Intensive family preservation programs emerged in the mid-1970's in response to an exponential increase in child abuse and neglect reporting and a similar exponential increase in foster care placements and the cost to public child welfare agencies of such placements. Also, the conceptual model that explained child maltreatment shifted in the 1970's away from a medical, psychopathological model to a more social model that emphasized stress, poverty, social isolation, and lack of proper parenting behaviors and skills. It was assumed family preservation programs would be effective, based on assumptions about causes of child abuse and neglect, the cost-effectiveness of programs, and the belief that children are better off with their birth parents. Policies and practices of family preservation and reunification programs are noted. The author points out that, although intensive family preservation programs have been and continue to be touted as cost-effective and able to balance child safety with the goal of family preservation, rigorous empirical research has yet to support these claims. He contends that the current debate about family preservation and child safety resembles the swing of a pendulum and that forces behind pendulum changes from one side to other tend to be high profile cases of child abuse fatalities or inappropriate intrusions of child welfare agencies into families who have not placed their children at risk. The author suggests a more constructive discussion is to examine under what conditions family preservation may be effective if such services are better targeted to families where there is a low risk of abuse and a high likelihood of change. 29 references and 1 figure