Child Welfare In Disarray: A Changing Paradigm

The media highlights an overburdened system with one tragic story after another. Child welfare workers are carrying caseloads that are overwhelming. Most abusive adults never go to jail.

If you work in social services, work in child welfare, or provide supportive services to families, this summary, report, and presentation material may be of interest to you.

Kurt LaRose MSW LCSW CHT CSW Supervisor and LICSW

Many children bounce around from shelters, to group homes, to foster homes, and maybe onto adoption. As adults few system youth go onto college; some end up in jail or homeless.

NOTE: IF YOU SUSPECT CHILD ABUSE OR YOU ARE AWARE OF AN EMERGENCY SITUATION AND NEED SOME IDEAS OF WHERE TO GO AND WHO TO CONTACT – TAKE A MOMENT TO SEE OUR 911 PAGE FOR A FEW IDEAS

So much has been said about the child welfare system it almost makes a person wonder, exactly what more can be done to help abused and neglected children? The research is not very impressive. Maybe social service professionals have yet to find a method that is most effective, but certainly something must change.

Research and the literature has long indicated (highlighted in this report and its accompanying presentation materials) that child welfare is in disarray. As a result, there’s a need for an alternative system, boldly moving from placing the ‘treatment onus on abused and neglected children, to ad adult treatment oriented and based model; the goal is the child welfare as a system no longer focus entirely on providing care just for children. The existing system should redirect its energies to rehabilitate abusive and neglectful adults; when adults fail at treatment mandates – why not send them to jail? When child welfare professionals have enough evidence to remove children from homes, isn’t it reasonable to mandate treatment for adults? And if that fails, why not ask the adults to support non-compliance in front of the criminal court?

You are about to learn about an innovative model that addresses some of the difficulties facing the child welfare system. The following pages explain how the “adult welfare system” functions. A diagrammed model of adult welfare is introduced; the five phases are briefly explained, and finally a power point slide show is presented that offers brief notes used for public discussions on the adult welfare model.

Here are some probing considerations: Why don’t we treat families who are wrapped up in the dynamics of neglect and abuse – the whole family? Is it fair to remove children from abusive homes while simultaneously letting the abusers stay in the home? If the adults are at fault, let’s hold them accountable. Abusers can either get treatment or go to jail – it’s that simple. Too harsh? Probably not any more harsh than removing children from a home, without requiring some kind of adult treatment. The innovative adult welfare system proposes to keep the children in their natural home while the parents get help. That’s right, keep the kids at home.

____________________________

Changing Views: Should Child Welfare be Transformed into Adult Welfare?

A survey of the current child welfare system, what works and what does not, with an alternative recommendation and consideration.

Kurt LaRose, August 2003

Notes about this presentation and literature review as of 2018:
At the time of this presentation (first completed in 2003 as graduation requirement) the information included in it and its associated literature reviews were deemed accurate by its author. This information is included, as of 2018, for informational purposes only. Current trends in child welfare, child abuse laws and interventions are not included in this dated presentation. The presentation is provided here as a marketing sample for professional development and onsite program implementation concepts available by the author via special arrangements.

Abstract

Many troubles confront the existing child welfare system, for both children who are in care and for those who have left care, and this project addresses the different attempts at finding solutions that have been promulgated to be in the best interests of children: foster care, adoption, family preservation, shared family care, and family drug courts. A new system for dealing with children and families who are involved in the abuse and neglect dynamic is proposed and a public presentation forum is proposed, completed and evaluated. The comprehensive adult focused program, called adult welfare, suggests that abusive parents can be treated, and held accountable should they fail to respond to treatment, just as abused children can avoid placement shifts by remaining in their homes of origin. Program comparison costs, program development, implementation, survey research analysis, and presentation factors are discussed.

Introduction

In a recent article from the Tallahassee Democrat, (one in a five part series) the newspaper investigated foster care children in the State of Florida. The report addresses many of the complexities of child placement issues and what happens to children who not only live in, but also those who leave from, the system. The story of one youth is particularly telling and interesting.

Tara Gravelin, at age 17, has “spent the past four years in foster care, bouncing around more than a dozen homes. She attempted suicide twice, ran away from nearly half her placements and was molested by a foster parent’s adult son” (Bridges, 2003). And even while she is nearly a child herself, Tara is the mother of one baby girl.

