institute of Social Services.Google Scholar
24. Department of Social Welfare, New Zealand. Circular Memorandum, 1980/58.Google Scholar
25. Maluccio, A.N: Fein, E: Hamilton, J: Klien, J.L. & Ward, D. (1980). Beyond Permanency Planning. Child Welfare LIX (9), 515–531.Google Scholar
26. Clark, B. (1977). A Cause for Concern – Child Care Policy & Practice. Social Work To-Day, 9 (8), 7–10.Google Scholar
27. Kahn, A.J. (1980). The Inevitability & Hazards of Family Policy, in “Towards a National Family Policy.” The Council of Social Welfare Ministers of Australia,’ New Zealand & Papua/New Guinea, McQuarie University.Google Scholar
28. Wiltse, K.T. (1979). Decision-Making Needs in Foster Care. Children To-Day, 5 (6), 2–5.Google Scholar