Prevention and Drug Treatment

Autor/inn/en	Testa, Mark F.; Smith, Brenda
Titel	Prevention and Drug Treatment
Quelle	In: Future of Children, 19 (2009) 2, S.147-168 (22 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1054-8289
Schlagwörter	Family Violence; Placement; Homeless People; Child Abuse; Prevention; Drug Abuse; Parents; Social Isolation; Drug Therapy; At Risk Persons; Correlation; Parent Influence; Depression (Psychology); Psychological Patterns; Intervention; Program Effectiveness; Well Being; Child Welfare; Child Safety; Parenting Skills; Foster Care; Substance Abuse; Literature Reviews + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Betriebspraktikum; Praktikum; Homeless person; Homeless persons; Obdachloser; Abuse of children; Abuse; Child; Children; Kindesmissbrauch; Missbrauch; Kind; Kinder; Prävention; Vorbeugung; Eltern; Soziale Isolation; Risikogruppe; Korrelation; Well-being; Wellness; Wohlbefinden; Kindeswohl; Pflegehilfe; Drug use; Drug consomption; Drogenkonsum
Abstract	Evidence linking alcohol and other drug abuse with child maltreatment, particularly neglect, is strong. But does substance abuse cause maltreatment? According to Mark Testa and Brenda Smith, such co-occurring risk factors as parental depression, social isolation, homelessness, or domestic violence may be more directly responsible than substance abuse itself for maltreatment. Interventions to prevent substance abuse-related maltreatment, say the authors, must attend to the underlying direct causes of both. Research on whether prevention programs reduce drug abuse or help parents control substance use and improve their parenting has had mixed results, at best. The evidence raises questions generally about the effectiveness of substance abuse services in preventing child maltreatment. Such services, for example, raise only marginally the rates at which parents are reunified with children who have been placed in foster care. The primary reason for the mixed findings, say Testa and Smith, is that almost all the parents face not only substance abuse problems but the co-occurring issues as well. To prevent recurring maltreatment and promote reunification, programs must ensure client progress in all problem areas. At some point in the intervention process, say Testa and Smith, attention must turn to the child's permanency needs and well-being. The best evidence to date suggests that substance-abusing parents pose no greater risk to their children than do parents of other children taken into child protective custody. It may be sensible, say the authors, to set a six-month timetable for parents to engage in treatment and allow twelve to eighteen months for them to show sufficient progress in all identified problem areas. After that, permanency plans should be expedited to place the child with a relative caregiver or in an adoptive home. Investing in parental recovery from substance abuse and dependence, the authors conclude, should not substitute for a comprehensive approach that addresses the multiple social and economic risks to child well-being beyond the harms associated with parental substance abuse. (Contains 1 figure and 70 endnotes.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and The Brookings Institution. 267 Wallace Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. Tel: 609-258-6979; e-mail: FOC@princeton.edu; Web site: http://www.brookings.org/index/publications.htm
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10