An important question that must be addressed regarding child welfare in America, is whether or not former children (and now adults) bode well once out of the system? For example, is Tara Gravelin a success story? An update on the Gravelin case, according to Bridges (2003), reveals that Tara has left her adoptive home, has moved in with her boyfriend, is pregnant her second child, and has dropped out of high school. Tara left her adoptive home, even before she turned 18.

A look at one case cannot possibly answer the mammoth child welfare success or failure question. The professionals in the field of child welfare know very well that the system is imperfect; the media keeps the nation abreast of the most titillating tragedies. However a great deal more needs to be known about the system in order to glean from such information what works, and what does not work.

Background

My interest in abused children is almost as old as I am. I know first hand some of the struggles that face children, not only in their formative years, but also later into adulthood; thriving post abuse is possible. To be sure, the challenges are many. Adding to personal life experiences, my former wife and I ran a group home for two and one-half years and also were treatment foster parents. I know well the challenges that face child welfare workers and foster parents, because I have served at those same capacities. Many of the youth who lived with us in care struggled to maintain their placement; not all of them fared so well.

It was in the group home that I realized something about all of the children we worked with; all of them, no matter how horrific their abuse was, asked to – and wanted to go home. It never failed; life at home for some of these boys was similar to a nightmare, and as surreal as some of their stories were, home was the place they knew before coming into the system.

Probably one of the biggest misfortunes in the group home was my and my then wife’s realization that two older boys had raped one of the younger boys; the two older boys were carted off to jail while the younger one eventually blew out of the group home in a fit of rage. And two of the other boys from the group home eventually served time in jail. In another sad situation, one of our foster children, who was only nine when he first came to group home, was arrested in 2002 for, and admitted to, murder at the age of 21. His girlfriend is carrying their child, and if all goes well the baby will see the father as a free man after the child reaches the age of 25. (2004 and 2018 update: He is currently serving a life, without parole sentence).

Are there success stories? Absolutely. Two of “our” boys left the group home when we did, and moved into our foster home. They both have grown up to be participatory members of society. One is an evangelical minister, who originally left our care and joined the underworld of street life. He eventually abandoned his life on the streets in order to “serve God.” Occasionally he calls to ask if he can pray for us and to simply say hello. His spirituality is admirable. The other boy was one that the system claimed would remain in institutional care for the rest of his life; his IQ was considered borderline mentally retarded (a dated term no longer used, as the DSM5 now classifies, intellectual/developmental disabled). But guess what; he now lives in the south, independent of institutions, with his fiancé and hopes to one day be the father of his own children.

Rationale

This project gives minimal address to the aftereffects of the child welfare system, partly because it is extremely difficult to write about a topic for which not much information can be found; that is not to say it does not exist, because it does. A few outcomes were addressed in the public presentation that was the final culmination of this research-based project. Other child welfare outcomes are also mentioned later in the literature review section of this paper; nevertheless, a great deal of the literature highlights the shortcomings of today’s child welfare system.

The purpose of putting together this project is to highlight the many facets of child welfare, the good and the bad, and then to suggest that a different concept for dealing with abused youth is in order. The reasons for a new system are many. First of all, it is with every failed placement from the group home that I can think of a great reason. Each boy could have been served better; not because the provision of care was not optimal, but because maybe the services that were provided only dealt with one part of the issue, the child. And that is likely the biggest point; the child is not the problem. Thus, a system that focuses so much time and money on treating children fails to pay attention to the adults who are certainly a part of the abusive and neglectful dynamic.

Statement of the Problem

The way the system works now is that children who are abused and/or neglected are removed from their homes. Many, if not most times parents are not criminally charged for their abuse, but instead they are given a “performance agreement” (a contract to regain custody of their children). If the parents do not meet the terms of the performance agreement then parental rights are terminated and the child is then considered to be in state custody. From there, the placement tragedy begins; the child goes from one spot to another until, or if, someone decides to adopt the child (Blome, 1997).

The problem with today’s system is that the children are the ones who are being inadvertently punished by placing them outside of their home of origin. The parents, on the other hand, are in many ways rewarded for their abusive behavior because they no longer are obligated to care for their children. A few of the rewards for abusive parents who lose their children to the state are: the parents no longer have a financial responsibility to the children; the parents do not have to go to jail for their crimes; the children are perceived as getting better care elsewhere, better than what the abusive parents can provide; and parents can continue to engage in behaviors that may contribute to abuse, such as drug and alcohol use.

