After controlling for child disabilities, family structure, economic deprivation and other factors, five large studies have found that African American children are less likely to be reunified with their families than all other groups of children, particularly white children.

Among all children in care, very young African American children are least likely to be reunified with their families.

Nationwide, 14.7% of children under 18 are African American but 38% of children in foster care are African American. African American children remain in foster care longer than any other group.

Reviews of child welfare research have also revealed that families of color are less likely than white families to receive services.

Medium level of evidence

It is believed that these numbers are the result of decision-making bias (in removal, services, and placement decisions) rather than the result of income or resources.

Data analyses. Compare reunification rates (either by using a data reporting system or by reviewing cases) for:

• Very young children (0-3), young children (5-12), and older children (12-18).
• Caucasian/Anglo children and children of color (make a combined variable).
• African American, Native American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and White children, respectively.

Check for Disproportionality. Disproportionality results when a particular racial/ethnic group of children is represented (in foster care, for example) at a higher percentage than other racial/ethnic groups. Check to see if you have a greater number of African American children in out-of-home care (etc.) than Hispanic children, White children, etc.

Check for Overrepresentation. If a particular racial/ethnic group of children are represented in foster care at a higher percentage than they are represented in the general population, that group is said to be overrepresented. To check for overrepresentation, compare your child welfare population with the larger community's racial/ethnic demographics. If you don't already have county level and state level demographic data, use KidsCount data: http://www.aecf.org/kidscount/kc2002/

Best workers. Identify workers who show success reunifying families of color, and have some of them join an advisory group to work on improving outcomes for these children and their families.

Agency competence. Is your agency culturally competent? Go to one of thes two website for agency assessment resources: http://gucchd.georgetown.edu/nccc/index.html or http://www.sshsac.org/general/ResourceLinksCulturalCompetence.asp

Language barriers. How many children/families speak Spanish or another language as their first language? Do you have enough workers who speak this language so that just a few people don't end up seeing all the Hispanic (or Vietnamese, etc.) families?

Staffing. Assess staffing in your agency from para-professional to administration. Are your staff members mostly white even though your agency or unit serves mostly Hispanic, Asian, African American or Native American children and families? What policies or informal practices are in place that would encourage more staff of color to apply and keep jobs in your agency? What recruitment and retainment strategies have worked in the past? In your experience elsewhere?

Assessment tools. Are the assessment tools/forms used applicable for all racial/ethnic groups served by your agency? Have forms been evaluated for cultural sensitivity-- formally or informally? If not, do at least an informal evaluation by testing forms w/ workers or supervisors from different racial/ethnic groups and having them give feedback and suggestions.

Consultation/collaboration. Consult with local and/or national organizations serving the populations you serve (e.g. a Native American college or advocacy group, a gay and lesbian youth support group.) If there mistrust in the population, how can it be overcome? How can your agency work with the organization to better serve the children in care?

Of children in out-of-home placements, children with the following characteristics experience greater difficulty being reunified with their families:

• Children with health problems or disabilities
• Children with multiple placement moves (often as a result of behavioral issues)
  

Data analysis. Run data analyses comparing rates of reunification for:

• children with identified disabilities and children with none;
• children with more than three placement moves and children with fewer than three;
• children with mental health diagnoses who have fewer placement moves and more placement moves.

Psychosocial functioning. Provide mental health services to children and families before, during, and after reunification to equip children and parents to handle behavioral issues as they arise when the child returns home.

Special education. Connect parents with special ed advocates to ensure that children receive appropriate timely IEPs and other educational services.

Support. Link families to support groups for children with similar disabilities.

Respite. Provide respite services for families.

Consult. Work with disability advocacy groups to understand how to better facilitate permanent, timely placements for these children.

In a study of 8,748 children in out-of-home care, two thirds were in foster care because of neglect rather than abuse. This suggests that neglected children have lower rates of reunification.

Medium level of evidence

Researchers have suggested that the greater number of neglected children in foster care is sometimes the result of workers confusing poor children with neglected children.

Neglect or poverty. Review policy in your agency to determine if children being removed from the home are truly neglected or merely from poor families. Insure that all levels (workers, supervisors, etc.) understand the difference.

Concrete services. Provide concrete services for families (housing, transportation, food, employment, SSI, etc.)

Single parent status is linked with lower likelihood of reunification (most often, single mothers).

Medium level of evidence

Single parent status is linked with lower likelihood of reunification because single mothers, especially, have fewer years of education than men and thus fewer opportunities for employment or advancement.

