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

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Expedited Family Reunification Project
Advertisements

Illinois Department of Children and Family Services, Pathways to Strengthening and Supporting Families Program April 6, 2010 Division of Service Support,
The Impact and Avoidance of Delay in Decision Making.
Working Across Systems to Improve Outcomes for Young Children Sheryl Dicker, J.D. Assistant Professor of Pediatrics and Family and Social Medicine, Albert.
Community Based Care in Florida and the IV-E Waiver.
Denver Family Integrated Drug Court
Foster Care Reentry after Reunification – Reentry in One or Two years – what’s the difference? Terry V. Shaw, MSW Daniel Webster, PhD University of California,
Impact of foster care on sexual activity of maltreated youth Monica Faulkner, PhD, LMSW Center for Social Work Research The University of Texas at Austin.
California Department of Social Services Children’s Services Operations and Evaluation PRESENTED TO THE CHILD WELFARE COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 12, 2012 REVISED.
Parental Substance Abuse and Child Welfare: Promising Programs for Early Intervention and Permanency Claire Houston S.J.D. Candidate, Harvard Law School.
Foster Care Reentry Going Beyond 12 Months of Follow-up Terry V. Shaw, MSW, PhD Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley School of Social.
Vermilion County Action Team Laurie Krolikowski & Susan Werner.
Increasing Child Welfare Permanency Options: The Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment Program Daniel Webster, MSW, PhD University of California, Berkeley.
Policy and Practice Options Related to Exit Issues Experimenting and Improving the Recovery Coach Model Joseph P. Ryan, Ph.D. Working Conference on Race.
Bridgeport Safe Start Initiative Update Meeting September 23, 2004 Bridgeport Holiday Inn.
Findings From the Initial Child and Family Service Reviews
Racial Disparities in the Child Welfare System Contact: Susan J. Wells Mary PfohlAlex Beutel Scotty DanielsIla Kamath Conducted by: African American Disparities.
Risks of Reentry into the Foster Care System for Children who Reunified Terry V. Shaw, MSW University of California, Berkeley School of Social Welfare.
Shared Family Care: An Innovative Model for Supporting & Restoring Families through Community Partnerships Amy Price, Associate Director National Abandoned.
8/5/ Health Issues for Children in Foster Care Abraham Rice, M.D. Foster Care Clinic Medical Director Contra Costa Regional Medical Center Ab.
Questions to ask yourself as you begin the process of becoming a foster parent What is Foster Care? Why do we need Foster homes? What do you know about.
Services and Resources Available for Families & Children.
Minnesota Child Welfare Program Goals Safety Permanency Well-Being.
Bryan Samuels, Executive Director The Intersection of Safety, Permanency and Child Well-Being Bryan Samuels, Executive Director.
FOSTER CARE: MODULE #3 The Foster Care Process. FOSTER PARENTING  They are licensed and receive specialized training.  Work collaboratively as a member.
TERMINATION OF LONG-TERM MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT WITH FOSTER YOUTH Kimberlin Borca, Foster Care Research Group University of San Francisco April 29, 2012.
Healthy Families America—Lincoln
The Incredible Years Programs Preventing and Treating Conduct Problems in Young Children (ages 2-8 years)
©2008 National Association of Social Workers. All Rights Reserved. 1 Child Protection and Family Care Cora Hardy, LCSW Clinical Director Better Life Children.
Lakota Oyate Wakanyeja Owicakiyapi. The purpose of the LOWO Tiwahe Risk Assessment/Investigation is to protect children from risks of harm and to assess.
Early Childhood Adversity
1 Safety, Risk And Protective Capacity. 2 Competencies Assessing safety, risk and protective capacity Gathers and evaluates relevant information about.
Bringing Protective Factors to Life in the Child Welfare System New Hampshire.
A New Narrative for Child Welfare February 16, 2011 Bryan Samuels, Commissioner Administration on Children, Youth & Families.
Child Abuse: Preventive and Reactive Interventions.
Maine DHHS: Putting Children First
Is all contact between children in care and their birth parents ‘good’ contact? Stephanie Taplin PhD NSW Centre for Parenting & Research 2006 ACWA Conference.
Structured Decision Making Child Welfare and the Law Spring 2006.
1 Issues in Preparing and Supporting the Workforce to Implement the Part C Referral Requirements of CAPTA Cordelia C. Robinson, Ph.D., RN Departments of.
