Current issue
Online first
Archive
About the Journal
Aims and Scope of the Journal
Publisher and Management organ
Editorial Team
Academic Council
The board of Reviewers
Indexation and impact factors
Copyright and open access policy
Source of funding
Privacy policy
For authors
Procedure for publication
Review procedure
Publication ethics
Publishing fees
Editorial requirements
“As a rule, we start digging a well when the house is already on fire”. Professionals on the family support system
1
Institute of Pedagogy, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Silesia in Katowice [Instytut Pedagogiki, Wydział Nauk Społecznych, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach], Grazynskiego 53, 40-126 Katowice, Poland
Submission date: 2022-09-18
Final revision date: 2022-11-16
Acceptance date: 2022-11-16
Publication date: 2022-12-13
Corresponding author
Jan Basiaga
Instytut Pedagogiki, Wydział Nauk Społecznych, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Grażyńskiego 53, 40-126 Katowice, Polska
Instytut Pedagogiki, Wydział Nauk Społecznych, Uniwersytet Śląski w Katowicach, Grażyńskiego 53, 40-126 Katowice, Polska
Wychowanie w Rodzinie 2022;28(3):171-191
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction. The focus of the Polish system of care is to provide support to families in
overcoming difficult life situations. The assistance activities are aimed at reducing the
necessity to interfere with parental rights, at the same time strengthening the effectiveness
of reintegration activities which enable restoring a child’s family.
Aim. Foster care practice shows that in Poland an average of 33% of children raised in
foster care return to their own families. In the district which was covered by the current
study, less than 19% of children manage to return to their own families. The objective of
this research is an attempt to answer the question: what factors determine the low effectiveness
of the family support system?
Research Method. Qualitative case study was applied for the purpose of this research.
Data collection was carried out with the use of a semi-directed problem-focused group
interview method. The interview was conducted in two focus groups.
Results. The subject analysis allowed to identifyication of significant problems which were
considered by both focus groups in their evaluations of the family support system. Three
of them these were identified as having most impact on the quality of its functioning. The
research findings reveal that a low effectiveness of the family support system is principally
influenced by decisions on the necessity to extend social support to families having been
taken too late. This problem is recognised at every stage of development of unfavourable
phenomena within families. As a result of such a state of affairs, family dysfunctionality is
perpetuated, which greatly influences the low effectiveness of the care system and significantly
limits the possibility of implementing effective reintegration work.
REFERENCES (59)
1.
Akin, B. A. (2011). Predictors of foster care exits to permanency: A competing risks analysis of reunification, guardianship, and adoption. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(6), 999-1011. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.01.008.
2.
Arad-Davidzon, B., Benbenishty, R. (2008). The role of workers’ attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers’ assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 107-121. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2007.07.003.
3.
Barth, R. P., Weigensberg, E. C., Fisher, P. A., Fetrow, B., Green, R. L. (2008). Reentry of elementary aged children following reunification from foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(4), 353- 364. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.002.
4.
Basiaga, J. (2014a). Problematyka sieroctwa w publikacjach medialnych. Problemy Opiekuńczo--Wychowawcze, 4, 11-20.
5.
Basiaga, J. (2014b). Zawodowa miłość. O opiece nad dziećmi w pogotowiach rodzinnych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Akademickie „Żak”.
6.
Basiaga, J. P., Róg, A., Zięba-Kołodziej, B. (2018). Professional foster families in the reunification process - Polish experience. Child and Family Social Work, 23(4), 649-656. DOI: 10.1111/CFS.12460.
7.
Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Knorth, E. J., Witteman, C. L. M., Del Valle, J. F., Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 63-75. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHIABU.2015.03.015.
8.
Brunnberg, E., Pećnik, N. (2006). Assessment processes in social work with children at risk in Sweden and Croatia. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(3), 231-241. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00456.x.
9.
Cheng, T. C. (2010). Factors associated with reunification: A longitudinal analysis of long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1311-1316. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.04.023.
10.
