As seen in recent evaluative studies, family foster care is in crisis in Australia, the UK and the USA, as in other Western countries. Although it has the potential to provide children and young people with nurturing substitute families, such a service cannot be expected to serve adequately all youth at risk of abuse, neglect and separation from their birth families. Anthony Maluccio and Frank Ainsworth argue that in order to promote the effectiveness of family foster care, we need to engage in further research, particularly in regard to what fostering can and cannot do, how agencies can reduce stress on foster carers and how to enhance policies and programmes dealing with the consequences of multiple placements, placement disruptions and problematic patterns of parental contact.
Australian Government, Report on Government Services, Canberra: ACT, 2006.
2.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Child Protection Australia — 2004–05, Canberra: ACT, 2006.
3.
BarberJ GDelfabbroP HCooperL, ‘Placement disruption and dislocation in South Australian substitute care’, Children Australia25:2, pp 16–20, 2000.
4.
BerridgeD, ‘Fostering Now: Messages from research: a summary’, Adoption & Fostering29:4, pp 6–8, 2005.
5.
BullockRCourtneyM EParkerRSinclairIThoburnJ, ‘Can the corporate state parent?’, Children and Youth Services Review28, pp 1344–58, 2006.
6.
CairnsK, ‘Making sense — the use of theory and research to support foster care’, Adoption & Fostering26:2, pp 6–13, 2002.
7.
ChamberlainP, ‘What works in treatment foster care?’, in KlugerM PAlexanderGandCurtisP A (eds), What Works in Child Welfare, Washington, DC: CWLA Press, 2001.
8.
ColtonMWilliamsM, ‘The nature of foster care: international trends’, Adoption & Fostering21:2, pp 44–9, 1997.
9.
D'AndradeA C, ‘Placement stability in foster care’, in MallonG PMcCarttHess P (eds), Child Welfare for the 21st Century: A handbook of practices, policies and programs, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005.
10.
EhrieJGeenR, ‘Kin and non-kin foster care: findings from a national survey’, Children and Youth Services Review24:1, pp 15–35, 2002.
11.
HaightW LBlackJ EMangelsdorfSGiorgioGTataLSchoppeS JSzeczykM, ‘Making visits better: the perspectives of parents, foster parents and child welfare workers’, Child Welfare81:2, pp 173–202, 2002.
12.
HegarR LScannapiecoM, (eds), Kinship Foster Care — Policy, practice, and research, New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
13.
LittleM, Prevention and Early Intervention with Children in Need, Aldershot: Ashgate, 1999.
14.
LittleM, ‘Time for a change: a review of Fostering Now and other programmes of research on children in need’, Adoption & Fostering29:4, pp 9–22, 2006.
15.
MaluccioA NPineB ATracyE M, Social Work Practice with Families and Children, New York: Columbia University Press, 2002.
16.
MaluccioA NCanaliCVecchiatoT, (eds), Measuring Success in Child and Family Services: Methodological and organizational challenges in agency-centered evaluation, New York/London: Oxford University Press, in press.
17.
McAuleyCTrewK, ‘Children's adjustment over time in foster care: cross-informant agreement, stability, and placement disruption’, British Journal of Social Work30:1, pp 91–107, 2000.
18.
McAuleyCPecoraP JRoseW, (eds), Enhancing the Well-being of Children and Families through Effective Interventions, London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 2006.
19.
ScottDO'NeillCMingeA, Contact Between Children in Out-of-home Care and their Birth Families: Literature review, Sydney: Department of Community Services, 2005.
