Building Evidence about Parent Advocacy in Child Protection

Background and Purpose:

Although it is especially difficult to engage parents who are being investigated for maltreatment, meaningful parent engagement could give voice to parents and ultimately lead to better safety and permanency outcomes (Berrick, Cohen, & Anthony, 2011). To increase parent engagement and participation in case decision-making and improve family outcomes, there has been an emerging use of “parent mentors” or “parent advocates” who share parents’ experiences of child welfare involvement (Lalayants, 2014). However, little is known about the impact of parent advocacy (PA) on case outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the PA model’s impact on case outcomes (comparing pre- and post-intervention data), such as case decisions made at the end of each initial family conference and rates of indicated repeat maltreatment within 6 months after initial decision. Additionally, the study explored the types of supports provided by Pas to families.

Methods:

Multi-method study design was employed. Qualitative data in the form of face-to-face interviews came from a purposive sample of parents (n=16); parent advocates (n=35), and child protective services staff (n=41). Qualitative data offered an opportunity to explore the benefits and types of supports offered by PAs to families. Whereas, quantitative data were generated from administrative case-level data pre-PA intervention (n=5598) and post-PA intervention (n=3224) to detect the impact of the PA intervention on case outcomes. Bivariate and multivariate multinomial logistic model analyses were applied.

Results:

The quantitative data analyses demonstrated positive case outcomes pre- and post-intervention, including decrease in the rates of removals from home and reliance on foster care services, as well as increase in placements with family members, whenever needed. We did not find any evidence of a significant effect of the PA model on the repeat maltreatment outcome: the rate of repeat maltreatment investigations remained the same. Qualitative data offered additional insight into the benefits provided by advocates with the foremost themes identified as engagement of parents, emotional and concrete supports, and the positive relationship of advocates with parents and child welfare staff.

Conclusions and Implications:

The PA model contributed to the reduction of foster care placements and, as a result, more children remained home. Parents expressed gratitude for the many emotional and concrete supports the PAs provided in a time of familial crisis. From initial outreach to service provision, PAs worked closely with parents, child welfare staff, and community services to assess and support the various psychosocial and concrete needs of families. The innovative impetus behind the PA model and its promising conclusions offer a template for future endeavors similarly focused on strengthening permanency planning objectives and bolstering familial involvement.

References:

Berrick, J., Cohen, E., & Anthony, E. (2011). Partnering with parents: Promising approaches to improve reunification outcomes for children in foster care. Journal of Family Strengths, 11, 1-13.

Lalayants, M. (2014). Parent representation model in child safety conferences. Child Welfare, 92(5), 107-136.