The child is often told that removal from their home is not their fault and is then placed in a strange living situation and expected to behave appropriately. All kinds of treatment strategies are developed and implemented on behalf of the child who often acts out in various placements. Many children simply want to go back home. It makes sense for a child to wonder: ‘if I’m not at fault why am I here, and Mom and Dad are still at home? Why do I have to change schools? Why do I have to make new friends? What did I do wrong?’

Introducing the Adult Welfare System

The way an adult welfare system would work , in contrast to the current child welfare system, is that when abuse and neglect is found to be true, social workers would not simply elect to remove the child from the home, but several steps would immediately go into effect. AFTER substantiation occurs, multiple interventions would be simultaneously applied to systemically alter the family abuse patterns addressing both the perpetrators and the victims. With abuse substantiated, the issue of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (a criminal standard) and the “preponderance of evidence” (something less stringent than the criminal standard) would be temporarily set to the side, in order to set the wheels of criminal and legal sanctions in motion (not based upon the courtroom/conviction outcomes) where the leverage to effect change in the lives of the adults who are accused becomes credible. Substantiated abuse means the adults are believed to a have committed abuse thus law enforcement initially intervene with the parents (and they would likely be going to be removed from the home and charged criminally). After law enforcement removes the abusive parent (assuming such a move is evident and reasonable), they are initially placed into jail, then the parents would be transferred to an adult treatment program where they would undergo intensive rehabilitative treatment; parents would immediately begin educational parenting courses and psychotherapy (subsequent to the initial criminal sanction). Ultimately, the parents would either participate in treatment or simply go to jail.

Social workers would be responsible for providing 24-hour care to the child. As a general rule parents might be given a timeline, such as 6 to 12 months, to rehabilitate enough that they can be monitored and gradually moved back home. It is back in the home, when the family is re-united, that interactions between parents and children can be supervised. Gradually the family support would be weaned away from the home as the family stabilizes.

Literature Review

History

The earliest known official supplanting of a group of children occurred in 1854, when the first Children’s Aid Society secretary, the Reverend Charles Loring Brace, moved the group from New York City to the Midwest (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002). Thirty-two years later foster homes were pioneered to serve as a resource for returning children to their own family (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002). Quite possibly since that time, the actions of those who work under the guise of what is in the best interest of children has been questioned.

The well being of children and families has long been a centerpiece for child advocates, social workers and other social service professionals. American politics and public policy history reveal that the forerunners of child welfare advocated for societal changes in the name of protection, justice, and stability for parents and children. In 1889 Jane Addams was heavily caught up in the idea of keeping families intact with her active role in the development of the Hull House in Chicago (About, n.d.), created partly to provide daycare for single working mothers. Addams also supported women’s suffrage, the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union.

But the issue of child welfare was of particular interest to Addams. She worked to bring about the Juvenile Protective Association, the juvenile psychopathic clinic (later called the Institute for Juvenile Research), and was a key player in America’s first juvenile court (About, n.d., para. 3). This pioneer, considered no less than one of the early founders of the discipline of social work, was involved in a great number of firsts in her pursuit of, and passion for, change. Thus, the evolutionary process of child welfare is more than a century old, and the notion of change is embedded in its very foundation.

Early in child welfare history the federal government became involved in children’s issues. Long before the term permanency planning was coined, public figures placed value on the idea of keeping families together, and asserted the importance upon giving children stable homes. In 1909, just ten years after Hull House came about, the first White House Conference on Children issued a family oriented goal of keeping children with their parents; removing children from homes was to be only a temporary matter, and in rare cases where children were taken out of their homes, they were to be quickly returned (Schorr, 2000).

Present Circumstances

It is reported that nearly one million children are victims of child abuse or neglect each year; an estimated 80% of the abuse cases are attributed, at least in part, to parental alcohol and other drug (AOD) abuse factors (Lavato & Mack, 2003). The complexity of AOD issues, the legal policing and investigations of abuse reports, the need to protect children, and the increased goal of permanency planning make child welfare a dynamic system. One of the down sides to a far reaching and multifaceted child welfare system is that the system is often divided among many different departments and agencies, simultaneously involved in a single case. Unfortunately, the best interests of the child are not always the goal of every department and every agency; issues over jurisdiction, authority, treatment, and planning can be culprits that interfere with a family’s overall progress (Lavato & Mack, 2003).

