Search

ABSTRACT: This study examines a representative sample of adults in California (USA) and Norway, and their attitudes toward adoption versus foster care in a child protection case. The results show that a majority of people favour adoption for a child who has been removed due to maltreatment and cannot be reunified with birth parents. The study examines if people's rights orientation, favouring children or adults, or favouring birth parents or adoptive parents, or their institutional context explain their preferences about long‐term care options. Data material consist of representative samples of the population in California (USA) and Norway (n = 2222), using a vignette survey design. Findings suggest that individuals with a child rights position favour adoption, but attitudes about birth parents' and adoptive parents' rights are not related to care option choices. Institutional context, anchored in policy feedback literature, partly explains the preference for adoption and the population's rights orientation. Further studies are necessary to confirm the role of rights attitudes and institutional context.

Abstract: Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence‐informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.

BackgroundYouth in the child welfare system (child welfare-involved [CWI] youth) have high documented rates of mental health symptoms and experience significant disparities in mental health care services access and engagement. Adolescence is a developmental stage that confers increased likelihood of experiencing mental health symptoms and the emergence of disorders that can persist into adulthood. Despite a high documented need for evidence-based mental health services for CWI youth, coordination between child welfare and mental health service systems to increase access to care remains inadequate, and engagement in mental health services is low. Navigator models developed in the health care field to address challenges of service access, fragmentation, and continuity that affect the quality of care provide a promising approach to increase linkage to, and engagement in, mental health services for CWI youth. However, at present, there is no empirically supported mental health navigator model to address the unique and complex mental health needs of CWI youth and their families.ObjectiveUsing a randomized controlled trial, this study aims to develop and test a foster care family navigator (FCFN) model to improve mental health service outcomes for CWI adolescents (aged 12-17 years).MethodsThe navigator model leverages an in-person navigator and use of adjunctive digital health technology to engage with, and improve, care coordination, tracking, and monitoring of mental health service needs for CWI youth and families. In total, 80 caregiver-youth dyads will be randomized to receive either the FCFN intervention or standard of care (clinical case management services): 40 (50%) to FCFN and 40 (50%) to control. Qualitative exit interviews will inform the feasibility and acceptability of the services received during the 6-month period. The primary trial outcomes are mental health treatment initiation and engagement. Other pre- and postservice outcomes, such as proportion screened and time to screening, will also be evaluated. We hypothesize that youth receiving the FCFN intervention will have higher rates of mental health treatment initiation and engagement than youth receiving standard of care.ResultsWe propose enrollment of 80 dyads by March 2024, final data collection by September 2024, and the publication of main findings in March 2025. After final data analysis and writing of the results, the resulting manuscripts will be submitted to journals for dissemination.ConclusionsThis study will be the first to produce empirically driven conclusions and recommendations for implementing a family mental health navigation model for CWI youth with long-standing and unaddressed disparities in behavioral health services access. The study findings have potential to have large-scale trial applicability and be feasible and acceptable for eventual system implementation and adoption.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04506437; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04506437.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/49999.

Although there is an expansive literature on public attitudes towards the welfare state, we know comparatively little about public attitudes toward child protection. Gauging public opinion about the state's role in protecting children is complicated by the contested ideas that underlie the field. Child protection lies at the nexus between competing values about state obligations to allow unfettered parental freedom or to permit constraints on some parental behaviors. At issue is also the notion of balancing the individual rights of the parties involved: parents and children. Similar to the larger welfare state literature, public attitudes about child protection may be shaped by core human values. This study includes representative samples of the public in Norway and California (n = 2148), countries that are commonly viewed as representative of social democratic and liberal welfare state regimes. Respondents reviewed a vignette portraying a child at risk of harm and were asked a series of questions to gauge whether and/or how the state might constrain the parent's behavior, questions pertaining to the rights of children, and their views about core human values. Findings indicate that residents of Norway were more likely to favor the values of security and equal rights, and Californians more likely to favor the value of self-direction. Contrary to the larger body of welfare state literature which suggests that human values help explain public attitudes about welfare provisions, in general, this study did not find that human values generally explained differences in country attitudes toward constrained parenting or toward children's rights. Findings offer an exploratory first step in expanding notions about child protection as nested in welfare states.