Client-run groups. Encourage successful clients to facilitate support and advocacy groups to support women in acquiring education, childcare, jobs, non-drug and alcohol related recreation and stress-relief. Go to http://www.selfhelp.on.ca/ for more information on starting mutual aid and self-help groups.

TANF collaboration. Build relationships between child welfare and TANF staff to ensure that parents are receiving full range of support services for which they are eligible.

Poverty and inadequate housing are the most common predictors of placement in foster care. Children living in poverty are less likely to be reunified than those not living in poverty.

Drug or alcohol problems are correlated with reduced chances of reunification.

Medium level of evidence

Some researchers suggest that lower rates of reunification for single mothers with substance abuse problems are due to lack of treatment that is specifically designed to meet the needs of women with children.

Lower reunification rates for parents with substance abuse problems may also be related to inconsistencies between ASFA timeframes and the time required to successfully treat addictive disorders.

TANF work requirements may conflict with ASFA requirements.

Appropriate assessment. Factor in the time successful substance abuse treatment can take when making case plans. Some families with substance abuse or severe poverty cannot be reunified within ASFA timeframes.

Collaboration. Increase collaboration with substance abuse, mental health services, and TANF workers in the area served. Establish liaisons or move services in-house.

Joint trainings. Hold joint trainings in which child welfare, TANF, anti-poverty, substance abuse/mental health providers are made aware of ASFA timelines for treatment and in which these allied professionals can communicate about available resources.

Medium level of evidence

Including extended family members in children's permanency planning has been shown to contribute to successful reunification.

Encourage kin participation in case plan reviews.

Assess strengths. Assess family strengths and build on them throughout reunification process.

Commitments for support. With parents' permission, include any and all extended family members from the beginning of the case planning process. Get concrete commitments from family members as to ways they will support the permanency plan. Invite kin to write letters to the family about ways they would like to support them.

Early and thorough family assessments are favorably associated with reunification.

Cases in which the worker and family communicate clearly about the changes that must take place in order for reunification to occur are more likely to have successful outcomes.

Intensive services (e.g. 3 meetings/wk.) are associated with reunification.

Medium level of evidence

Concrete services (especially income, housing, and transportation) are associated with better reunification rates.

Hands-on skill trainings were associated with positive outcomes in two large studies.

Stress-relief trainings for parents were positively associated with family reunification in two studies.

Assessments. Assess the average time to completion of initial assessment in your agency.

Thoroughness. Assess thoroughness of workers' assessments through case review.

Pair workers. Pair more skilled workers with less skilled workers in completing family assessments.

Risk assessment. Determine which families are at greatest risk of recurring maltreatment using a risk assessment tool (very poor families; families with very young children; families with substance abuse problems; families in which a child has a disability or health problem). Allocate intensive services based on a triage of most in need to least in need.

Concrete services. Casework to provide concrete services. Involve advocacy groups, social work schools, TANF offices, churches/synagogues, etc. in getting/creating these resources.

Foster parents. Involve foster families in providing stress relief and skill trainings for birth parents/primary caregivers.

Kinship care has been associated with longer stays in care.

Medium level of evidence

Some research suggests that length of stay in kinship care depends on whether relatives are receiving the same payments as foster parents.

Kinship carers receive, on average, lower levels of service than foster parents.

Kinship care appears to have mixed research results. In a California study of 29 kinship parents and 33 nonrelative foster care parents, which measured quality of care, nonrelative placements were rated as physically safer than relative placements. Relative placements had higher levels of violence and drug and alcohol abuse.

Data analysis. Compare average length of stay (for similar age groups) in kinship care with average length of stay in non-kinship care.

Funding. Determine whether kin placements with longer stays are being compensated the same as non-kin placements.

Monitoring. Determine whether kin placements are monitored less frequently than non-kin placements.

Brief (90 days), in-home, intensive services have been shown in one major study to result in positive reunification outcomes. However, regular services delivered in this same time frame resulted in lower rates of reunification.

Data analysis. Determine average length of time to commencement of services (e.g. mental health assessment, etc.)

Risk assessment. Determine which children are at greatest risk of maltreatment recurrence using a risk assessment tool (children in very poor families; families with very young children; families with single mothers; families with substance abuse problems; families in which a child has a disability or health problem.) Allocate intensive services based on a triage of those most in need.

On average, the likelihood of reunification diminishes the longer the child remains in out-of-home care.

Very short stays in care (less than three months) can result in re-entry. It is likely that many families cannot make necessary changes in this brief time period.

Medium level of evidence

In a study of 8,748 children, those with the greatest probability of returning home did so within one year. Half did so within six months.

