Showing papers in "Child Welfare in 2015"

How Many Families in Child Welfare Services Are Affected by Parental Substance Use Disorders? A Common Question that Remains Unanswered.

Abstract: Associated with extensive negative outcomes for children, parental substance use disorders are a major concern within the child welfare system. Obtaining actual prevalence rate data has been difficult, however, and there are no recent published reports on this issue. Using a systematic search, this paper examines: (1) Prevalence estimates of parental substance use disorders in the child welfare population; (2) the types of child welfare involvement for reported prevalence estimates; and (3) how prevalence information is being collected. Prevalence rates were found to have a wide range, from 3.9% to 79%, with regional prevalence estimates being higher than national estimates. Prevalence rates of parental substance use disorders varied by type of child welfare involvement of the family and method of data collection. This study points out the need for improvements in prevalence estimates in the United States and national data collection procedures to ensure that child welfare and substance abuse treatment systems are adequately responding to children and families with substance use disorders.

Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Teams in Rural Appalachia: Implementation and Outcomes

Abstract: The Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Teams (START) model is designed for families with co-occurring substance use and child maltreatment. This study describes the implementation and outcomes of START in a rural Appalachian county with high rates of poverty, non-medical prescription drug use, and child maltreatment. Despite a severely limited addiction treatment infrastructure at baseline, children served by START were less likely to experience recurrence of child abuse or neglect within 6 months or re-enter foster care at 12 months compared with a matched control group.

Poverty, Homelessness, and Family Break-Up.

Abstract: This study examines the extent and correlates of family separations in families experiencing homelessness. Of 2,307 parents recruited in family shelters across 12 sites, a tenth were separated from partners and a quarter from one or more children. Additional separations before and after shelter entry and reasons, from parents' perspectives, were documented in qualitative interviews with a subsample of 80 parents. Separations were associated with economic hardship, shelter conditions, and family characteristics.

An Integrated Intervention to Address the Comorbid Needs of Families Referred to Child Welfare for Substance Use Disorders and Child Neglect: FAIR Pilot Outcomes.

Abstract: In 2012, approximately 3.4 million referrals regarding 6.3 million children were made to the child welfare system (CWS) across the United States (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 2013). Of these, 62% were screened in for services, from which 78.3% were indicated for neglect and 10.6% were indicated for other maltreatment, including exposure to parent's drug/alcohol use. Although few states report on substance use, of those that do, some report comorbid substance use in as many as 63% of all cases. As noted in the National Drug Control Strategy, the rate of substance use among women, particularly those with children, has increased steadily over the last decade (Office of the President, 2013), and some states report that their increase in child neglect reports is directly related to an increase in substance use in their regions (USDHHS, 2013).Both legislators and health professionals recognize the deficits within the current social services systems in meeting the needs of families with comorbid neglect and substance use disorders. Recent recommendations provided in the IOM report New Directions in Child Abuse and Neglect Research (2013) suggest "evidence demonstrates that behavior problems in children are addressed most effectively through interventions that target parents as the primary change agents," using "home visiting" models that are focused on "family and parent engagement."Despite the increased attention toward providing comprehensive treatment for this costly public health problem, currently no evidence-based practice (EBP) exists to address these co-occurring problems (Donohue, Romero, & Hill, 2006; Prinz et al., 2014). Indeed, Dubowitz and colleagues (2012) dubbed this phenomenon as the "neglect of neglect."Gap in PracticeOf women who enter treatment for their substance use disorder, a disproportionate number are involved in the CWS for child neglect (Office of the President, 2013). As highlighted in a recent review of child welfare services conducted by Pecora and colleagues (2012), several programs have shown promise in addressing the needs of this population, but few have been evaluated rigorously. Many typical programs focus first on parental substance use and do not adequately address the additional risk factors for neglect. In addition to treatment for substance use disorders, many parents involved in the CWS for neglectful parenting need parent skills training, mental health treatment, and help with ancillary services (e.g., housing, employment). Although commonly recommended in CWS treatment plans, current practice typically refers parents to services to address these needs in a piecemeal manner, with little attention to the interplay between these treatment needs. One notable exception is the recent advance from the Family Drug Court literature. Family Drug Courts have been shown to have improved outcomes when manualized, rigorously tested, family-based treatments are included as part of the Drug Court array of services (Marlowe & Carey, 2012). Multidimensional FamilyTherapy is one such treatment, and a randomized trial of an adaptation of this EBP, called the Engaging Moms Project, focused on engaging mothers in their substance use treatment by assisting them in developing stronger relationships with their children and families. The Engaging Moms Project has demonstrated high substance use disorder treatment completion rates and positive CWS outcomes compared to usual case management services (Dakof et ah, 2010). Nevertheless, this program does not integrate parenting and substance use treatment, but rather provides care in a systematic parallel manner.Ancillary services have been found to contribute to the success of parents referred for neglect in their treatment for substance use disorders and in their reunification (Smith & Marsh, 2002; Marsh & Cao, 2005). Unfortunately, a recent review of 125 substance use treatment programs across the United States indicated that only 43% reported some form of parent skills training integrated within the treatment and only 3% utilized a curriculum (Arria et al. …

Family-Based Recovery: An Innovative In-Home Substance Abuse Treatment Model for Families with Young Children

Abstract: Family-based in-home treatment can effectively meet the needs of mothers and fathers struggling with the dual challenges of substance abuse recovery and parenting infants and toddlers. This article describes one such program, Family-Based Recovery (FBR), which integrates substance abuse treatment for parents and infant mental health intervention with the goal of preventing child maltreatment and family disruption. Program design, implementation, and results are provided. Outcome data suggest that FBR is a promising model.