But defining what actually equates to a child’s best interest has been somewhat difficult and its materialization is as complex as the human condition. Even while public policy, societal awareness, and legal mandates have supported the idea that children need stability, consistency, and permanency, the system has been struggling to meet these demands. Years and years of child welfare practices have been implemented, and years and years of research questions its success. And in a close review of history, programmatic practice, and research there may very well be, as Schorr (2000) states, “a bleak prospect for public child welfare” (p. 124).

The youth of today’s child welfare system have been placed there largely due to the neglect and abuse the children have received at the hands of their caregivers. In the past twenty years there has been a decline in community-based services such as supportive daycare, after school programs and mental health clinics (Association, 2002). As a result, the efforts at providing care for foster care youth is presently strained.

A central question for those who work in child welfare is whether or not the system of care can provide safety and security for abused children. The answer is multi-dimensional. On one side of the issue are those who claim abusive parents are such a threat to children that removal of the children is the only and best option; and finding alternative placements, such as foster homes, is considered primary in assuring a child’s immediate safety. Differing from foster care are those who promote adoption as a good and permanent method for stabilizing abused and neglected children. Others say that keeping related family members together is most important; these family preservationists posit that abusive parents, if provided adequate supportive services and education, can become and are the appropriate caregivers to their children. In more recent times innovative programs have surfaced within child welfare such as shared family care and family drug courts. Still others, who are thinking eclectically, call for the qualities of multiple perspectives to be united under an entirely new kind of child welfare system.

There is something to be said for each program and perspective that currently comprises America’s child welfare system. And in an effort to appreciate what is effective, and what is ineffective, a look at each program and perspective is needed. In the following pages a review will be made of foster care, adoption, family preservation, shared family care, family drug courts, and an eclectic view.

A quick snap shot of how it might work differently – interventions focused on adults

Foster Care

There are conflicting numbers as to just how many foster children there are in America. In 1961 there were 245,000 children in care, but by 1999 that number had jumped to 500,000 (Schorr, 2000). One study indicates that in 1994 nearly one million children were residing with a total of 577,000 foster families (DHHS, 1997). The United States Department of Health and Human Services reported that in a 10-year period the number of children cared for under the foster care system jumped from 340,000 to 520,000 spanning the years from 1988 to 1998. In 2001 the number of foster children was estimated at approximately 588,000 children being cared for, with an expected 600,000 in the year 2003 (Association, 2002).

Removing children from abusive environments requires that alternative living arrangements be made. If it were not for the existing foster care system, hundreds of thousands of children could easily find themselves placed into temporary shelters, or worse yet stuck in a home life that is hardly fit for a child. Because foster families are just that, families, the family environment is the preferred placement for abused and neglected children. Foster care is a good system in that it removes children from neglect and ill treatment.

Foster care also affords many people, who cannot otherwise adopt or give birth to children, the opportunity to parent and love a child. Single mothers, infertile couples, and retired people, all can potentially become foster parents. Some states have laws that inhibit people’s ability to parent abused and neglected children. One such law exists in Florida, and it prevents lesbians and gays from adopting children based upon their sexual orientation (American, 2003). Paradoxically, and in that same state however, gay and lesbian people are allowed to serve as foster parents. And like all other hopeful parents, foster parenting can be a temporary solution for the gay or lesbian community. Gay and lesbian foster parents can model parenting skills for the larger part of a child’s young life; in one case three children have been in foster care with a gay couple since each of the children were infants; two of the children are now well into their middle teens (American, 2002). And whether or not one agrees with the ability of gays and lesbians to be adoptive parents, it is clear that they can and do serve as foster parents. It should be noted here that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed lawsuits against Florida in 1998 and in 1999, contesting the gay and lesbian adoption ban, and the legal wrangling continues to this day.

