The Parent Mentoring Program: Supporting Parents Accused of Child Maltreatment

Background and Purpose: Child welfare systems around the country are struggling to address the multiple barriers that exist in engaging child welfare-involved parents in their service plans (Berrick et al, 2011). Some child welfare-involved parents have described their experiences in the U.S. child welfare system as adversarial, punitive, shame-based, under-resourced, and racially biased. They explain that these experiences compound their challenges including engaging in potentially beneficial services (Haight et al, 2017). In response, parent mentoring programs and other grassroots efforts have emerged to work alongside formal child welfare systems (Leake et al, 2012). 

Parent mentors are mothers and fathers who have been involved in the child welfare system with their own children. They are recruited by parent mentoring programs who provide them with training and supervision. The overarching goal of parent mentors is to help other parents navigate their way through the socially and emotionally challenging child welfare process to achieve the best possible outcomes for their families (Berrick et al, 2011; Leake et al, 2012). Despite their promise, very little empirical research has evaluated such initiatives. The current research examines The Parent Mentoring Program of Minnesota from the perspectives of mentors, parents and professionals.

Methods: Participants were identified by the program director or parent mentor, and then through snowball sampling. They included parents, parent mentors, designers/administrators and other stakeholders and professionals. In-depth, individual, audio-taped interviews were conducted at private locations of each participant’s choosing. Interviews are transcribed verbatim. Using analytic induction techniques (Schwandt, 2014), researchers developed an emic coding system through repeated readings of transcripts. Then, two independent coders coded all transcripts, resolving disagreements through discussions. Credibility of analyses were strengthened through member checking, peer debriefing, and negative case analysis.

Findings: Participants generally describe parent mentors as in a unique position to support parents who are entering the child protection system. Based on their common experiences, parents and mentors often describe easily establishing strong, trusting relationships. These strong connections allow mentors to provide parents with emotional, social and practical assistance. Participants generally credit these relationships with facilitating parents’ understanding of complex child welfare processes, appropriate demeanor in court, engagement in services, and best outcomes for families. In addition, parent mentors generally credit involvement in the program with strengthening their own parenting. Given its unique role and perceived effectiveness, child welfare and legal professionals generally are supportive of the Parent Mentoring Program. Participants also describe challenges to the effectiveness of parent mentoring including maintaining boundaries, child welfare and legal systems they perceive to be overly punitive, and limitations in the services available to parents. 

Conclusion and Implications: This study is the first step in evaluating parent mentoring programs. Results suggest that parent mentor programs may be a viable model for supporting parents involved in the child protection system to achieve the best outcomes for families. This model can fill a gap in the services that are traditionally provided in the child welfare system. Further research is needed to examine outcomes of involved families including engagement in services, reunification and recidivism.