Rethinking Child Welfare to Keep Families Safe and Together: Effective Housing-Based Supports to Reduce Child Trauma, Maltreatment Recidivism, and Re-Entry to Foster Care.

Abstract: Large numbers of children who are placed in child protective custody have parents with a substance use disorder. This placement occurs despite evidence that the trauma of removal is associated with poor long-term child outcomes. This article describes a collaborative model of a continuum of housing-based clinical and support services for the whole family that has safely reduced foster care placement. An external evaluation of this pilot in Jackson County, Oregon, found significant differences in subsequent maltreatment, foster care re-entry, and family permanency outcomes favoring the treatment group. After initial external grant funds, this program is continuing and expanding across Oregon due to state legislation, and funding and can be a model for other states.

Enhancing Family Protective Factors in Residential Treatment for Substance Use Disorders.

Abstract: Substance abuse has long been recognized to play a major role in the lives of families in the child welfare system (Azzi-Lessing & Olsen, 1996). This involvement has led to a strong focus on integrated, evidence-based practices and coordination between the substance abuse treatment and child welfare systems (Marsh & Smith, 2011). The number and severity of problems of mothers in the child welfare system often qualifies them for participation in highly structured residential care in the substance abuse treatment system. A comparison of mothers involved in the child welfare system with those who are not indicated greater treatment needs related to exposure to physical abuse, economic instability, and criminal justice involvement (Grella, Hser, & Huang, 2006). Substance abuse treatment programs offering comprehensive care often have multiple resources to meet these and other needs, combined with extensive experience in the relevant areas. The substance abuse treatment system also offers a modality that is difficult to find elsewhere: highly structured, intensive, long-term residential treatment where a woman can be admitted with her children.1 This model offers many opportunities to enhance protective factors, which may not receive enough emphasis in residential settings because of the clinical challenge of addressing the complex needs of these families. This paper describes how activities to enhance protective factors can be integrated into residential treatment as part of the therapeutic process.The advent of the stimulant epidemic in the 1980s brought many women into the child welfare system and was associated with the placement of large numbers of their children into foster care. Much research on substance abuse treatment has been done to demonstrate the importance of participation in enhanced programs to promote positive outcomes for women with substance use disorders and their children (Zweben, 2014). As studies documented the effectiveness of genderresponsive programming, specific ser vices were developed in both women-only and mixed-gender programs. These included a strong emphasis on working with families and significant others, and providing services related to pregnancy, parenting, and domestic violence (Grella, 2008; Grella & Greenwell, 2004). Such services were much more likely to be found in women-only programs, and were related to greater client satisfaction. These programs improved outcomes for women with substance use disorders and their children.These enhanced programs also met child welfare goals, especially reunification. Grella, Needell, Shi, and Hser (2009) reported that reunification was more likely if psychiatric and family problems were addressed, and if the mothers completed more than 90 days in treatment. This is consistent with earlier findings that when women entered treatment quickly and spent more time in treatment, their children spent fewer days in foster care and were more likely to be reunified with their parents (Green, Rockhill, & Furrer, 2007).Protective FactorsThe child welfare system and the substance abuse treatment system both emphasize the importance of protective factors in prevention and treatment. Though they have very different histories and distinct cultures, both systems are focused on lowering risk and enhancing protective factors. Risk factors include stressful conditions, events, or circumstances that increase a family's chances for poor outcomes. Examples include maternal psychiatric disorders, family violence, persistent poverty, and substance use. Protective factors are those that mitigate risk and promote healthy development, such as strengths that help buffer and support families at risk. These factors can be enhanced in individuals, families, and the larger community. Increasing the strength of protective factors is an effective prevention and intervention strategy to offset risk exposure and promote enduring gains.Strengthening Families(TM), developed by the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP), identifies five protective factors: (1) Concrete Support in Time of Need; (2) Knowledge of Parenting and Child Development; (3) Social and Emotional Competence of Children; (4) Parental Resilience; and (5) Social Connections. …

Predictors of Substance Abuse Assessment and Treatment Completion for Parents Involved with Child Welfare: One State's Experience in Matching across Systems.

Abstract: To date, few studies have examined the effect of interagency collaboration on substance abuse assessment ity of Southern California and treatment completion for parents who are involved in child welfare. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) describe a statewide, interagency collaborative program aimed at providing targeted substance abuse assessment and treatment to parents engaged in the child welfare system; (2) document the specialized assessment and treatment outcomes for parents engaged through this collaborative program; and (3) determine factors related to successful treatment completion for parents involved in the child welfare system. This is a retrospective study of an open cohort of 13,829 individuals admitted to the New Jersey Child Protection Substance Abuse Initiative (CPSAI) program from October 1, 2009, through September 30, 2010. Data were drawn from two unique administrative data sources. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to explore factors related to successfil treatment completion for parents involved in the child welfare system. Trend analysis for the total sample in the CPSAI program revealed that, of the 10,909 individuals who received a CPSAI assessment, 59% were referred to treatment. Of those referred to treatment, 40% enrolled in a treatment program. Once enrolled in a treatment program, 55% completed or were in the process of completing substance abuse treatment. These findings suggest that when adequate screening and treatment is available through a streamlined process, many of the ethnic and gender disparities present among other populations of individuals seeking treatment are minimized. Utilizing inherent child welfare case factors appears to be an important motivating element that aids parents during the assessment and treatment process.

