What Do We Know about Immigrant Children and Families in the US Child Welfare System?: A Scoping Review

Background: Given the unique sociocultural background of immigrant families, their experiences and challenges in the US child welfare system are expected to differ from those of other groups. Through a collective analysis of existing evidence on immigrant families and their involvement in the child welfare system, the current review aims to summarize the evidence and identify barriers, trends, and potential literature gaps.

Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, literature was searched in six databases from January 1, 2000, to February 29, 2024, using the following search terms: 1) immigrant families, unaccompanied children, etc., 2) child welfare involvement, foster care, etc., and 3) experience, barriers, services. Of the 1,179 studies included, 1,094 were found to be irrelevant during title and abstract screening, and 53 studies were excluded during the full-text review as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. As a result, a total of 32 studies were analyzed by type of study, population of interest, sample characteristics, data source, methodology, and findings.

Results: Of the 32 records, only 37.5% were quantitative studies, while 62.5% were qualitative studies. By population of interest, 32.4% were primarily interested in families of Latino origin, inclusive of both US-born and foreign-born, and these studies were published between 2008 and 2020. About 41.2% focused on other immigrant populations such as China, Korea, and Vietnam, with publication years ranging from 2006 to 2023. This review found a steady increase in the number of studies on unaccompanied children from 2010 to 2024 (26.5%). The sample not only consisted of children/youth (41.2%) and their parents (14.7%) but also other stakeholders such as caseworkers and foster parents (44.1%). Outcomes of the quantitative studies focused on depressive symptoms, receipt of mental health services, referral for and receipt of services, substantiation of maltreatment reports, and reunification among Latino families (18.8%); placement change and significant incident reports of unaccompanied children (6.3%); and out-of-home placement and service use of other immigrant families (12.5%). These outcomes were significantly associated with parent nativity, immigration status, history of past trauma, and the type of CPS referrals. For the qualitative findings, 25.0% were from other immigrant families, followed by unaccompanied children (21.9%) and Latino families (15.6%). Some of the major challenges that Latino families experience in the child welfare system include fear of their immigrant status and feeling powerless due to language barriers. As for unaccompanied children, many of their struggles came from adjusting to cultural differences, establishing self-identity, building a relationship/rapport with foster parents, and coping with loss and survivor's guilt. The rest of the immigrant families' challenges were similar to those of the other two groups, such as language barriers, fear, and lack of trust in child protective services.

Conclusion/Implications: Based on these findings, this review emphasizes the need of cultivating linguistically and culturally competent child welfare workforces and developing a distinct case planning strategy tailored for foreign-born Latino families. Additionally, since qualitative studies on accompanied children outnumbered quantitative research, more empirical evidence will be needed to inform the direction of future research and policies.