Choi, S., Ryan, J. P. (2007). Co-occurring problems for substance abusing mothers in child welfare: Matching services to improve family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(11), 1395-1410. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.013.
11.
Connell, C. M., Katz, K. H., Saunders, L., Tebes, J. K. (2006). Leaving foster care-the influence of child and case characteristics on foster care exit rates. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(7), 780-798. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2005.08.007.
12.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Projektowanie badań naukowych. Badania jakościowe, ilościowe i mieszane. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
13.
Delfabbro, P., Barber, J., Cooper, L. (2003). Predictors of short-term reunification in South Australia substitute care. Child Welfare, 82(1), 27-51.
14.
Delfabbro, P., Borgas, M., Rogers, N., Jeffreys, H., Wilson, R. (2009). The social and family backgrounds of infants in South Australian out-of-home care 2000-2005: Predictors of subsequent abuse notifications. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(2), 219-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.07.023.
15.
Delfabbro, P., Fernandez, E., McCormick, J., Kettler, L. (2013). Reunification in a complete entry cohort: A longitudinal study of children entering out-of-home care in Tasmania, Australia. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1592-1600. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.06.012.
16.
Esposito, T., Trocmé, N., Chabot, M., Collin-Vézina, D., Shlonsky, A., Sinha, V. (2014). Family reunification for placed children in Québec, Canada: A longitudinal study. Children and Youth Services Review, 44, 278-287. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.024.
17.
Farmer, E., Wijedasa, D. (2013). The reunification of looked after children with their parents: What contributes to return stability?. British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), 1611-1629. DOI: 10.1093/BJSW/BCS066.
18.
Fernandez, E., Lee, J. S. (2013). Accomplishing family reunification for children in care: An Australian study. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1374-1384. DOI: childyouth.2013.05.006.
19.
Fernandez, E., Lee, J. S. (2011). Returning children in care to their families: Factors associated associated with the speed of reunification [Powrót dzieci przebywających w placówkach opiekuńczych do ich rodzin: Czynniki związane z szybkością ponownego łączenia rodzin]. Child Indicators Research, 4(4), 749-765. DOI: 10.1007/s12187-011-9121-7.
20.
Flick, U. (2012). Projektowanie badania jakościowego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
21.
Główny Urząd Statystyczny (2020). Pomoc społeczna i opieka nad dzieckiem i rodziną w 2019 roku. Warszawa: GUS. Pobrane z: https://stat.gov.pl/obszary-te... [Pobrano 17.11.2023].
22.
Gold, N., Benbenishty, R., Osmo, R. (2001). A comparative study of risk assessments and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(5), 607-622. DOI: 10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00228-9.
23.
Green, B. L., Rockhill, A., Furrer, C. (2007). Does substance abuse treatment make a difference for child welfare case outcomes? A statewide longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(4), 460-473. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.08.006.
24.
Harris, M. S., Courtney, M. E. (2003b). The interaction of race, ethnicity, and family structure with respect to the timing of family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5-6), 409-429. DOI: 10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00029-X.
25.
Hayward, R. A., DePanfilis, D. (2007). Foster children with an incarcerated parent: Predictors of reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(10), 1320-1334. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.005.
26.
Hines, A. M., Lee, P. A., Osterling, K. L., Drabble, L. (2007). Factors predicting family reunification for African American, Latino, asian and white families in the child welfare system. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16(2), 275-289. DOI: 10.1007/S10826-006-9085-2.
27.
Jones, L. (1998). The social and family correlates of successful reunification of children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 20(4), 305-323. DOI: 10.1016/s0190-7409(98)00009-7.
28.
Kaczmarek, M. (2012). Szanse i bariery realizacji ustawy o wspieraniu rodziny i systemie pieczy zastępczej. Problemy Opiekuńczo-Wychowawcze, 2, 3-14.
29.
Karski, R. L. (1999). Key decisions in child protective services: Report investigation and court referral. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(8), 643-656. DOI: 10.1016/S0190-7409(99)00044-4.
30.
