Effect of a Parenting Intervention on Foster Care Re-Entry Among Substance-Affected Families

Background/Purpose:

Evidence-based parenting interventions are applied in foster care settings to strengthen parenting and affect long term outcomes, including reunification. While recent studies have shown positive effects of parenting interventions on reunification, less is known about the effects on re-entry into foster care after reunification. Additional longitudinal research is needed to understand whether these reunifications translate into lasting permanence, especially for families facing significant risk factors such as parental substance abuse. This study examined the effect of the Strengthening Families Program (SFP) on the risk of re-entry among substance-affected families that reunified from foster care. The study asked two research questions: 1) did re-entry rates differ between children whose families received SFP and children whose families received services as usual, and 2) what were the predictors of re-entry?

Method:

The sample comprised 493 children who had exited foster care to reunification. The intervention group included 219 SFP participants whose parent(s) were screened in as substance-affected and referred to the group-based parenting intervention by caseworkers. Researchers established a matched comparison group of 274 non-participants through propensity score matching. Foster care data were collected from the state’s federally-required data file, Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS), and were used to examine first re-entry after reunification from federal fiscal year 2007 to federal fiscal year 2015. The likelihood of re-entry after reunification was estimated with bivariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, adjusting for clustered data due to sibling groups, and, in multivariate analyses, including relevant covariates.

Results: Among the 493 reunified children, 103 (20.9%) re-entered foster care. Bivariate analyses indicated that the difference in re-entry rates for SFP participants (24%) and non-participants (19%) was not statistically significant (HR=1.14, p=.60). Multivariate Cox regression showed that significant predictors were removal due to child behavior (HR=2.04, p<.05), family receipt of federal cash assistance (HR=2.51, p<.001), and if a child spent 15-18 months in foster care (vs. <15 months) (HR=1.95, p=.022). 

Implications: Earlier research indicated that SFP was associated with a greater likelihood of reunification. While these findings are promising, other research suggests that faster reunification can be associated with increased likelihood of re-entry, thus raising concerns about the lasting impact of interventions that return children home too quickly. Importantly, this study’s findings observed SFP participation did not significantly increase the likelihood of re-entry following reunification. Instead, our findings suggest that other factors accounted for increased risk of re-entry, including child behavior problems, family poverty, and exiting to reunification at a time period that may be heavily influenced by policy (e.g., “15 out of the most recent 22 months” provision). These findings suggest that, to sustain reunification, post-permanency supports should target families’ socio-economic needs as well as chronic child behavior problems. Further, attention may also be needed to consider how policy can be appropriately applied to support lasting permanence and avoid re-entries. Finally, this study adds to a growing literature that suggests promise for evidence-based parenting interventions’ effects on intermediate and long-term child welfare outcomes.