Reunification – Old and New Information

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 • 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 • Age • Ethnicity • Behavior problems/truancy • Medical problems • Ambivalence to reunification

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

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). • 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 • Data on: • Child Characteristics • Caregiver Characteristics • Services • Outcomes

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

10. 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 More infants Fewer 6-12 year olds Younger caregivers Less social support Substance abuse risk Washington FRSS Study – General Characteristics of Study Families

11. 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 Children beyond infancy Caregiver significant impairments Parenting skills Disciplinary practices Caregivers lacking recognition of the problem Caregivers lacking motivation to change Selected Findings – Characteristics of Outcome Groups of FRSS Families

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

13. Selected Findings • Even though FRSS referred families “less risky,” only one-half reunified. • 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: • 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. • Lack of parenting skills associated with non-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 • 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: • 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 • 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 • 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’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: • Completion of case service plans • Establishment of back-up supports and/or service plans.