We used National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System and Census data to examine Black-White and Hispanic-White disparities in reporting, substantiation, and out-of-home placement both descriptively from 2005-2019 and in multivariate models from 2007-2017. We also tracked contemporaneous social risk (e.g., child poverty) and child harm (e.g., infant mortality) disparities using non-child protective services (CPS) sources and compared them to CPS reporting rate disparities. Black-White CPS reporting disparities were lower than found in non-CPS risk and harm benchmarks. Consistent with the Hispanic paradox, Hispanic-White CPS reporting disparities were lower than risk disparities but similar to harm disparities. Descriptive and multivariate analyses of data from the past several years indicated that Black children were less likely to be substantiated or placed into out-of-home care following a report than White children. Hispanic children were slightly more likely to be substantiated or placed in out-of-home care than White children overall, but this difference disappeared in multivariate models. Available data provide no evidence that Black children were overreported relative to observed risks and harms reflected in non-CPS data. Reducing reporting rates among Black children will require addressing broader conditions associated with maltreatment.

Foster care placements for infants can be consequential. Research suggests that infants’ path through and beyond the care system is different than the experience for children of other age groups. Studying infants is important because of their unique needs for developmentally-sensitive care; because of the underpinnings of attachment theory; and because the long-term impacts of quality care can be pronounced. Prior research examining infants in care has typically focused on their first episode and the outcomes of that episode. This study offers a longitudinal examination of a population-based cohort of infants (n = 5789) born in 2001 who entered care during the first year of life and who were followed through multiple care episodes until age 18. Findings suggest that using single, first episode data overstates the proportion of children who successfully reunify and understates the proportion of children who are adopted, return to care, or live with guardians. This research also suggests that the experience of infants who enter care as neonates is different from that of infants who enter care after the first four weeks of life. The long-term outcome for neonates is much more likely to be adoption. Long-term foster care for all infants is an especially unlikely outcome.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is a widely accepted human rights document and has relevance for child protection policy. This study employs an experimental design with representative samples from Norway and California (USA) to test public perceptions of children's rights in child protection. The countries have welfare states and child protection contexts that differ, and their histories contrast with regard to the UNCRC. Results show that increased severity of risk to a child does not correspond with increased weight on children’s rights. However, residents of Norway are more likely to embrace a children's rights orientation, and participants in California are more likely to accept a parents’ rights perspective. Demographics such as immigrant status and age account for some of these differences. The study contributes to the literature on children's rights and the role of the state in aligning public policy with public attitudes about children.

Initial child welfare screening decisions, traditionally made by an individual worker, determine if a family will receive further intervention by child protective services. A multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decision-making approach for child welfare referrals aims to provide a more thorough assessment of needs and strengths and to connect families to appropriate community-based providers. This study examined 159 child welfare referrals handled by MDTs compared to 331 referrals handled via the traditional screening approach. The study used a pseudo randomization procedure to assign referrals to the study conditions: Referrals logged on 2.5 days of the week were assigned to the treatment group; all others were assigned to the comparison group. Referrals handled by an MDT were more than four times as likely as those not handled by an MDT to be referred to community-based organizations (OR = 4.32, p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in families' engagement with community-based organizations or child welfare outcomes. MDTs are a promising step in the initial process of connecting families to services, although they did not affect this study's longer-term outcomes.

An intense appetite for reforming and transforming child welfare services in the United States is yielding many new initiatives. Vulnerable children and families who become involved with child welfare clearly deserve higher quality and more effective services. New policies, programs, and practices should be built on sound evidence. Reforms based on misunderstandings about what the current data show may ultimately harm families. This review highlights 10 commonly held misconceptions which we assert are inconsistent with the best available contemporary evidence. Implications for better alignment of evidence and reform are discussed.

Barth et al. (2021) published an article in this journal identifying ten topics in the field of child welfare that are frequently discussed among professionals, advocates, and researchers in an effort to shape discussions of practice and policy reform. Concerned that these discussions are often poorly informed by the research evidence, Barth et al. intended to offer a corrective to these common, erroneous narratives. The Editor-in-Chief, Bruce Thyer, asked for suggestions for commentators and then invited some number of respondents to offer their perspectives on the original article. Here, we respond to each of the submitted papers, highlighting areas of agreement, and addressing other topics where we—sometimes sharply—disagree. We welcome an ongoing, fact-based, respectful dialogue to help shape child welfare reform. Efforts to improve the child welfare system are urgently needed; we stand by our view that large-scale practice and policy reform, in particular, must be guided by the best available research evidence.