But foster care is a system that faces many troubles. One problem is that the federal government, likely inadvertently, encourages people to place children into the foster care system. For example, many times kinship foster care is the first placement a worker will look to once a child is removed from the natural home; keeping children with relatives is ostensibly the next best thing. Biological parents who rely on cash assistance programs and food stamps can expect to get about $100 per month per child, however the government will pay as much as $500 per month for a child to foster parents (Forsythe, 1992). Some foster parents receive even more: up to $933 per month, per child (Barth & Price, 1999, p. 102). Such an imbalance, biological parents getting only $100 per month versus foster parents getting up to $933 per month, has the potential to encourage families to give up children (in many cases to their kin) for monetary reasons.

An average stay for a child in foster care is three years or more (Association, 2002). The problem is that the longer a child stays in foster care, the harder it is to be adopted. Final placement for foster children is often a long and drawn out process. Getting a child adopted into a family or returned to the parents is not an easy choice. Many times a child is removed from a home where being returned is a difficult decision given that safety is hard to ensure. Equally difficult is moving a child to an adoption path. These two difficulties often leave child welfare professionals in a quandary, and ultimately foster children get stuck in the system (Association, 2002).

Another important issue for foster care is the question of what aftereffect it has on children who were placed in the system. Just how well do foster children do once they leave it? a California study looked at 149 children between the ages of 7 and 12 who entered foster care between May 1990 and October 1991. All of the studied children had been in foster care for at least five months. The youth were assessed after they had been reunified with their family of origin and were compared to youth who were not reunified. The children who were returned to their original families, after a foster care placement, showed a higher incidence of risk behaviors, such as, self-destructive behavior and substance use; they also had a higher incidence of tickets, arrests, dropping out of school and lower grades (Taussig, Clyman, & Landsverk, 2001). The summary of the study states “these findings suggest that youth who reunify with their biological families after placement in foster care have more negative outcomes than youth who do not reunify” (Taussig et al., 2001, para. 5).

Adoption

Keeping family of origin members together, first and foremost because they are blood relatives, is not always a good solution to an abusive crisis. In cases where children can be placed with nurturing, caring, safe, and supportive people, those children will bond and adapt successfully (Leon, 2002); attachment occurs very well, for example, in adoption cases where biological connectivity is not necessarily key to a child’s success. Schechter (2000) calls the perceived natural and biological attachment of children to their birth parents nothing more than a “bond of fantasy.” The fact is, that a child who is abused and neglected by parents hardly can attach to them when the bonding experience is detrimentally obstructed.

Adoption is one alternative to temporary placements for children who enter the child welfare system. And because adoptions offer permanent homes for children, the children are able to receive the benefits of no longer being moved from one place to another, as is the case with foster care. By receiving a home with parents who desire to have a child, bonds can develop that mirror the bonds of natural parent/child connections. The argument has been made that removing children from the biological parents is a devastating blow to the child and the parents. The psychological effects of such a loss is said to contribute negatively to a child’s ability to transition well into a new foster home, new school, new neighborhood, etc., etc. Leon (2002) suggests that the losses often felt by children and parents are magnified by a social construct that is perpetuated in American society. “Adoption is most commonly viewed through the lens of loss–the child’s loss of his or her first set of parents and biological heritage, the birthmother’s loss of her child for whom she continues to grieve, and the adoptive parents’ loss of their wanted biological offspring” (Leon, 2002, Introduction section, para. 1).

Children (in adoption cases) indeed experience losses, but those losses do not overshadow or outweigh the benefits of being given to new caregivers, particularly to those who are motivated to care for and love the child. In other words, the idea that taking children from their biological parents is a bad one is not necessarily true. The parents who adopt children benefit from having their own child, and the child benefits because the child is no longer staying with a parent who may not want to or cannot adequately care for the child. “As common place [sic] as it is to associate losses with adoption, what, ironically, may be most naturally and biologically based in adoption is the parent-child attachments formed and sustained in the crucible of actual experience” (Leon, 2002, Conclusion section, para. 1). In essence, the permanent placement of a child can be successful when the caregiver is appropriately skilled and adequately supports and cares for the child and where time will allow for developmental bonds to occur.