Kortenkamp, K., Geen, R., Stagner, M. (2004). The role of welfare and work in predicting foster care reunification rates for children of welfare recipients. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(6), 577-590. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.012.
31.
Križ, K., Skivenes, M. (2013). Systemic differences in views on risk: A comparative case vignette study of risk assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California). Children and Youth Services Review, 35(11), 1862-1870. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.001.
32.
Landsverk, J., Davis, I., Ganger, W., Newton, R., Johnson, I. (1996). Impact of child psychological functioning on reunification from out-of-home placement. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 447-462. DOI: 10.1016/0190-7409(96)00014-X.
33.
Leathers, S. J., Falconnier, L., Spielfogel, J. E. (2010a). Predicting family reunification, adoption, and subsidized guardianship among adolescents in foster care. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 80(3), 422-431. DOI: 10.1111/J.1939-0025.2010.01045.X.
34.
López, M., Fluke, J. D., Benbenishty, R., Knorth, E. J. (2015). Commentary on decision-making and judgments in child maltreatment prevention and response: An overview. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 1-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.08.013.
35.
Luberadzka-Gruca, J. (2011). Wspieranie rodziny i piecza zastępcza w świetle nowej ustawy. Problemy Opiekuńczo-Wychowawcze, 10, 11-19.
36.
Malm, K. E., Zielewski, E. H. (2009a). Nonresident father support and reunification outcomes for children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(9), 1010-1018. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2009.04.016.
37.
Marsh, J. C., Ryan, J. P., Choi, S., Testa, M. F. (2006). Integrated services for families with multiple problems: Obstacles to family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(9), 1074-1087. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHILDYOUTH.2005.10.012.
38.
McSherry, D., Weatherall, K., Larkin, E., Malet, M. F., Kelly, G. (2010). Who goes where? Young children’s pathways through care in Northern Ireland [Kto gdzie idzie? Ścieżki rozwoju małych dzieci w Irlandii Północnej]. Adoption and Fostering, 34, 123-137. DOI: 10.1177/030857591003400205.
39.
Ministerstwo Rodziny i Polityki Społecznej (2021). Informacja Rady Ministrów o realizacji w roku 2020 ustawy z dnia 9 czerwca 2011 r. o wspieraniu rodziny i systemie pieczy zastępczej. Pobrane z: https://www.gov.pl/web/rodzina... [Pobrano 17.11.2023].
40.
Munro, E. (2019). Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture [Podejmowanie decyzji w warunkach niepewności w ochronie dzieci: Tworzenie kultury sprawiedliwej i uczącej się]. Child and Family Social Work, 24(1), 123-130. DOI: 10.1111/CFS.12589.
41.
Noonan, K., Burke, K. (2005). Termination of parental rights: Which foster care children are affected? [Wypowiedzenie praw rodzicielskich: Których dzieci z pieczy zastępczej to dotyczy?]. Social Science Journal, 42(2), 241-256. DOI: 10.1016/J.SOSCIJ.2005.03.012.
42.
Osmo, R., Benbenishty, R. (2004). Children at risk: Rationales for risk assessments and interventions [Dzieci zagrożone: Przesłanki do oceny ryzyka i interwencji]. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(12), 1155-1173. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.05.006.
43.
Rosenberg, S. A., Robinson, C. C. (2004). Out-of-home placement for young children with developmental and medical conditions [Umieszczenie poza domem małych dzieci z zaburzeniami rozwojowymi i medycznymi]. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(8), 711-723. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.02.016.
44.
Rubacha, K. (2008). Metodologia badań nad edukacją. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne.
45.
Schaeffer, C. M., Swenson, C. C., Tuerk, E. H., Henggeler, S. W. (2013). Comprehensive treatment for co-occurring child maltreatment and parental substance abuse: Outcomes from a 24-month pilot study of the MST-Building Stronger Families program [Kompleksowe leczenie współwystępowania przemocy wobec dzieci i nadużywania substancji przez rodziców: Wyniki 24-miesięcznego badania pilotażowego programu MST-Building Stronger Families]. Child Abuse and Neglect, 37(8), 596-607. DOI: 10.1016/J.CHIABU.2013.04.004.