Innovation and the Use of Research Evidence in Youth-Serving Systems: A Mixed-Methods Study

Abstract: Acknowledgments: This study was supported by funding from the William T. Grant Foundation (#10648, Lawrence Palinkas, PI.) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (5P50DA035763-04, Patricia Chamberlain, PI.).Several studies have pointed to a large gap between the development of services shown to be effective in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect, child and adolescent mental health problems, and behavioral problems, and the routine use of these services (Burns et al., 2004; Costello, He, Sampson, Kessler, & Merikangas, 2014; Leslie, Hurlburt, Landsverk, Barth, & Slyman, 2004). Although the beneficial effects of many psychotherapeutic and pharmacologic interventions for children and adolescents have been repeatedly demonstrated through clinical trials of treatment efficacy (Weisz & Jensen, 1999), the majority of youth in need receive services lacking evidence to support their effectiveness and lack access to services supported by such evidence (Weisz et al., 1995; Hoagwood & Olin, 2002; Raghavan, Inoue, Ettner, Hamilton, & Landsverk, 2010).Among the most important determinants of whether an evidence-based practice (EBP) will be adopted and sustained by public youth-serving agencies is the leadership exercised by system administrators and decision-makers (Aarons, Farahnak, Ehrhart, & Sklar, 2014). The exercise of leadership is dependent upon the identification, acquisition, allocation, coordination, and use of human, social and material resources necessary to establish the conditions for the possibility of innovation (Spillane, Diamond, Walker, Halverson, & Jita, 2001). According to this model, human resources include individual knowledge, skills and expertise, while "social capital can facilitate the transfer of information among people, thus increasing the individual and collective knowledge of organizational members" (Spillane et al., 2001, p. 921). This information can include research evidence as well as "local knowledge" based on personal experience (Honig & Coburn, 2008).However, the sheer scope of contemporary policy demands on system administrators to use evidence begs urgent questions about what evidence use involves and the policy and other conditions that enable the use of research evidence to implement and sustain innovation (Nutley et al., 2007; Honig & Coburn, 2008). Although use of research evidence is embedded in most models of EBP implementation (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011; Greenhalgh, Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Klein & Sorra, 1996; Schoenwald et al., 2008; Rynes, Bartunek, & Daft, 2001), little is known at present about how public youth-serving agencies and their leaders learn about, think about, and make use of research evidence when making decisions whether or not to adopt a particular innovation.The present study was informed by two different models-one focusing on EBP implementation, and the other focusing on evidence use of research evidence (URE). Unlike most other implementation models, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) model (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011) specifically mentions the role of research evidence use in EBP implementation, noting that public service sector organizations generally do not have strong absorptive capacity for gathering and weighing research evidence. Absorptive capacity refers to an organization's preexisting knowledge/skills, ability to use new knowledge, specialization, and mechanisms to support knowledge sharing. Furthermore, as most theories of evidence use stress the importance of context (Nutley, Walter, & Davies, 2007; Kennedy, 1984), we examined the use of research evidence in the context of evidence-based practice implementation. The EPIS model is designed to understand implementation as a process and an outcome in the context of child welfare and child mental health. The model articulates the potential influence of the inner (i. …

Mental Health Disorders among Children within Child Welfare who have Prenatal Substance Exposure: Rural vs. Urban Populations.

Abstract: This study analyzed differences in mental health diagnoses among Illinois child welfare-involved youth who have had prenatal substance exposure. Results indicate that youth from the rural area had a significantly higher rate of co-occurring mental health disorders. A multiple regression analysis revealed five significant predictors: living in a rural area, a history of neglect, having Fetal Alcohol Syndrome or an alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder, and age. These results have implications for adapting existing treatment models.

Co-Occurrence of Parental Substance Abuse and Child Serious Emotional Disturbance: Understanding Multiple Pathways to Improve Child and Family Outcomes.