There are intrinsic and complicated problems related to the adoption process however. Race, age and special needs, all impact the adoptability of a child. One study points to the reality that many African American youth who are available for adoption are left un-adopted by Caucasian, would-be parents, and to exacerbate the problem 85% of the people who adopt children are Caucasian (Brooks, James, & Barth, 2002). In one study from 1999, for example, where 127,000 children were waiting to be adopted, 42 percent of those (the largest ethnic group) were African-American. African-American children were one-fifth as likely as other ethnic groups to exit child welfare via adoptions (Brooks et al., 2002). In general, the study finds that prospective Caucasian adoptive parents “prefer younger foster children [five years old and below], Caucasian foster children, and foster children without special needs” (Brooks et al., 2002, Discussion section, para. 3). The average age of children in foster care, according to the study, is nine. So, Caucasians make up the larger adoption pool; they do not adopt the race that is most prevalent. They do not adopt from the age categories that dominate the system, nor do they want to adopt special needs children, who represent 70% of children in the system (Brooks et al., 2002).

Family Preservation

According to Forsythe (1992) family preservation services (FPS) usually involve: “1) children who are at risk of ‘unnecessary’ removal from their home, 2) services are provided in the family’s home, 3) the response time, from the time of the reported abuse and neglect, is 24 hours, 4) intensive service is provided 5 to 20 hours per week, 5) workers have a caseload of only two families, 6) services last four to six weeks, 7) supportive services are available to the family 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 8) emphasis is placed on the family system and interactions between family members and the family’s relationship to the larger community, and 9) family members are taught skills to remain together, and to stay safe” (p. 41).

Success rates according to Forsythe (1992), that of keeping families together and preventing out of home placements, are reported to be as high as 80 percent one year following FPS. The data is from a composite of numbers based upon the Homebuilders program that was (in 1992) 18 years old. It is also noteworthy to indicate that in one experimental design when child protective investigators worked closely with family preservation caseworkers, the study “demonstrated that the [family preservation services] model was effective and needs to be implemented” (Walton, 2001).

FPS is more cost effective (at an average of $5,000 per family) than foster care services (at an average of $10,000 per year, per child) largely due to the fact that foster care services span an average of 15-30 months (Forsythe, 1992) compared to 1 1/2 months for more intense family preservation services (Barth & Price, 1999). Drisko (1998) found that families who participated in, and received FPS preferred the intense contact with workers, benefited most if the services prevented an out of home placement, and favored concrete services such as transportation assistance and appointment setting. And as long as parents participate in FPS, if caregivers are cooperative, compliant, and willing participants in the FPS interventions, the service is effective in preventing out of home placements (Littell, 2001).

Not everyone agrees that FPS is the best alternative to placing children outside of their homes. Rossi (1992) points out that the goal of FPS is to prevent out of home placements, even while such a goal may be detrimental to a child. In reality some children are in significant danger and to keep them in the abusive environment is not a good goal, therefore out of home placement would be preferred. So to indicate that success depends on preventing children from being placed outside of the home is not appropriate, across the board. And oddly enough, in one study “no statistically significant differences in placement were found between the experimental [those who received FPS] and control families [those who did not receive FPS]: 25% of the experimental families and 20% of the controls experienced a placement….indeed, if these percentages show anything, it is that the experimental children fared worse than the controls in placement subsequent to treatment” (Rossi, 1992, p. 86).

Rossi (1992) also postulates that much of the research on FPS is flawed; most studies are too small to generalize to other FPS programs. And not only are the sample sizes too small, but FPS programs vary from one to another in many ways: how long the services are provided, whether or not the services are provided in the home or in the office, how many hours child welfare workers are actually involved with a family, and some services are largely educational while others are more concrete. These variations make the sample sizes, where several different FPS programs are included into one study, not related to the overall group and “because the sites differ markedly in the version of family preservation used, the effective N’s [sample sizes] are those for individual sites” (Rossi, 1992, p. 93) rather than FPS, overall.

Shared Family Care

Shared family care (SFC) is a relatively new approach in the United States, for dealing with children who are at risk of being separated from their parents. The program “helps families become self-sufficient. Both parents and children are placed in the homes of people in the community who mentor them, and help provide the skills and discipline they need to become responsible citizens” (Mikkelson, 2002). The troubled family simply lives with, and is guided by a host family. An advantage to having both the parent and the child live in one home is that in essence, both people in the troubled family simultaneously receive the benefit of assistance.

