![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Most child welfare cases are reported for neglect and involve SUD due to parental use or children’s exposure, but the system’s response typically does not support parents toward recovery while maintaining family cohesion. Instead, children are removed, parents are referred off to treatment, followed by demands for abstinence, monitored through drug testing, while other child and parental needs receive diminished attention. To shift the focus from parental behavior toward the complex needs of families affected by substances, a midwestern state developed two Family Resiliency Centers (FRC). These centers conduct comprehensive assessments, create service plans to intervene early, and employ Family Navigators (FN) to connect children and families with necessary supports. This poster addresses the question: What are the impacts of FN services and of FRCs on child and family well-being and child welfare outcomes?
Methods
The implementation evaluation used qualitative data from monthly case reviews, identifying themes in family progress and FRC staff skill development over 4 years. RCT was used to assess impact. All families with at least one child exposed to substances, and consenting to participate, received comprehensive assessments and treatment recommendations. Next, families at each FRC were randomly assigned to experimental (ongoing FN services) or control (usual child welfare services) groups. Measures included demographics, substance exposure; court involvement; placements, Adverse Childhood Experiences, and services received. Child well-being measures: Sensory Profile-2, Child Behavior Checklist, and the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System. Parent measures: Addiction Severity Index and CES-D Depression Scale. Child welfare outcomes: administrative data on maltreatment reports, placements, and reunifications. Quantitative analysis used descriptives and correlations across assessments. Experimental and control groups were compared with independent samples t-tests for interval and chi-square tests of association for nominal variables.
Results
Gender composition was 54% female; 33% were children of color. Nearly 84% were court-involved; 65% were already removed from home. Number of prior placements ranged from 0 to eight. About 35% were prenatally exposed, 56% environmentally, 9% unknown, with methamphetamine most common. Neurodevelopmental assessments found 90% of children with atypical sensory processing and 20-25% with clinically significant behavioral, neurocognitive, self-regulatory, and/or adaptive behavior problems. No racial disparities were detected in assessments, court involvement, or placement histories.
FN services did not significantly impact well-being or child welfare outcomes. Our implementation evaluation explains these results: 1) COVID impacted referrals and service availability; 2) Many families were referred too late in the permanency timeline; their case was already moving toward termination of parental rights; 3) FNs picked up the slack in service coordination when child welfare workers were overburdened, thereby reducing difference between treatment conditions. The overall impact of the FRCs however, has been positive for the communities, as stakeholders recognize the value of comprehensive assessment and service planning; a new FRC is being launched this year.
Conclusions
With increasing knowledge about SUDs, the impacts of trauma, and the widely recognized prominence of SUD in child welfare cases, child welfare services need to shift focus from monitoring parental behavior toward meeting the complex needs of children and parents affected by substances.