Abstract: Families who become involved with the child welfare system because of child maltreatment face multiple and complex needs that must be addressed prior to successful reunification. Children who experience maltreatment frequently enter the child welfare system with distinct issues, including serious emotional disturbance (SED). SED is defined by federal regulations as a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder of sufficient duration to meet diagnostic criteria specified in the Diagnostic Statistical Manual that results in functional impairment that substantially interferes with family, school, or community activities. An early study found that 72% of children with open child protective service cases were "statistically indistinguishable" from children in intensive mental health treatment programs (Trupin, Tarico, Low, Jemelka, & McClellan, 1993, p. 345), suggesting that the occurrence of child mental health issues, including SED, is widespread among families involved with child welfare.Because children with an SED exhibit challenging behaviors, literature suggests that effectively parenting children with an SED requires increased parenting skills, capacities, and resources, which may be beyond the capabilities of parents who are high functioning (Pickrel, 2002). Unfortunately, nearly all families under child protection surveillance comprise caregivers with complex service needs themselves, including a sizable proportion with untreated substance abuse. Studies have estimated that up to 80% of families with a child in foster care have a parent with substance abuse as well (Testa & Smith, 2009). Importantly, great variety exists in the definition of substance abuse across studies. The vast majority of studies rely on child welfare administrative records and caseworker assessment rather than relying on a clinical assessment or diagnosis of substance use disorder. As described below, this study designated foster care cases as substance abuse-affected based on child welfare workers' assessments and child protection services' investigation results.Despite knowledge that children's SED (e.g., Akin, 2011) and parental substance abuse (e.g., Brook, McDonald, Gregoire, Press, & Hindman, 2010) represent stand-alone, well-established barriers to permanency, little has been written about the co-occurrence of child SED and parental substance abuse among families involved with child welfare or these families' service needs upon their child entering foster care. This study presents findings from a sub-study within a federal demonstration project aimed at improving permanency outcomes for families that encounter the most significant barriers to permanency. Our aim was to begin uncovering knowledge about the role, scope, and influence of parental substance abuse among the foster care population of children with an SED. More knowledge is needed regarding the overlap and interplay between these two risk factors and their collective impact on the achievement of positive outcomes for these highly vulnerable subpopulations within the larger child welfare system.Children's Mental HealthChildren's mental health issues place families at risk for involvement with the child welfare system, and once in the system, children's mental health issues can be a barrier to stability and permanency. Up to 80% of children in foster care have significant mental health challenges, most commonly externalizing disorders (Kerker & Dore, 2006). The etiologies of these mental health problems include the experience of maltreatment and trauma associated with removal from the home (Kerker & Dore, 2006). Other risk factors for SED include child, parent, and family-level variables, such as children with poor physical health, parental substance abuse, and poverty (Kerker & Dore, 2006).The impact of SED on children's experiences in the child welfare system is profound. Children in care with an SED have less stable placements (e. …

Promising Results for Cross-Systems Collaborative Efforts to Meet the Needs of Families Impacted by Substance Use.

Abstract: This study is based on data regarding more than 15,000 families served by 53 federal grantees showing that child safety and permanency, parental recovery, and family well-being improve when agencies work together to address the complex needs of families at the intersection of substance abuse treatment and child welfare. Strategies summarized here offer promising collaborative approaches to mitigate the negative outcomes too often experienced by families impacted by substance use disorders.

Research Evidence Use in the Child Welfare System

Abstract: What is Research Evidence?In our study, we adopted the view that research evidence is evidence that was gathered with a purpose in mind and according to generally accepted methods defined as falling within a (social) science rubric. As such, research evidence and the studies that produce research evidence are diverse in method and subject matter. Research evidence includes, but is not limited to, findings pertaining to the use and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. Moreover, research evidence can be generated from such sources as electronic records (Holzinger, Dehmer, & Jurisica, 2014; McBeath et al., 2015).Within academic and scientific communities, scholars identify various types of research (e.g., basic research, applied research, evaluation, etc.). Although the definitions of different research activities are open to some degree of interpretation, they share common fundamental principles, characterizing research as systematic, objective, and focused on the generation or application of new knowledge (Bloome, 2009; National Institutes of Health, n.d.; National Science Foundation, n.d.; Rabin, Brownson, Haire-Joshu, Kreuter, & Weaver, 2008).Davies and Nutley (2008) reduce these core principles to a framework. They define "research as a process (explicit, systematic, and open to scrutiny), the outputs of which are research findings. When these findings are used in support of an argument or position, they are being treated as evidence" (p. 2, emphasis original). In its work, the W.T. Grant Foundation weaves these strands together: research evidence is "empirical findings derived from systematic research methods and analyses." In establishing the research activities that may lead to such findings, the Foundation casts a relatively wide net, including "descriptive, intervention, evaluation, meta-analytic, and cost-effectiveness studies done by researchers working within or outside policy or practice organizations" (William T. Grant Foundation, 2011). These activities include studies that examine the effectiveness of particular interventions with children and families as well as the analysis of systematically prepared administrative data and reports (Administration for Children and Families, 2012; Barth, 2008; Tseng, 2009; McBeath et al., 2015).The quality of research evidence is a reflection of how methodologically rigorous the research is. Social scientists determine that rigor by holding research against scientific standards related to instrument design, sampling, statistical analysis, and other technical criteria. Knowledge brokers in the field of child welfare promote these standards to some extent; for example, in assessing the evidence-base for child welfare interventions; both the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (n.d.) and the National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (2007) grade interventions based on the strength of the research done to test the efficacy of the interventions. Federal policy guidance takes a similar view, casting evidence-based interventions as those that show measurable improvements in the outcomes they are designed to affect, though falling short of defining standards for measurement or required degrees of improvement (Administration for Children and Families, 2012).Recent studies also show that policymakers and practitioners of child- and youth-serving agencies hold a range of definitions for research evidence (Palinkas, Finno, Fuentes, Garcia, & Holloway, 2011), that they do not always distinguish research evidence from other forms of evidence (Nelson, Leffler, & Hansen, 2009), and that they use many different types and sources of evidence (researchbased and otherwise) when making policy and practice decisions (Asen, Gurke, Solomon, Conners, & Gumm, 2011; Honig & Coburn, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009; Palinkas, Finno, et al., 2011).For example, Nelson and colleagues (2009) found that education policymakers "define evidence broadly as local research, local data, personal experience, information from personal communications, gut instinct or intuition, and the experience of others, in addition to research evidence" and that they "did not draw a distinction between research evidence and general evidence derived from these other sources" (p. …

Physically Hazardous Housing and Risk for Child Protective Services Involvement.