Serious Case Reviews Local Lessons & Actions
FOSTER CARE: MODULE #2 Models and Levels of Care.
Youth Mental Health and Addiction Needs: One Community’s Answer Terry Johnson, MSW Senior Director of Services Senior Director of Services Deborah Ellison,
University of Michigan1 Early Multidisciplinary Assessment Pilot Project Kathleen Coulborn Faller, Ph.D., A.C.S.W.
Mandated Reporter Training Kids count on you!. Who is a mandated reporter?  Georgia law requires all school personnel who come in contact with children.
1. 2 Objectives Explore the impact of trauma and complex trauma Compare and discuss the practices of trauma informed care vs. non-trauma informed care.
A Systems Approach to Improving Substance Abuse Treatment for Latino Youth: Latino Caucus of the APHA Annual Meeting November 6, 2006 URBAN LEAGUE OF GREATER.
1 Quality Counts: Helping Improve Outcomes for Pennsylvania’s Children & Families September 22, 2008.
Stemming the Tides Minnesota’s Child Maltreatment Prevention Programs Seventh Annual Citizen Review Panel Conference May 22, 2008 Brenda Lockwood, MN Dept.
Implementing Fully Every Tool in the Child Welfare Toolbox Chuck Johnson President and CEO National Council For Adoption.
Foster Care Re-entry Study A Hennepin County Project conducted in collaboration with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and the University of Minnesota.
C hildren and F amily Research Center University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign School of Social Work TM Return to Care: What are the Factors Involved.
Project KEEP: San Diego 1. Evidenced Based Practice  Best Research Evidence  Best Clinical Experience  Consistent with Family/Client Values  “The.
Edward F. Garrido, Ph.D. and Heather N. Taussig, Ph.D. University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of.
Care planning and permanence Improving outcomes for looked after children.
Child Safety Framework: Analyzing and Planning for Child Safety.
Race and Child Welfare: Exits from the Child Welfare System Brenda Jones Harden, Ph.D. University of Maryland College Park Research Synthesis on Child.
NCADS Child Maltreatment 2000 Data about child abuse and neglect known to child protective Services (CPS) agencies in the United States in 2000.
Program Evaluation - Reunification of Foster Children with their Families: NYS Office of Children and Family Services, Division of Child Care Evelyn Jones,
The Prevalence of Children with Disabilities in the Child Welfare System: An Analysis of State Administrative Data Elizabeth Lightfoot, PhD Katharine Hill,
1 DHS Board Meeting Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program Overview Mark Washington Division of Family and Children Services August 18, 2010.
The Social and Family Backgrounds of Infants in Care: Predicting Subsequent Abuse Dr. Paul Delfabbro School of Psychology University of Adelaide.
Background Objectives Methods Study Design A program evaluation of WIHD AfterCare families utilizing data collected from self-report measures and demographic.
BackgroundBackground ObjectivesObjectives MethodsMethods Study Design 1E-06 One of the biggest challenges for the Child Welfare System is sustaining successful.
Not One More Child in Arapahoe County Arapahoe County Department of Human Services Children, Youth and Family Services 2012, 2013 and 2014 Child Abuse.
Placement Stability & Permanence. What is Permanence 'a sense of security, continuity, commitment and identity a secure, stable and loving family.
Workshop Topic: Prevention Services By: Otissa Williams, Family Services Worker April Bacon, Family Services Worker Richmond Department of Social Services.
No Place Like HOME Texas Kick Off Meeting
Presented by Hill Country CASA
The Impact and Avoidance of Delay in Decision Making
Keeping Kids Safe When their Parents are struggling with Substance Use: From Preventing Removal to Reunification.
Presentation transcript:

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

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.

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)

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

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

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)

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.

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

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 % re-referred 15-18% re-referred 11-14% re-entered 11-14% re-entered

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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).

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.