Data analysis. Look at your average time to reunification. If the median time to reunification is less than six months, look at your reentry rates to see if these reunifications are disrupting.

Data analysis. Run reunification comparisons by worker, area, etc. Which workers or areas are reunifying families fastest? Slowest? Which are the populations predominantly served in which areas (or by which workers)? What hypotheses explain variations in performance?

Problem-solve. Problem-solve with your team or agency to see what it would take to reunify as many families as possible within a one-year timeframe.

The likelihood of reunification diminishes the longer the child remains in out-of-home care. ASFA timelines are designed to move the majority of children through the foster care system in a timely manner.

Medium level of evidence

Case reviews would likely need to happen sooner than the 6-month deadline to reunify the majority of children within 6 months to a year. As mentioned above, in a study of 8,748 children, those with the greatest probability of returning home did so within one year. Half did so within six months.

Data analysis. Determine the percentage of cases in substantial conformity with ASFA policies and procedures. Are there patterns among those cases not in compliance? What can be done to change these patterns? (Reassign workers, share resources, allocate
funding, increase trainings with allied personnel like judges, etc.).

Engage parents early. Assess workers' engagement with parents. Are parents being engaged early in the process and told clearly what will need to occur in what timeframe in order for them to get their kids back? If not, what can be done (staffing, training, resource allocation) to improve early engagement?

Concurrent planning. Concurrent planning has been recommended as one way to achieve substantial conformity with ASFA timelines.

In two large studies, frequent visits between workers and parents (3 times a week in the initial stages of work) were associated with higher rates of reunification.

Medium level of evidence

Parent-child visitation is important. Frequency and logistics of visits appear to be less important than structuring visits around meaningful parent-child interactions and assessment of change.

Risk assessment. Determine which families are at greatest risk of dissolution or recurrence of maltreatment (very poor families; families with very young children; families with single mothers; families with substance abuse problems; families in which a child has a disability or health problem) using a risk assessment tool. Allocate intensive services based on a triage of most in need to least in need.

Data analysis. Look for patterns among cases in visitation type, frequency, arrangement and reunification.

Consult. Meet with staff to determine which strategies work best for facilitating meaningful change between parents and children.

Read. Read this guide to conducting parent-child visits conducted by researchers at the University of Illinois School of Social Work. Access at: http://cfrcwww.social.uiuc.edu/pubs/pdf.files/Childvisits.pdf

Geographic distance between children and parents is linked to lower likelihood of reunification.

Strong parent-worker alliances facilitate timely reunification.

Recruitment. Increase foster care recruitment efforts in neighborhoods from which most children in care come.

Tools. Go to the Casey Foundation website for tools to help restructure foster care, including ways to increase successful recruitment of foster care providers: www.aecf.org/initiatives/familytofamily/tools.htm

Client satisfaction survey. Implement a client satisfaction survey if your agency does not have one.

Read. Read this step-by-step behavioral guide to help workers build strong alliances with parents. Access at: http://cfrcwww.social.uiuc.edu/pubs/Pdf.files/parexpect.pdf

In a major national study of local and state child welfare administrators, family reunification services were found to be more commonly subcontracted in large counties (>=25,000 children) than in small (0-24,999 children) counties. According to the authors of the federal study, this suggests the potential for duplication of services and less frequent monitoring, as subcontracted services are less likely to come under scrutiny in the same manner as state-provided services.

In the same national study, researchers found significant differences between service delivery in poor (more than 5% of families w/children living below 50% of the poverty level) vs. nonpoor (5% or less of families w/ children living below 50% of poverty level) counties. Nonpoor counties had an average per-child welfare expenditure of $10,739, four times higher than the average per-child expenditure of $2,689 in poor counties. Nonpoor counties had higher percentages of CPS dollars relative to the total number of children investigated. Higher rates of abuse and neglect reports were investigated in poor counties, but a lower proportion of families received family preservation.

Data analysis. Run data analyses by area, county, and unit to determine who has the best overall performance in family reunification. Compare outcomes in larger vs. smaller counties, rural vs. urban counties, poor vs. nonpoor counties (controlling for population and service variables).

Examine disparities. Are there funding, staffing, and outcome disparities between rural and urban, poor and nonpoor, large and small counties? What can be done to distribute resources more equitably and to even out outcome achievement?

Invite consultation. Invite best performers to consult with other agencies, units, or counties on successful strategies with various populations.

Rewards. Reward the best performers with recognition.

Subcontracts. Analyze potential resource and service duplication in subcontracted services.

Policies that do not focus on reunification goals and principles diminish the effectiveness of reunification services.