As we imagine the next generation of public child welfare, efforts to identify and eliminate practices that are harmful to families must be pursued. This commentary uses available research evidence to argue against child support enforcement for child welfare-involved families. Although research on this topic is sparse, the evidence from the few available studies suggests that child support enforcement likely harms child welfare-involved families. It delays reunification, increases family financial precarity, is cost ineffective, and is anathema to the values of family support. Federal policies that require or encourage referral of child welfare-involved families to child support agencies should be eliminated to better promote family strengths and cohesion.

Child protection is considered an appropriate government responsibility, but interventions into the family are also some of the most consequential for states. This study examines the normative basis for limiting parents' freedom by exploring public attitudes about a child's safety in the context of increasing risk. Using a randomized survey, we test the causal relationship between levels of risk and parental restrictions on representative samples in Norway and CA, US (n = 2148) - different welfare state and child protection models. Findings suggest that the public supports restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk and that severity of risk is taken into consideration. A majority favour restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk to the child; a minority resist restricting freedom, regardless of risk, and about one-third to one-half of respondents favour temporarily suspending parents' rights by separating children to foster care. Residents of Norway are half as likely to support unrestricted parenting, regardless of risk, and are 1.5 as likely to endorse restricted parenting. Norwegians are also 20% less likely to support separating a child from his parent compared to US respondents. The study has implications for system design based on popular notions about parents' freedom and family privacy.

Initial child welfare screening decisions, traditionally made by an individual worker, determine if a family will receive further intervention by child protective services. A multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decision-making approach for child welfare referrals aims to provide a more thorough assessment of needs and strengths and to connect families to appropriate community-based providers. This study examined 159 child welfare referrals handled by MDTs compared to 331 referrals handled via the traditional screening approach. The study used a pseudo randomization procedure to assign referrals to the study conditions: Referrals logged on 2.5 days of the week were assigned to the treatment group; all others were assigned to the comparison group. Referrals handled by an MDT were more than four times as likely as those not handled by an MDT to be referred to community-based organizations (OR = 4.32, p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in families' engagement with community-based organizations or child welfare outcomes. MDTs are a promising step in the initial process of connecting families to services, although they did not affect this study's longer-term outcomes.

Current calls to end structural racism in the US include proposals to abolish or radically transform child welfare services (CWS). While substantial research finds numerous poor outcomes following maltreatment, the efficacy and acceptability of CWS, particularly for children of color, has long sparked debate. This review summarizes the state of quantitative research across seven domains for children overall and by race with varying degrees of CWS contact. Current research with adequate comparisons provides no robust evidence to support the idea that children have worse outcomes from CWS involvement, but few studies focused on Black children. Implications for research and system change are discussed.

This paper examines whether and how the views of professional decision makers in public agencies and courts in four child protection jurisdictions align with the views of the public. Democratic states are built on the foundation that state polices are accountable to, and represent, the citizens’ will. The extent to which this is the case in child protection is largely unknown. This study draws on survey vignette data collected from three samples (citizens, child protection staff and judiciary decision makers) representing society at large, the child welfare agency, and judicial systems in four jurisdictions - England, Finland, Norway, and the U.S. (California). Findings from this study suggest that there is a high degree of similarity across countries in the public's views about children's need for services, and the poor outcomes that may result absent a service response. Views between child protection professionals and the public diverge the most when considering if the child is suffering from neglect and the use of intrusive state interventions. Child protection staff and judges’ perspectives within each country are in general alignment and show the impact of the established systems on considerations. Our results may have implications for the design of social policy in the area of child protection internationally.

This paper presents the views of judicial decision-makers (n = 1794) in four child protection jurisdictions (England, Finland, Norway, and the USA (California)), about whether parents and children are provided with appropriate opportunities to participate in proceedings in their countries. Overall, the study found a high degree of agreement within and between the countries as regards the important conditions for parents’ and children´s involvement, although the four systems themselves are very different. There was less agreement about children’s involvement than parents’, and the court decision-makers from Norway and Finland were more likely to express doubts about this. Nevertheless, the main message from the judicial decision-makers is that they are relatively satisfied as to how parents’ and children´s involvement is handled in their countries. Whether or not this confidence is justified, the emphasis on achieving effective involvement of children and parents in court proceedings is likely to grow, with major implications for the workers, decision-makers and agencies involved.

