2008 Oxford

Anneke Vinke, PhD Child Psychologist/ General Health Psychologist

www.adoptiepraktijk.nl

Issues in Kinship Care : assessment and support in Dutch kinship foster care

Flexus Foster Care Rotterdam

Outline

• Perspectives – Context of Dutch foster care– Flexus

• Practice issues– Training: questions and needs

• Future developments

Context: Dutch Foster Care

28 Foster Care FacilitiesLocal organization (15 regions)2007: 20591 children in DutchFoster

Care,of whom > 33 % in kinship care

City regions up to 80% in kinship care

Youth care System in the Netherlands

Centre for Youth and Family (local)Bureau of Youth Care (province)

Youth Care (voluntary)Mental HealthChild Protection (involuntary) judge

Private Practice

Routing formal Youth Care

Flexus Foster care

Rotterdam RegionMulticultural society Up to 80% kinship care placementsDifferent procedure for acceptanceNeed for strengthening assessment

and support in kinship careTraining and development (2006

ongoing)

Perspectives: conflicts of interest?

Family perspective child perspective?

Short term solution long term solution

Freedom of choice responsibility for child safety

and well beingFoster care facility family

Statistics and research findings

Is there a difference between kinship and regular foster care ? (Strijker, Zandberg &vd Meulen,

2001; Broad, 2001; Calder & Talbot, 2005)

Defining the children’s needs in regard to fostering

Practice issues

• Routes into kinship care• Double parenthood & contact issues• Formal requirements & practical

pitfalls• Timing• Knowledge & skills• Transparency

Bring in the theory: evidence base!

• Child development theory • Decision making framework• Parenting capacities• Risk and protective factors • Risk assessment

Transparency

Honour good practices: practice base!

Evaluate good practicesMake implicite practical knowledge

explicitRaise awareness (e.g personal

reference points)Find anchor point in existing

procedures to improve practice

Professional intuition:human factor! (Munro,2002)

• Formal knowledge: Evidence Base• Work experience : Practice Base• Emotional wisdom• Values: Value Base• Reasoning skills

Human elements need to be honoured

Framework (DoH, 2000)

Adapted for kinship care (Calder & Talbot, 2006)

Assessment: what do children need from their foster care workers?

• Sound theoretical basis -> tools • Decision making framework• Honouring the human element• Transparent choices• Ongoing training and supervision • Monitoring by research

Risk issues: good enough?

Which risks weighs most?

What needs to be done to counter the risks?

Which risks can be changed in due time?

Which strengths can be used to counter the risks?

Need for systematic risk evaluation (checklist, instrument)

Risk evaluation:an example (Turnell & Edwards,

1999)

‘Child protection work makes heavy demands on reasoning skills. With an issue as important as children’s welfare, it is vital to have the best standard of thinking that is humanly possible. Mistakes are costly to the child and the family. Overestimating the danger is as harmful as underestimating it’ Munro (2002, p. 161)

Training

• Adressing the knowledge, skills and personal base of foster care work

• Introducing tools (SoS, decision threshold, intuitive reasoning, risk assessment instruments)

• Education permanente (1 - 2 * each year)

Evaluation by Flexus workers (n=40)

Training and tools were evaluated positively

Increased sense of professionalismIncreased transparency in decision

making

Future directions

Monitoring and feedback

Need for more training on- Cultural sensitivity- Good enough parenting- Risk evaluation instruments

New training planned (fall 2008)

References

Meer lezen....

• Berge, I.J. ten & Bakker, A. (2005). Veilig Thuis? Utrecht: NIZW• Berge, I.J. ten, & Vinke, A. (2006 – in press). Methodiek en

hulpmiddelen ORBA, Onderzoek Risicotaxatie Besluitvorming AMK’s. Utrecht/Woerden: NIZW/Adviesbureau Van Montfoort.

• Broad, B. (2006). Some advantages and disadvantages of kinship care: a view from research. In : C. Talbot & M.C. Calder. Assessment in Kinship Care. Dorset: Russell House Publishing.

• Dalgleish, L.I. (1997). Risk assessment and decision making in child protection. Brisbane, Australia: The University of Queensland, Department of Psychology.

• Munro, E. (2002). Effective child protection. London: Sage.• Pas, A. van der (2006, 4e dr.). Naar een psychologie van het

ouderschap. Handboek methodische ouderbegeleiding, deel 2. Utrecht: SWP

References• Turnell A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of Safety. A solution and safety

oriented approach to child protection casework. New York/London: W.W. Norton.

• Talbot, C. &. Calder (2006). Assessment in Kinship Care. Dorset: Russell House Publishing.

• Talbot, C. (2006). Kinship Care: the Research Evidence. In : C. Talbot & M.C. Calder. Assessment in Kinship Care. Dorset: Russell House Publishing.

• Vinke, J.G. (1999). Geschikt voor het adoptiefouderschap? De ontwikkeling en het gebruik van een taxatie-instrument voor gezinsfunctioneren met het oog op interlandelijke adoptie. Delft: Eburon.

• Vinke, J.G. & Mortel, M. vd. (2003) Methodisch bronnenboek Netwerkverkenning. Utrecht/ Woerden: VvP de Rading / Adviesbureau Van Montfoort.

• Vinke J.G. (2004). Methodisch bronnenboek Van Huis Naar Thuis - hulpverleningsvariant pleegzorg. Utrecht/ Woerden: VvP de Rading / Adviesbureau Van Montfoort.

• Scripties via: http://ppswmm.ppsw.rug.nl/~strijker/

Acknowledgments

Flexus Foster Care Rotterdam

Leiden University ADOC www.adoptionresearch.nl