Search

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.

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.

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.

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]

ObjectivesThis article describes the Standard Interview for Evidence Use (SIEU), a measure to assess the level of engagement in acquiring, evaluating, and applying research evidence in health and social service settings.MethodThree scales measuring input, process, and output of research evidence and eight subscales were identified using principal axis factor analysis and parallel analysis of data collected from 202 state and county child welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice systems leaders.ResultsThe SIEU scales and subscales demonstrate strong internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity.ConclusionsThe SIEU is easy to use and can be administered as a complete scale or as three smaller scales to separately examine evidence in acquisition, evaluation, or application. The measure demonstrates potential in understanding the role of research evidence in service settings and in monitoring the process of evidence-based practice and application of scientific principles in social work practice.

Youth who receive services from public mental health, child welfare and delinquency, and homeless systems are often exposed to a number of overlapping child, family, school, and community risk factors. Minimal research, however, has focused on the extent to which single- or multiple-system involvement influences school dropout. Relying on an integrated data set, the associations between single- and multiple-system utilization and risk for dropping out, or actually dropping out of school, among youth in Grades 7 through 9 were examined. Results showed dropout rates more than doubled among public youth system users compared with those in the overall sample. With a few exceptions, use of combinations of services systems translated into somewhat higher likelihoods of dropping out of school when compared with single-system use. Future research is warranted to identify the underlying processes by which single- and multiple-system involvement influences school dropout rates.

Objective: Conduct secondary data analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of Massachusetts' Adolescent Outreach Program for Youths in Intensive Foster Care (Outreach) for increasing social support (SS) among enrolled youth. Participants: 194 youth in intensive foster care under the guardianship of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families with a goal of independent living (IL) or long-term substitute care, and born between August 1985 and December 1990 (67% female, 66% White, 27% Hispanic) participated in the study between September 2004 and March 2009. Method: We hypothesized that Outreach compared to services as usual (SAU; control group) would increase participants' SS and that there would be racial/ethnic disparities in SS as a function of the Outreach. Treatment effects were tested using mixed-effect models. Results: Outreach did not increase foster youth's SS, compared to SAU. No racial/ethnic disparities in program effect were detected. Discussion and Applications to Social Work: Providers of IL services should reconsider how best to build and strengthen SS among the foster youth they serve.

Summary: While previous studies have offered insight into evidence-based practices that are effective in promoting safety and well-being, the underlying contextual implementation conditions that influence these outcomes in child welfare agencies are less understood. To address this gap, this study relied on organizational survey data collected from child welfare workers and supervisors during the process of implementing an evidence-based practice—the Positive Parenting Program—and merged those data with data gathered by the Parents' Assessment of Protective Factors survey. Findings: Results showed a significant increase between baseline and termination of services in social connections and overall protective factors index scores. Parents who received services from organizations inclusive of supportive leadership experienced greater increases in social connections. Lower protective factors index scores were associated with workers' perception that evidence-based practices were required; however, scores increased as supportive leadership increased. Parents who identified as African American experienced lower protective factors index scores compared to parents in other racial categories. Parents who were engaged with workers who felt evidence-based practices were appealing were likely to experience greater increases in protective factors index scores. Applications: Intended client outcomes are more likely to be achieved when agency leaders (1) provide workers support to learn and use evidence-based practices and (2) rely on methods to increase evidence-based practice appeal rather than mandate implementation. Future research is needed to (1) understand why the implementation contexts or Positive Parenting Program itself are not as effective for African Americans as they are for oteher racial/ethnic groups and (2) validate findings in other agency contexts and with other evidence-based practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]