A growing number of children are being raised by relatives under a variety of different care arrangements. Although the extant literature provides rough estimates of the number and characteristics of children living in most care arrangements, research on kinship probate guardianship is especially scarce. This article focuses on kinship probate guardianship in an effort to build the literature on this understudied population. It examines demographic information about caregivers and children pursuing kinship probate guardianship, the circumstances that necessitate children’s alternative care, and reasons for selecting this custodial arrangement. Findings suggest that children and caregivers who select into kinship probate guardianship have characteristics similar to those of children and caregivers in other types of kinship care. These children move into the homes of their relatives for a variety of reasons, primarily including parental desertion, detention, and drug use.

ABSTRACT This study examines a representative sample of adults in California (USA) and Norway, and their attitudes toward adoption versus foster care in a child protection case. The results show that a majority of people favour adoption for a child who has been removed due to maltreatment and cannot be reunified with birth parents. The study examines if people's rights orientation, favouring children or adults, or favouring birth parents or adoptive parents, or their institutional context explain their preferences about long‐term care options. Data material consist of representative samples of the population in California (USA) and Norway (n = 2222), using a vignette survey design. Findings suggest that individuals with a child rights position favour adoption, but attitudes about birth parents' and adoptive parents' rights are not related to care option choices. Institutional context, anchored in policy feedback literature, partly explains the preference for adoption and the population's rights orientation. Further studies are necessary to confirm the role of rights attitudes and institutional context. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares blank care order application templates used in four countries (England, Finland, Norway, and USA (California)), treating them as a vital part of the ‘institutional scripts’ that shape practice, and embody state principles of child protection. The templates are used when child protection agencies apply to court for a care order, usually to remove a child from the family home. The templates prescribe and shape the type of information and analysis that is required justify such an extreme level of state intervention in family life. They are a mechanism and a manifestation of the principles and the legislation of each child welfare system, and are able to cast light on issues that might otherwise remain unseen or unnoticed in cross-country comparisons. The analysis of the documents compares the language and form of the four blank templates, their inter-textuality, their readership, and authors. The analysis highlights the discretionary space allocated to social workers across countries and the state frameworks within which child protection efforts are embedded.

Child friendly justice and access to justice for children are explicit concerns for the European Union, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Council of Europe and the Child Rights International Network. This study examines court systems as child-responsive by eliciting the views of judicial decision makers on child protection cases (n = 1,479) in four legal systems (England, Finland, Norway and the usa (represented by California)), based on an online survey. In this paper, we asked judicial officials who have the authority to make care order decisions how they view the child-friendliness of the courts. We presented them with six statements representing standard features of child responsive courts. Findings show that there is considerable room for improving both structure and practice of the court proceedings, for example the use of child friendly language and child-sensitive time frames. There were variations across states, and some variation across type of decision maker. Implications for the development of education and training about the opportunities for children's engagement are considered.

This paper compares how frontline staff in four national child welfare systems and policy contexts – Finland, Norway, England and the USA (specifically, California) – respond to questions about a scenario of possible harm to children. The countries have different child welfare systems that we anticipated would be reflected in the workers' responses (n = 1027). The analysis shows differences and similarities between the systems, although often not in line with system expectations. There is also variation within the country samples. The study shows the complex interactions of individual and agency characteristics in addition to the role of proceduralised decision-making systems and professional discretion. ‘Compares how frontline staff in four national child welfare systems and policy contexts.. respond to.. a scenario of possible harm to children’. Key Practitioner Messages: Professional discretion differs. Proceduralised and high threshold systems result in less variation between workers' responses. System categories do not seem to capture the nuances of frontline decision-making.

