Support Systems in the Lives of Child Welfare-Involved Families

Background and Purpose:

Studies on risk factors related to child maltreatment have continuously emphasized the importance of social support. However, little is known about the various types of supports that are available to parents involved in the child welfare system. Previous research conceptualized and examined social support in relation to maltreatment mainly focusing on its quantitative aspects. On the contrary, this qualitative study examined the role of and the most frequent types of formal and informal supports identified by child welfare-involved parents. More specifically, the study answered the following research questions: What sources of support did the parents have during their involvement with the child welfare system? What types of supports did they receive from those sources?

Methods:

A total of 29 parents participated in qualitative semi-structured, in-depth, face-to-face interviews. The sample consisted predominantly of Black/African American (72%) females (93%). Interview recordings were transcribed and analyzed manually. The author assigned codes to the data to represent meaningful categories. Then, the author identified the major transcript segments relating to primary research questions, engaged in focused coding, developed data matrices to organize findings according to core concepts, and determined patterns, similarities and differences.

Results:

The study findings revealed the following types of supports in varying capacities: (a) external social support that included friends, faith communities, parent advocates, peer support groups, and related professionals; and (b) intrafamilial support that consisted of immediate and extended family. The quality of these relationships as well as the accessibility varied among respondents with some having very limited supports.

Family and friends provided emotional support (i.e., willingness to listen and offer advice, care and comfort) and tangible supports (e.g., child care). Spiritual/religious supports emerged as another avenue to find comfort and emotional support. Respondents highlighted educational, informational, emotional, affirmational, instructional, and instrumental supports provided by peers in support group settings.

Although there were different types of supports mentioned by respondents, not many indicated access to them and most shared experiences of social isolation due to their involvement with the child welfare system and personal struggles (i.e., substance and/or alcohol abuse, mental health). The fear of possibly implicating oneself furthermore contributed to parents’ reservations to engage with support systems. As caseworkers, teachers and other professionals were also mandated reporters, these relationships were less authentic as parents would sensor what they shared, for fear of inadvertently indicting themselves. They recalled feeling shamed, misunderstood and distanced from others.

Conclusions and Implications:

The results of this study illuminated the limited supports and difficulties that child welfare-involved parents experienced. Given this knowledge, child welfare workers could emphasize the importance of social connectivity and work to ensure that parents are connected to a network of various supports, whether formal or informal. Through specialized training and education, caseworkers could become an influential source of support for families. Peer-to-peer models that generate networking opportunities and offer numerous supports could be highly beneficial and should be promoted. It is hoped that by having access and utilizing social supports will have positive impact on family outcomes.