Evaluate policies. Evaluate your agency, area, or state's policies with regard to reunification. Is reunification strongly reinforced in these policies and procedures? Compare with other agencies, counties, areas, or states.

Family reunification services are less effective when provided by caseworkers with heavy workloads. (caseloads that substantially exceed CWLA guidelines).

Working conditions (phones & answering machines that work, sufficient space to meet with clients, heating/cooling, flextime, cell phones, computers, etc.) impact the effectiveness of reunification services.

Turnover exceeds 50% per year in the child welfare field. Position vacancy rates often surpass 12%.

Medium level of evidence

Caseworkers with a social work education and more experience tend to facilitate more timely permanence for the families they serve.

An Australian study suggests that supervisors need to attend to the emotional intrusiveness of child welfare work-rather than merely to task completion-to increase workers' morale and decrease high rates of attrition.

In studies in which child welfare workers were interviewed, supportive supervision was the most commonly cited variable related to turnover and retention. Caseworkers are able to differentiate supportive supervision from an otherwise unsupportive work environment, and they view supervision as more important.

Worker's job conditions. Assess workers' caseloads, job descriptions, and work environments. Ask workers to prioritize the three things they would most like changed about their jobs (within reason) and the three things they think they could change to improve performance. Try very hard to provide at least two of the things prioritized by workers. Be transparent about your ability to improve their working conditions and about the time needed to make changes. Put worker's three contributions into concrete, behavioral terms and establish a review procedure to assess progress on these goals.

Recruitment and retention. Increase recruitment and retention of highly trained workers. Workers with BSW or MSW degrees report greater job satisfaction and have lower attrition rates.

Reorganize infrastructure. Advertise jobs accurately-with detailed job descriptions. Provide supportive supervision. Allow workers' maximum autonomy and decision-making authority whenever possible. Recognize good performance.

Improve morale. Work to improve the respect accorded workers at all public interfaces by educating media, courts, and other professionals about positive outcomes.

Group supervision. Insist on regular group/team supervision to maintain professional development and morale.

Organize. Organize to oppose ongoing state efforts to deprofessionalize the child welfare labor force.

When funding is made more flexible and service providers are given fiscal incentives to develop family and community-based services, children move more quickly to permanence.

Review funding. Review funding structures to determine whether there are built-in disincentives or incentives to provide only certain types of services (e.g. federal monies that just pay room and board for foster care) or placements. See, Petr, C.G., & Entriken, C. (1995). Service system barriers to reunification. Families in Society, 76(9) 523-533, for more ideas.

Less than a third of staff employed in public child welfare agencies have formal social work education. This may prevent workers from promoting timely reunification due to lack of a theoretical or professional framework on which to base reunification decisions..

Salaries in public and private child welfare agencies are lower than in other comparable jobs.

The increased regulation of public child welfare work, combined with external decision making, make this an unattractive job setting for professionals.

The poor image of child welfare agencies has an adverse effect on morale and the retention of qualified employers.

Concerns about staff safety have grown over the past two decades.

Medium level of evidence

In recent years, cases have become increasingly complicated without commensurate increases in funding, salaries, training, or support.

Recruitment and retention. Increase recruitment and retention of highly trained workers. Workers with BSW or MSW degrees report greater job satisfaction and have lower attrition rates.

Reorganize infrastructure. Implement quality of worklife survey. Advertise jobs accurately-with detailed job descriptions. Provide supportive supervision. Allow workers' maximum autonomy and decision-making authority whenever possible. Recognize good performance.

Improve morale. Work to improve the respect accorded workers at all public interfaces by educating media, courts, and other professionals about positive outcomes.

Consider unionizing/organizing. Lobby for salary increases, better, safer working conditions, and greater professional autonomy.

Medium level of evidence

More research is needed to establish the correlation between family reunification and unique features of court jurisdictions, judges, communities, etc.

Data analysis. Assess whether certain judges make the same decisions-either for or against reunification.

High level of evidence

Inadequate community-based resources (substance abuse treatment, employment, housing) lead to lower reunification rates.

Collaboration. Work to improve relationships with other providers in the community.

Grant writing. Partner with other agencies to garner funding and resources.

Demonstration programs. Develop innovative service delivery and program strategies and utilize Title IV-E waivers to fund them.

Lobby. Support local, state, and national advocacy organizations (like the Child Welfare League of America) in making social service funding a priority.

Cost effectiveness. Demonstrate the overall cost effectiveness of providing concrete resources to families by showing the cost offsets of prison, long-term health or mental health care, etc.

High level of evidence

State child welfare administrators report hiring more attorneys and doing joint trainings with child welfare staff in order to meet ASFA timelines.