This paper draws on an international comparative study of social work decision making in cases that are on the edge of care order proceedings, involving child protection workers from Finland, Norway, England and the USA (California). It focuses on workers’ responses in an online questionnaire to questions about the use of independent experts to inform their decisions about whether or not to take a case to court. All the countries try to avoid taking cases to court if possible, but the ways they do this vary considerably. The findings show the different meanings and implications that the request for an independent assessment has in the different systems. Workers’ views reflect the roles and tasks that independent experts have in the different countries; and these in turn reflect their distinctive child protection systems and wider child welfare approaches. The paper offers a starting point for reflection about one’s own system, and suggests that the well-known distinction between family support and child protection models should not be seen as a simple binary categorisation, but rather as a complex, contingent and contested continuum.

This article examines parents' involvement in care order decision-making in four countries at one particular point in the care order process, namely, when the child protection worker discusses with the parents his or her considerations regarding child removal. The countries represent different child welfare systems with Norway and Finland categorized as ‘family service systems’ and the USA as a ‘child protection system’, with England somewhere in between. The focus is on whether the forms and intensity of involvement are different in these four countries and whether the system orientation towards family services or child protection influences practice in the social welfare agencies with parents. Involvement is studied in terms of providing information to parents, collecting information from parents and ensuring inclusion in the decision-making processes. A vignette method is employed in a survey with 768 responses from child protection workers in four countries. The findings do not show a consistent pattern of difference regarding parental involvement in care order preparations that align with the type of child welfare system in which staff work. The goal in each child welfare system is to include parents, but the precise ways in which it is carried out (or not) vary. Methodological suggestions are given for further studies.

Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence‐informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) and its affinity group, the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), are committed to ensuring the well-being of children by providing [...]

This paper examines perceptions of time and institutional support for decision making and staff confidence in the ultimate decisions made—examining differences and similarities between and within the service-oriented Nordic countries (represented by Norway and Finland) and the risk-oriented Anglo-American countries (represented by England and California). The study identifies a high degree of work pressure across all the countries, lines of predominantly vertical institutional support and relatively high confidence in decisions. Finland stands out with higher perceived work pressure and with a horizontal support line, whereas England stands out with workers having a lower degree of confidence in their own and others’ decisions.

Kinship foster parents have the same responsibilities as nonrelative foster parents and are held to the same standards of rehabilitative care. Nonetheless, their rights to financial supports and their access to other services vary across states depending on the federal eligibility of the child, and/or the licensing criteria caregivers may or may not meet. We know little about the financial supports, well-being, or services of kinship caregivers receiving differential payment schemes and whether or not these financial supports and services make any difference. More fundamentally, in states that operate two- or more -tiered funding schemes for kinship foster parents, we currently cannot even estimate what proportion of kin caregivers receive more, less, or nothing from the government, even though all are entitled to something. Kin and non-kin caregivers in two California counties responded to a written survey focused on the financial wellbeing and income supports available to families. Sources of support were associated with the availability and utilization of other child welfare services for caregivers and for children.

The authors regret: On page 4, line number 47 it now reads “Ninety-eight (38%)…”, but is should read “One hundred and one (38%)…”. On page 4, line 48–50 it now reads “Of the total 1,020 informants …. 367 from Norway, 208 from Finland, 102 from England, and 84 from the US.”, but it should read “Of the total 1,027 informants …. 370 from Norway, 209 from Finland, 103 from England, and 90 from the US.” On page 6, table 1, there is an error in the title of the columns. It now is in the following order “Finland – Norway – England – US”, but the titles should have the following order “Finland – England – Norway – US”.  The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.

To date, the large majority of the research literature on kinship care in the United States has focused on the similarities and differences between children and caregivers in “public” or “formal” vs. “private” or “informal” care. Our understanding of children's living arrangements in the homes of their relatives, however, is becoming more nuanced and complex. The stark differences between public and private care are increasingly mediated by hybrid kinship models that may be government facilitated, but are not considered fully public in nature. This paper lays out a framework for understanding the multiple custodial options available to non-indigenous children in the United States who need alternative care from a related adult. We introduce a taxonomy in which care arrangements are characterized as state mandated, state mediated, or state independent. The variability in custodial arrangements raises questions about the routes by which children arrive to care, and the sorting process that shuttles children into arrangements that may offer more or fewer services and supports. Policies that promote consistency within care types are recommended. Practices that make more transparent access across models and a research agenda to fill gaps in knowledge are discussed.