Abstract: The quality and safety of the home environment is a common focus of Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations.Yet little is known about whether such conditions influence CPS outcomes. The present study uses a sample of low-income families to assess the relative importance of housing conditions and other common risk and protective factors associated with child maltreatment. Results show that hazardous conditions predict investigated child neglect, but not physical abuse or indicated reports.

New Approaches for Working with Children and Families Involved in Family Treatment Drug Courts: Findings from the Children Affected by Methamphetamine Program

Abstract: This is a descriptive study of the Children Affected by Methamphetamine (CAM) grant program, a federally funded effort to improve outcomes through the addition of targeted interventions for 1,940 families, including 2,596 adults and 4,245 children involved in 12 diverse Family Treatment Drug Courts (FTDCs) located across six U.S. states. The majority were children of parents with a primary methamphetamine use disorder. Findings reflect grantees' reporting on 18 performance indicators of child safety and permanency, adult recovery, and family well-being. Additional information gleaned from grantees' biannual reports provides insights about program implementation. Results, drawn from this large and complex dataset, indicate that comprehensively addressing families' needs is associated with better outcomes than those experienced by similarly situated families in grantees' communities and the nation overall. In addition to describing common program components and outcomes, this article presents important lessons learned about implementing evidence-based children's services in the FTDC context, as well as future directions for research and evaluation in this arena.

Housing Matters for Families: Promising Practices from Child Welfare Agencies.

Abstract: Lack of adequate housing and homelessness makes it harder for child welfare agencies to be successful in protecting children and keeping families together, and has significant cost implications for child welfare systems. As such, getting into the "housing business," through dedicating resources and developing partnerships with housing agencies is critical to the success of child welfare agencies. The provision of housing as a prevention or protective strategy against child maltreatment has not been widely used by child welfare agencies, however. Some child welfare workers have noted that "CPS is not a housing agency" (Shdaimah, 2009, p. 218) because the agency does not control housing resources, public housing agencies do. Recently the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) encouraged child welfare agencies, public housing agencies, and homeless-service providers to "closely collaborate with each other" (Henriquez et al., 2014).This paper describes what we know from research about the housing needs of child welfare involved families and how barriers associated with poverty and housing instability make it difficult for caseworkers to help stabilize, preserve, and reunify families. Building on previous work (Cunningham & McDonald, 2013; Cunningham et al., 2015), we identify and describe promising practices child welfare and public housing agencies have undertaken to respond to the housing needs of families involved in the child welfare system.MethodsThe findings presented in this paper are based on the process study components of two studies. The first study is a quasi-experimental evaluation of HUD's Family Unification Program (FUP), which includes an implementation component. The goals of the FUP program are to increase housing resources for families involved in the child welfare system, minimize or prevent the separation of children from their parents, and encourage partnerships among Public Child Welfare Agencies (PCWAs) and Public Housing Authorities (PHAs). The program provides a housing subsidy, modeled after the Housing Choice Voucher Program, and limited services. Participants use the vouchers to rent housing from private-market landlords. Participants contribute up to 30% of their income toward rent and utilities, with the program making up the difference up to a locally defined rent cap. Our FUP evaluation focuses on two eligible populations: (1) families for whom inadequate housing is the primary factor in the imminent placement of their children in out-of-home care; and (2) families for whom inadequate housing is a factor in delaying the discharge of their children from out-of-home care.The evaluation includes eight sites: the state of Massachusetts; Salt Lake County, Utah; and the cities of Chicago, Illinois; Hartford, Connecticut; Portland and Salem, Oregon; San Diego, California; and Seattle, Washington. We draw primarily from information gathered during site visits and interviews with key program stakeholders such as PHA staff and child welfare agency staff. In-person and phone interviews were conducted between March and May 2012 and a second round of site visits was conducted in spring and summer of 2014. The research team conducted 58 interviews (in person and by phone) with key staff and stakeholders, including staff from child welfare agencies, public housing authorities, the continuum of care (C°C), and other local partners in each location. For each key informant interview, the research team developed semi-structured interview guides with specific modules for different staff positions and agencies. Topics covered in the interviews included program model (i.e. eligibility, referral process, housing and services), implementation challenges and facilitators, and partnership models and systems change.The second study is an experimental evaluation of the Partnership to Demonstrate the Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for High-Need Families in the Child Welfare System. …

The Family Unification Program: A Randomized-Controlled Trial of Housing Stability.

Abstract: The study tests the short-term impact on housing stability of the Family Unification Program (FUP), a permanent housing program for child welfare- involved families at risk of separation from children due to inadequate housing. Families eligible for FUP (n = 150) received housing case management services as usual, and half were referred for permanent housing vouchers made available through FUP. Families referred for FUP secured more enriched home learning environments, while more precariously housed families exhibited greater housing, stability when referred for FUP. The intervention did not relate with housing affordability or improvements in neighborhood quality. Findings suggest benefits of FUP-especially for more vulnerable families--in key areas that support child developmet; however, families continue to struggle in the context of poverty.

Factors Influencing Risk of Homelessness among Youth in Transition from Foster Care in Oklahoma: Implications for Reforming Independent Living Services and Opportunities.