One of the goals of SFC is to keep birth families together while a foster parent teaches birth parents how to keep a home clean, how to be a good parent, how to find childcare, and how to keep a job. In Milwaukee, where a pilot program was started in 2002, shared family care is just taking shape. But in other states, such as California, where SFC is in its fifth year, Mikkeslon (2002) reported that it is showing favorable results; desired outcomes of the program are 1) shortened length of stay (compared to a traditional foster care placement), 2) reduced recidivism (fewer children coming back to foster care once they leave), and 3) cost neutrality (equal expenses related to traditional foster care costs).

But there are similar programs in other states that are much older. One program, the Texas Baptist Children’s Home (TBCH), started in 1979 working in a pre-SFC approach using a group home setting where three or four single parents live together with their children and one staff family. As a group the families work at learning good parenting skills, discipline techniques, meal preparation, obtaining employment, and continuing education. In a six-year period TBCH served 185 families. In 1996, 99% of the families remained intact after graduation from the program; 92% found employment (Barth & Price 1999, p. 93). Other states have SFC programs as well. Illinois started a SFC program for teen mothers in 1989 and in 1984 New Jersey started a similar program. The New Jersey program helped 96 families over the course of a seven-year period and the program reports a near 85% success rate in keeping mother and child together (Barth & Price, 1999, p. 95).

Probably the biggest issue with shared family care programs is the cost. SFC tops the foster care daily rate, but remains cheaper than the more restrictive residential group home placement rates. For some SFC programs the monthly cost per family, can be as much as four and a half times higher than traditional foster care rates (Barth & Price, 1999, p. 102); and even when the rates are figured out based upon the average length of stay (5 months for SFC compared to 14 months for traditional foster care) there is still a higher cost for shared family care. Additionally, while the median length of stay for SFC services is reported by Barth and Price (1999) to be only five months, one program lasts up to 18 months, while another lasts up to 24 months, and a third program can run the course of three years. If one family stayed in SFC for 36 months, compared to one child in foster care for 14 months, the cost difference would be more than $50,000. But quite possibly, when one considers treatment costs of a family compared to the treatment costs of one child, there may in fact be a savings, even while initially the costs are comparatively higher with SFC. It would make sense that treating a family in SFC, costs more than treating one child in foster care.

Other more recent studies however, actually reveal that SFC is more cost effective than foster care. There is an evaluation process underway by the School of Social Welfare from the University of California at Berkeley that began in 1996 to help establish and evaluate seven SFC programs. The goal, according to Barth and Price (1999), is “to determine if shared family foster care can…become a viable alternative to traditional family foster care in the 21^st century” (p. 99). The outcomes of the Berkeley studies culminate in annual reports from the years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. The evaluation process, that began in 1997, shows that SFC is proving to be more cost effective than traditional foster care, and substantially more affordable than treatment foster care, when looking at actual placement costs per child (Clovis, Price, & Wichterman, 2002).

Other cost savings and positive outcomes of SFC, compared to traditional foster care, being realized by Clovis, Price, and Wichterman (2002) include: 1) SFC families are less dependent on the system, 2) they have better employment rates, 3) they have higher income, and 4) there are fewer children who re-enter foster care (p. 52). “Therefore, although SFC involves many additional costs (e.g., for start-up, mentor recruitment and support, and intensive services), it may be worth the up-front investment” (Clovis et al, 2002, p. iii).

One problem with SFC is that the program does not work for families who are not still together or reunified. That means that many children in foster care cannot take advantage of SFC services, simply because they no longer live with their natural parents. And the research is showing that even for intact families, SFC is not for everyone. Parental motivation, family size, and active drug use prevents some families from participating in SFC (Simmel & Price, 2000, p. 6).

Another issue facing the shared family care movement is that very limited research exists to show how effective the program is. Some of the research that has been reported here is either for programs that are similar to SFC, but not the same (TBCH), or the research only evaluates a few SFC programs (Berkeley). And while Illinois and New Jersey (and the Berkeley studies) can tout a high level of success, the results only reflect the accomplishments of a few programs making generalizations nearly impossible. It would be very difficult to ascertain the programs’ likely outcomes, and in the case of Milwaukee, program infancy makes research results virtually impossible to obtain.