This international comparative paper examines how child protection workers in four countries, England, Finland, Norway, USA (CA), involve children in decision making regarding involuntary child removal. The analysis is based on 772 workers' responses to a vignette describing preparations for care order proceedings. We examine children's involvement along three dimensions including information given to the child, information gathered from the child, and opportunities for their perspectives and interests to be considered. Results show that child protection workers weigh children's involvement differently based upon age. Staff in the four countries were more likely to talk with an older child, to provide information, to gather information, and to include in relevant decision making if the child were 11 compared to five in our vignette. Although the Nordic countries and England provide policy guidance regarding children's role in child protection decision making, we did not see consistently higher indicators of children's involvement from the respondents in these countries. Using child protection system frames to analyze the findings did not produce consistent differences between the family service systems and child protection systems included in this study. Findings highlight the wide range in practices concerning children's involvement in decision making, and the wide space for professional discretion in implementing practice with children at the local level.

The federal government increasingly expects child welfare systems to be more responsive to the needs of their local populations, connect strategies to results, and use continuous quality improvement (CQI) to accomplish these goals. A method for improving decision making, CQI relies on an inflow of high-quality data, up-to-date research evidence, and a robust organizational structure and climate that supports the deliberate use of evidence for decision making. This article describes an effort to build and support these essential system components through one public-private child welfare agency-university partnership.

Care orders within the child protection system are some of the most invasive interventions a state can make. This article examines the discretionary space governments set out for child protection workers when they prepare care orders. We analyse the formalized framework for these decisions in England, Finland, Norway and the United States. We focus on knowledge, timelines, how children and parents are involved and accountability. We find that Norway and Finland have highly de-regulated systems with wide discretionary space, whereas England and the United States are highly regulated systems with narrow discretionary space. The United States differentiates itself with relatively little parent and/or child involvement in decision-making. England and Finland do not have defined deadlines for terminating the process, and Norway has few directives on what information to collect. Such differences will influence the quality of decisions as well as the principles of the rule of law.

The U.S., known as a western industrialized country with a residual welfare state, has developed a system to respond to extreme family difficulties by focusing narrowly on children’s safety and risk of harm from parents or other caregivers. In contrast to many European nations, eligibility for family services is highly restricted and prevention services are typically short-term. For children who are ultimately separated from their parents to secure their safety, the U.S. welfare system places a high priority on returning children home as quickly as possible; and for those children whose reunification is forestalled, alternative opportunities for a permanent home are pursued. This paper suggests that a family system with broader eligibility and more saturated prevention services might benefit many more children and families than those currently assisted in the U.S. today.

Adverse adulthood outcomes are well documented among youth who age out of foster care. However, not all youth who age out of care experience deleterious adult outcomes, despite struggling with similar challenges during the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Childhood maltreatment, which places youth at greater risk for later maladaptive functioning and psychopathology, may partially explain poor adjustment outcomes in adulthood. Similarly, a history of unstable placements and residing in institutional congregate care settings may also contribute to hardship during this time. However, none of these factors help to explain how some young people aging out of care manage to achieve stability while transitioning into adulthood. This article reviews the literature through the lens of the identity capital framework, and discusses the applicability of this framework to the experiences of youth aging out of foster care. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

This paper aims to explore the differences between Norwegian and US welfare state ideologies, and if or how they are reflected in the respective foster care systems and in the daily practices of foster parents. Our analysis combines a review of policy documents and legal regulations, with interviews in a sample of 141 exemplary foster parents (87 from the US and 54 from Norway). The paper identifies clear differences in how these two states take responsibility and provide services for families in general and foster parents in particular, examining distinct differences in the conditions foster parents have for exercising their parenting tasks. The findings from the interviews show how the conditions play out in real life for foster parents and foster children in relation to recruitment of caregivers, time and resources available to children, and how caregivers negotiate and advocate for children's needs. © The Author(s) 2013.

In this article the authors examine the evidentiary status of the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program through a review of current research findings and a critical analysis of the study methodologies used to produce those findings. Due to the equivocal research findings and widespread methodological weaknesses (most notably selection bias) in the literature base, it is determined that there is not currently enough evidence to establish CASA as an evidence-based practice. In spite of the challenges to the feasibility of such research, a future research agenda is suggested that calls for the execution of large randomized controlled trials in order to produce findings that will inform a deeper understanding of CASA effectiveness in improving child outcomes.