Abstract: Research suggests that youth aging out of foster care may be at higher risk of experiencing homelessness than other youth. Among this already at-risk population there may be certain characteristics that further exacerbate the risk. This paper uses data collected from various local and state agencies to further examine significant predictors of homelessness among youth who have aged out of foster care.

Partnering to Leverage Multiple Data Sources: Preliminary Findings from a Supportive Housing Impact Study.

Abstract: This article presents preliminary findings from an impact study that drew upon administrative data collected by city agencies and data collected by a supportive housing program for young adults who are aging out of foster care, homeless, or at risk of homelessness. Participation in the program was associated with a reduction in shelter use and jail stays during the two years after program entry. The study demonstrates the benefits of collaboration and the possibilities of using administrative data from multiple public agencies to evaluate program impacts on young adult outcomes.

Examining the Relationships between Family Drug Court Program Compliance and Child Welfare Outcomes.

Abstract: Although the evidence is accumulating to substantiate the successes of Family Drug Courts (FDC), there is little research on the relationship between parent compliance and successful reunification of children with their parent(s). This study looked at data from 206 families participating in a FDC in Sacramento County, California. Four compliance measures were examined individually and collectively, after controlling for participant characteristics, using logistic regression models to determine how FDC participation benchmarks impact child reunification. This study found the best predictors of reunification was participation in support group meetings and negative tests for substance use. These findings indicate that initiatives designed to address the needs of families affected by child maltreatment and substance use should take into account and support engagement in informal, community-based activities as well as formal, clinically focused interventions.

Changes in Adult, Child, and Family Functioning among Participants in a Family Treatment Drug Court.

Abstract: Behavioral changes for 76 adults and 115 children from 62 families participating in a Family Treatment Drug Court (FTDC), in either residential or outpatient settings, were studied. Improvements in psychosocial functioning were calculated using a reliable change index (RCI) for family, adult, and child measures. Among outcomes, significant improvements in family functioning were noted and associated with improvements in child development and the likelihood of reunification. Support for FTDCs and implications for future practice and research are discussed.

Family Stability and Child Welfare Involvement among Families Served in Permanent Supportive Housing.

Abstract: This article examines the effectiveness of supportive housing in fostering family preservation and reunification for homeless families with multiple housing barriers. Results indicate that more thanhalfofthe supportive housing program families who are separated from their families by Child Protective Services prior to entering the program are reunified during the 12-month period after entering housing. The rate of reunification for supportive housing families is significantly higher than the rate for matched families who enter shelters, but not significantly different than the rate experienced by matched families entering public housing. This study provides encouraging evidence that housing for families in the child welfare system, including but necessarily limited to supportive housing, can facilitate the reunification of children.

Peer Mentoring in Child Welfare: A Motivational Framework

Abstract: Peer mentoring interventions for parents with substance use disorders who are involved with the child welfare system are relatively new, complex, individualized interventions and thus need to be understood both in regard to program efficacy and the processes of how they work. This qualitative study of the experiences of parents involved in a parent mentoring program suggested that certain practices helped motivate parents to think and act in ways that supported their goals and child welfare case plans. The three key mentoring practices that emerged were building caring relationships, providing guidance, and putting parents in charge. These practices promoted parents'positive self-beliefs (e.g., worthy of connection, competence), which helped motivate them to participate in services, cope constructively with difficulties, and more effectively manage behaviors and emotions. Drawing on Self-Determination Theory and Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT) in particular, we propose a motivational framework for understanding how peer mentoring facilitates, or undermines, parents'motivation and results in their making progress on various aspects of their child welfare case. Implications for using the motivational model in future program development and evaluation efforts are discussed.

Effects of a Rural Family Drug Treatment Court Collaborative on Child Welfare Outcomes: Comparison Using Propensity Score Analysis.

Abstract: Previous studies that have examined the impact of family drug treatment courts (FDTCs) on child welfare outcomes have produced mixed results. This study evaluates the impact of a rural, FDTC collaborative on child welfare outcomes using propensity score analysis. Findings from the study show that children in the treatment group had longer stays in child welfare custody but were substantially less likely to experience future incidents of maltreatment than those in families with parental substance use disorders without these services.

Practice-Informed Approaches to Addressing Substance Abuse and Trauma Exposure in Urban Native Families Involved with Child Welfare.

Abstract: Similar to families from other groups, urban-based American Indian and Alaska Native ("Native") family members involved with the child welfare system due to substance abuse issues are also often challenged by untreated trauma exposure. The link between these conditions and the history of genocidal policies aimed at destroying Native family ties, as well as experiences of ongoing discrimination, bring added dimensions for consideration when pro- viding services to these families. Practice-based evidence indicates that the trauma-informed and culturally responsive model developed by the Denver Indian Family Resource Center (DIFRC) shows promise in reducing out-of-home placements and re-referrals in urban Native families with substance abuse and child welfare concerns, while also increasing caregiver capabilities, family safety, and child well-being. This article provides strategies from the DIFRC approach that non-Native caseworkers and supervisors can utilize to create an environment in their own agencies that supports culturally based practice with Native families while incorporating a trauma-informed understanding of service needs of these families. Casework consistent with this approach demonstrates actions that meet the Active Efforts requirement of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) as well as sound clinical practice. Intensive and proactive case management designed specifically for families with high levels of service needs is a key strategy when combined with utilizing a caseworker brief screening tool for trauma exposure; training caseworkers to recognize trauma symptoms, making timely referrals to trauma treatment by behavioral health specialists experienced in working with Native clients, and providing a consistent service environment that focuses on client safety and worker trustworthiness. Finally, suggestions are put forth for agencies seeking to enhance their cultural responsiveness and include increasing workers' understanding of cultural values, worldview, and historical issues; working from a relational perspective; listening deeply to families' experiences; and being open to incorporating traditional healing and cultural practice into service plans.

