1. Reunification – Old and New Information Diana J. English PhD Child Welfare League of America May 30, 2007

2. The research upon which this presentation is based, “An Evaluation of Two Family Reunification and Stabilization Programs,” was supported by a grant (#90CW1128) from the Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau, and by The Washington State Department of Social and Health Services.

3. Prior Research on Reunification and Re-entry Overall, prior research has found little effect of FPS services Overall, prior research has found little effect of FPS services This research has been criticized for design and methodological flaws This research has been criticized for design and methodological flaws –Lack of standardized assessment –Non-randomized –Referral criteria (Frazer et al., 1997; Heneghan et al., 1996)

4. Prior Research on Reunification and Re-entry Across studies reunification rates 40-100% and re-entry rates 12-31%. Call for additional research on criteria for referral to FRSS services and match between service and identified need

5. Factors That Predict Re-entry Child Factors Child Factors –Age –Ethnicity –Behavior problems/truancy –Medical problems –Ambivalence to reunification

6. Factors That Predict Re-Entry - Caregiver Motivation Motivation Substance Abuse Substance Abuse Lack of Social Support Lack of Social Support Lack of Parenting Skills Lack of Parenting Skills Caregiver History of Abuse/Neglect as a Child Caregiver History of Abuse/Neglect as a Child Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Stress Stress Previous Experience with Intervention Previous Experience with Intervention Multiple Problems Multiple Problems Prior Criminal History Prior Criminal History (English et al., 2006) (English et al., 2006)

7. Factors That Predict Re-Entry - System Child in placement longer than 10 weeks – 50% less likely to reunify (also predicted re-entry) (Goerge, 1990). Child in placement longer than 10 weeks – 50% less likely to reunify (also predicted re-entry) (Goerge, 1990). Reunification often occurs without proper resolution of problems. Reunification often occurs without proper resolution of problems.

8. Washington State – FRSS Study Included interviews with approximately 500 Social Workers for FRSS referred and Non-FRSS referred families Included interviews with approximately 500 Social Workers for FRSS referred and Non-FRSS referred families Data on: Data on: –Child Characteristics –Caregiver Characteristics –Services –Outcomes

9. Washington FRSS Study Non-FRSS – 41% reunification Non-FRSS – 41% reunification FRSS – 52% reunification FRSS – 52% reunification - within 15 months of placement. No difference in re-referral rate or re-entry rate. No difference in re-referral rate or re-entry rate. 15-18% re-referred 15-18% re-referred 11-14% re-entered 11-14% re-entered

10. Washington FRSS Study – General Characteristics of Study Families FRSS Reunification Services FRSS Reunification Services –Prior placement –CA/N reason for removal –Physical abuse index referral –Permanency Plan of return home –Parenting skills problems –Children with some developmental delays Non-FRSS Non-FRSS –More infants –Fewer 6-12 year olds –Younger caregivers –Less social support –Substance abuse risk

11. Selected Findings – Characteristics of Outcome Groups of FRSS Families More Likely Reunified More Likely Reunified –Younger children –Caucasian –Less risk associated with caregiver mental/emotional impairment –Less risk associated with recognition of problem, lack of motivation to change Less Likely Reunified Less Likely Reunified –Children beyond infancy –Caregiver significant impairments Parenting skills Disciplinary practices –Caregivers lacking recognition of the problem –Caregivers lacking motivation to change

12. Characteristics of Outcome Groups of Non-FRSS Families More Likely Reunified More Likely Reunified –Non-maltreatment reasons for removal –Cooperation with CPS Less Likely Reunified Less Likely Reunified –CA/N reason for removal –Lack of cooperation –History of violence –Maltreatment as a child –Caregiver lack of empathy

13. Selected Findings Even though FRSS referred families “less risky,” only one-half reunified. Even though FRSS referred families “less risky,” only one-half reunified. FRSS services most successful at reunifying infants, Caucasians, fewer risk factors FRSS services most successful at reunifying infants, Caucasians, fewer risk factors

14. Selected Findings  FRSS less effective at preventing placement with:  Non-Caucasian  Caregivers with mental/emotional/physical problems  Lack of recognition of problems  Children older than infants

15. Selected Findings Need to re-examine services related to: Need to re-examine services related to: –Risks related to motivation/recognition –African Americans –Families with multiple risk factors –Either concurrent planning faster or different configuration of services needed

16. Selected Findings Children identified with service need received services – except child behavior problems – predicted re-referral for older children. Children identified with service need received services – except child behavior problems – predicted re-referral for older children. Lack of parenting skills associated with non-reunification Lack of parenting skills associated with non-reunification Domestic violence – male leaving predicts reunification. Domestic violence – male leaving predicts reunification.

17. Selected Findings Low rate of engagement in substance abuse services – need to examine current approach and service array Low rate of engagement in substance abuse services – need to examine current approach and service array The more time a therapist spent with family more likely to reunify (no evidence that paraprofessionals can substitute for work of therapist). The more time a therapist spent with family more likely to reunify (no evidence that paraprofessionals can substitute for work of therapist).

18. Selected Findings Need to re-examine services related to: Need to re-examine services related to: –History of violence –Caregiver mental/emotional functioning –Recognition –Motivation

19. Selected Findings Caregivers assessed as less connected to their children and less capable of caring for them Caregivers assessed as less connected to their children and less capable of caring for them SW less comfortable that caregiver understood child’s needs, caregiver lacked demonstrated capacity to meet child’s needs, ability to parent other children impacted by child’s reunification. SW less comfortable that caregiver understood child’s needs, caregiver lacked demonstrated capacity to meet child’s needs, ability to parent other children impacted by child’s reunification.

20. Selected Findings 20-25% did not resolve risk associated with removal prior to reunification 20-25% did not resolve risk associated with removal prior to reunification FRSS may not be most appropriate for families with chronic, deep-seated problems associated with maltreatment (particularly neglect). FRSS may not be most appropriate for families with chronic, deep-seated problems associated with maltreatment (particularly neglect).

21. Selected Findings Caregiver active involvement in services was related to less ambivalence and more readiness for reunification.Caregiver active involvement in services was related to less ambivalence and more readiness for reunification. Caregiver’s lack of active involvement in services was related to re-entry of the child into foster care within 6 months.Caregiver’s lack of active involvement in services was related to re-entry of the child into foster care within 6 months. Two independently significant predictors of less re-entry:Two independently significant predictors of less re-entry:  Completion of case service plans  Establishment of back-up supports and/or service plans.