46.
Shaw, T. V. (2006). Reentry into the foster care system after reunification [Powrót do systemu opieki zastępczej po połączeniu z rodziną]. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(11), 1375-1390. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.02.006.
47.
Shaw, T. V. (2010). Reunification from foster care: Informing measures over time [Ponowne łączenie rodzin z pieczy zastępczej: Informowanie o środkach w czasie]. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(4), 475-481. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.09.013.
48.
Stake, R. S. (2014). Jakościowe studium przypadku. W: N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (Red.), Metody badań jakościowych, t. 1. (s. 623-654). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
49.
Ubbesen, M. B., Petersen, L., Mortensen, P. B., Kristensen, O. S. (2012). Out of care and into care again: A Danish register-based study of children placed in out-of-home care before their third birthday [Poza opieką i ponownie pod opieką: Duńskie badanie oparte na rejestrze dzieci umieszczonych w opiece pozadomowej przed trzecimi urodzinami]. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(11), 2147-2155. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.07.014.
50.
Ustawa o wspieraniu rodziny i systemie pieczy zastępczej, Dz. U. 2011, nr 149, poz. 887.
51.
van Santen, E. (2010). Predictors of exit type and length of stay in non-kinship family foster care - The German experience [Predyktory typu wyjścia i długości pobytu w rodzinnej pieczy zastępczej niespokrewnionej - Doświadczenia niemieckie]. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(10), 1211-1222. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.04.001.
52.
Vanderploeg, J. J., Connell, C. M., Caron, C., Saunders, L., Katz, K. H., Tebes, J. K. (2007). The impact of parental alcohol or drug removals on foster care placement experiences: A matched comparison group study [Wpływ usunięcia rodziców z domu pod wpływem alkoholu lub narkotyków na doświadczenia związane z umieszczeniem w pieczy zastępczej: Badanie z dopasowaną grupą porównawczą]. Child Maltreatment, 12(2), 125-136. DOI: 10.1177/1077559507299292.
53.
Wells, K., Guo, S. (2004). Reunification of foster children before and after welfare reform [Łączenie dzieci z rodzin zastępczych przed i po reformie opieki społecznej]. Social Service Review, 78(1), 74-95. DOI: 10.1086/380766.
54.
Wells, K., Guo, S. (2006). Welfare reform and child welfare outcomes: A multiple-cohort study [Reforma opieki społecznej a wyniki opieki nad dziećmi: Badanie z udziałem wielu kohort]. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(8), 941-960. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.009.
55.
Wulczyn, F. (2003). Closing the gap: Are changing exit patterns reducing the time African American children spend in foster care relative to caucasian children? [Zamykanie luki: Czy zmieniające się wzorce wyjścia zmniejszają czas, jaki afroamerykańskie dzieci spędzają w pieczy zastępczej w stosunku do dzieci rasy kaukaskiej?] Children and Youth Services Review, 25(5-6), 431-462. DOI: 10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00030-6.
56.
Wulczyn, F. (2004). Family reunification [Łączenie rodzin]. Future of Children, 14(1), 95-113. DOI: 10.2307/1602756.
57.
Wulczyn, F., Chen, L., Courtney, M. (2011). Family reunification in a social structural context [Łączenie rodzin w społecznym kontekście strukturalnym]. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(3), 424-430. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.06.021.
58.
Wulczyn, F., Kogan, J., Harden, B. J. (2003). Placement stability and movement trajectories [Stabilność umieszczenia i trajektorie ruchu]. Social Service Review, 77(2), 212-236. DOI: 10.1086/373906.
59.
Yampolskaya, S., Armstrong, M. I., Vargo, A. C. (2007). Factors associated with exiting and reentry into out-of-home care under Community-Based Care in Florida [Czynniki związane z wyjściem i powrotem do opieki pozadomowej w ramach Community-Based Care na Florydzie]. Children and Youth Services Review, 29(10), 1352-1367. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.05.010.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