Strategies for Strengthening the Utility of Research in Supportive Housing-Child Welfare Partnerships

Abstract: In this article, we draw from our collective experiences as evaluators of two different federally funded supportive housing initiatives in child welfare systems. We identify four interrelated strategies emerging from our work that enhance the use and usefulness of research in child welfare practice: engaging in a collaborative process, demystifying research, preparing for the use of data, and gaining familiarity with ethical oversight. After discussing the supportive housing and child welfare initiative, we describe the strategies and then contextualize these strategies with examples from the process and outcome evaluations implemented at the two sites. These illustrate how partnerships between researchers and child welfare agencies can improve practice and build agency capacity for using research (Lawrence et al., 2013).The Context of Supportive Housing and Child WelfareSupportive housing is a paradigm that asserts the pairing of housing vouchers or housing assistance (e.g., Housing Choice Vouchers) with additional services (e.g., case management, therapy, concrete assistance) helps stabilize families and improve child outcomes. In 2004, Cohen, Mulroy, Tull, White, and Crowley envisioned a service model that integrated housing and social services with the following principles: housing as a basic right, the merger of housing and service delivery, and integration of housing sites with the greater community. Few published studies exist on supportive housing in child welfare (Farrell, Britner, Guzzardo, & Goodrich, 2010; Farrell, Lujan, Britner, Randall, & Goodrich, 2012). However empirical research from supportive housing programs with vulnerable homeless adult populations has demonstrated promising results (i.e., Buchanan, Kee, Sadowski, & Garcia, 2009; Culhane, Metreaux, & Hadley, 2002; DeSilva, Manworren, & Targonski, 2011; Greenwood, Stefanic, & Tsemberis, 2013; Montgomery, Hill, Kane, & Culhane, 2013), suggesting that lessons learned from such initiatives can inform supportive housing approaches for homeless families who are involved with child welfare systems. In practice, child welfare and homelessness are closely interrelated. Homelessness may precipitate child welfare involvement; homeless families may have children removed from their care; families may lose subsidized housing when children are removed; or reunification may be delayed (Courtney, McMurtry, & Zinn, 2004; Culhane, Webb, Grim, Metraux, & Culhane, 2003). Homelessness may exacerbate problems for children, interrupting their education, access to stable health care and familiar social supports, and enhancing risk of exposure to trauma (Buckner, Bassuk, & Weinreb, 2001; Hong & Piescher, 2012; Hopper, Bassuk, & Alivet, 2010).Program SitesBoth projects use a Housing First model, which initially provides housing to homeless, child welfare-involved families (using vouchers or other funding sources) for immediate stability and then establishes a service plan to improve child safety, permanency and well-being, parents' psychosocial functioning, vocational attainment, financial stability, and continued housing stability. Evaluators work with the grantees-private, nonprofit child welfare agencies that collaborate with the public sector and provide direct services.Site 1. This demonstration site is located in a large urban county in the Southeastern United States and is directed by a grantee that is a private nonprofit child welfare organization The intervention is provided by an inter-agency team and encompasses the provision of a Housing Choice Voucher with complementary intensive case management, Trauma-Informed Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Healthy Babies Program, Strengthening Families, vocational and financial literacy services, legal assistance, housing coordination, healthcare navigation and some concrete assistance including moving assistance and furniture. Case managers coordinate all service delivery. …

Learning to Listen and Listening to Learn: Recursive Information Flow to Build Relationships and Improve Practice

Abstract: The value of infusing research into social work practice is wellestablished in both research and practice sectors (Buckely, Tonmyr, Lewig, & Jack, 2014; Cheung, Ma, Thyer, & Webb, 2014; Herie & Martin, 2002). Implementing evidence-based practice has become the gold standard for effective social work practice, and substantive evaluation of programs continue to test new theories to strengthen services. However, the importance of infusing practice wisdom to inform research process is less lauded in both research and practice communities, yet may hold equal value. Further, understanding practice patterns and practice-based evidence may help explain the apparent failures of many evidence-based initiatives. Understanding the varying, complex and diverse contexts in which evidence-based practices are used through the eyes of the professionals who use them, provides constructive information that can inform ongoing research and policy implementation processes. Developing this understanding requires relationship-building, information exchange and collaborative work. Though fraught with potential challenges, the recursive (i.e., multi-directional) flow of information from research to practice and practice to research is crucial to simultaneously strengthening both fields of work. Through examining results from a mixed-methods study gathering practitioner expertise on collaboration between child welfare and education sectors, we argue that this essential recursive model of information exchange can be accomplished through a core social work practice: building relationships. Just as social workers build relationships with clients through employing high-quality and evidence-based practices, so too must social work practitioners and social work academics use these skills to increase the successful adoption of evidence-based practices in practice.LiteratureResearch Utilization in Social Work: EBPNearly four decades ago, Lindblom and Cohen (1979) discussed the disconnect between research ("professional social inquiry") and policy. They described frustrated academics whose authoritative work failed to be utilized in social problem solving, and the disillusioned policymakers and practitioners who believed academic research was not useful to them. Though the value of research to practice is well understood, researchers, as well as practitioners, continue to acknowledge the difficulty of implementing research, or EvidenceBased Practices (EBPs) in public agencies (Davies, Nutley, & Smith, 2000; Hanney, Gonzalez-Block, Buxton, & Kogan, 2003; Marsh, 2003; Nutley & Davies, 2007).Scholars note many reasons for the persistent gap between research and practice, ranging from cultural differences between academic and direct service professions (Jaynes, 2014), the isolated and inaccessible publications of most social work research in academic journals (Drabble, Lemon, D'Andrade, Donoviel, & Le, 2013), distrust of academics (Jaynes, 2014), the perceived obscurity and lack of relevance of academic research by practitioners (Jones & Sherr, 2014), the absence of opportunities to discuss research with practitioner colleagues (Drabble et al., 2013), and the presumption that practice organizations do not value continuous improvement and are therefore not "learning organizations" (Drabble et al., 2013, p. 414). Additionally, researchers sometimes view practitioners as "saboteurs of science" who intentionally resist models that have been shown to work (Jaynes, 2014).Researchers place great emphasis on the usefulness of research knowledge to guide practice. However, practice organizations have myriad pressures and mandates surrounding policy and implementation of effective practices that govern their actions. Well-run and progressively led public agencies do value research knowledge; however, the energy to consistently function as a learning organization, driven by evidence, is stretched thin in relation to legal mandates, political pressures, and resource limitations. …

Selecting an Evidence-Based Practice in Child Welfare: Challenges and Steps to Identifying a Good Fit

Abstract: Selecting an EBP requires more than just examining programs and their supporting evidence. The EBP selection process requires organizational supports and activities to ensure the adopted EBP is truly a "good fit." The CEBC2 utilizes a conceptual framework, the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) Framework, to aid child welfare agencies through the selection and implementation process (Aarons, Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011). The four implementation phases include:* Exploration Phase - Potential implementers consider what EBPs might best solve a clinical or service problem, while also considering opportunities or challenges.* Preparation Phase - Implementers plan for integrating the EBP into the existing system, including a realistic and comprehensive assessment of implementation challenges.* Implementation Phase -The adopted practice is implemented. This is where the rubber meets the road; the implementers will find out if their work during the preparation phase addressed the major issues.* Sustainment Phase -The intervention is ingrained in the organization, including stable funding and ongoing monitoring and/or quality assurance processes.This article will focus primarily on the Exploration phase of implementation, but there is more detailed information available on each EPIS phase on the CEBC website (see http://www.cebc4cw. org/implementing-programs/). While selecting an EBP may seem like a straightforward decision, the selection process presents many considerations that child welfare leaders may overlook. Selecting an EBP should involve careful and thoughtful consideration of organizational fit, cost, program complexity, program effectiveness, and the target population and its needs, among other factors. Agencies that fail to consider these factors may inadvertently select an inappropriate EBP, which can result in wasted agency resources and potentially harmful effects for families.The CEBC has observed situations that frequently contribute to the inappropriate selection of an EBP in child welfare settings. Several common barriers to selecting an EBP that is a good fit for child welfare have been observed and need to be considered when making critical decisions during the EBP selection process.One common barrier to selecting an appropriate EBP occurs when agencies adopt a program without considering the research evidence supporting its effectiveness. Child welfare agencies typically make a decision to adopt a specific EBP based on the program's use by a colleague (e.g., a nearby county is already using the program and the agency director recommends it). Research literature has documented the influence of child welfare leaders' social networks on their decision to adopt a specific EBP (Horwitz et al., 2014; Palinkas, Holloway, Rice, Fuentes, Wu, & Chamberlain, 2011; Valente, 1996). Unfortunately, child welfare leaders who only rely on their social networks to select an EBP are at risk for adopting one that does not meet their individual county's needs. An EBP that works for one child welfare agency is not guaranteed to work for another. Child welfare agencies should utilize multiple sources of information, in addition to their social networks, to better understand the applicability and effectiveness of individual programs. In addition to the CEBC, other reliable sources for information on programs include the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices (see http://www.nrepp. samhsa.gov/) and Blueprints for Health Youth Development (see http:// www.blueprintsprograms. com/).Another example of selecting an EBP without considering its effectiveness occurs when the program is marketed and supported by an external organization with credibility in the field. The CEBC has observed situations where child welfare agencies adopted an EBP because it was promoted by an external organization that provided implementation resources at little or no cost (e. …

Economic Well-Being and Independent Living in FosterYouth: Paving the Road to Effective Transitioning out of Care.

Abstract: Using a mixed-methods methodological approach, the proposed study examines the associations between economic well-being and independent living experiences in foster youth. Quantitative data were collected from N = 294 in-care foster youth using the Casey Life Skills assessment (α = .79 to α = .95). Qualitative data were collected via focus groups with aged-out foster youth (N =15). Results provide important insights on youth's economic well-being, financial literacy, individual experiences regarding aging out of foster care and independent living. This study provides new insights into the complex dynamics of successfully transitioning out of foster care and the need for supporting economic well-being in foster youth to better prepare them to live independently and develop coping skills for the challenges they might experience once they leave the system.