Family Drug Courts

It has already been stated that alcohol and other drug (AOD) usage is a problematic factor in the majority of child abuse cases. In any event it is worth restating: an estimated 80% of all child abuse cases are linked to alcohol and other drug usage (Lavato & Mack, 2003). It is a particularly interesting idea to factor into child abuse cases a treatment component for the substance abusers. If it is true that AOD’s are contributing culprits of abusive episodes, then addressing AOD usage seems fitting in resolving at least a portion of the familial problems. Family drug courts, believed to have first appeared in a Florida court in the early to mid 1990’s (Family Courts, 2001), do just that.

Sometimes simple communication and goal agreement between all parties involved in a given abuse/neglect/AOD case can help move families to reunification and/or prevent the need to remove children from homes altogether. Family drug courts (FDC’s) have been helping in recent years to bring a wide range of different agency staff together in order to assess a family’s needs and move toward meeting those needs. Judges in FDC’s can be instrumental in putting together teams that involve the police, social workers, alcohol treatment professionals, child protective services, public defenders, and the AOD parents (Lavato & Mack, 2003). With everyone being involved in a case the unanimity adds to the ability of everyone to promote long and short-term goals. Together the FDC team can look at the children’s interests, the state’s interests, and the parents’ interests. “This coordination reduces the trauma families experience when faced with multiple systems, policies, and competing timelines” (Lavato & Mack, 2003, para. 2).

The successes of FDC show how a comprehensive view of family issues serves children and families well. The use of services that include practical support and firm and directed accountability, common components to FDC, are reportedly working. In Suffolk County, New York, family drug courts were started in 1997. Since that time, the length of time for children in foster care has been reduced from 2.5 years down to 16 months (Lavato and Mack, 2003).

Lavato and Mack (2003) describe some FDC norms: specific goals and timelines are established; parents receive AOD counseling and treatment; FDC team members arrange care for the children; referrals are made for jobs and housing assistance; parents attend court hearings, undergo drug testing, and perform community service. With noncompliance, parents get increased drug treatment or spend time in jail, and positive behavior is rewarded with reductions in program requirements or gift certificates (para. 10). It is noteworthy that the FDC program includes both rewards and sanctions for parents.

However not all sanctions and consequences are good ones in the FDC program. An FDC in Kansas City, Missouri tried to reduce parental visitation time with children as one of its sanctions and later realized that doing so simply was not in the best interests of the child (Lavato & Mack, 2003). And logically it makes sense that, even while a parent may not be compliant with program guidelines, the children themselves have not done anything wrong, and the children may not easily understand missed visitations.

Although the FDC process has many features, that at first glance appear to be comprehensive in nature, it appears that attention to children is relegated to simply finding childcare or temporary placement through child welfare workers. A great deal of emphasis is placed on the parents who abuse substances, particularly AOD treatment, which is critical to stabilizing the family. Children are affected by drug usage in no small number. One recent estimate is that 11% of all US children are living with parents who are in need of AOD treatment (Kinney, 2000, p. 217). And as Kinney (2000) states, regarding a shortcoming of AOD treatment programs, “what cannot be emphasized too strongly is that children must not be “forgotten” or left out of treatment” (p. 310).

Another problem with the FDC process is that program parents will not necessarily always agree to participate. And even if they do agree, child welfare workers have just fifteen months to establish whether or not parental rights will be terminated (federally mandated by the 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act). Simply removing a child from the home (or threatening to do so), offering rewards and incentives, and imposing consequences to the parents, may not fully combat the powers of substance abuse, particularly if addiction is involved. Drug addiction and alcoholism are powerful complexities that can lead users back to their chemicals, even when doing so would appear virtually insane. And while it may seem extreme to suggest that people would lose their children before discontinuing their substance usage “there are many situations which arise out of the phenomenon of craving which cause…[people]…to make the supreme sacrifice rather than continue” (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1976, The doctor’s opinion, p. 28).

The Eclectic View

More than ten years ago LeRoy Pelton (1992) stressed that a new approach to child welfare issues was critical so that the system could be changed. Pelton (1992) states, “the current public child welfare system is inherently dysfunctional. A fundamental restructuring of the system will be necessary before it can accommodate any large-scale expansion” (p. 289). He argued that the system needed to shift its focus from that of placement, and move to prevention.

“Child welfare agencies [should] be transformed into family preservation agencies” (Pelton, 1992, p. 296) and stripped of all investigative and foster care practices. In essence, no longer would workers pursue child abuse investigations, nor would they perpetuate the placement of children into foster care, but energies and monies would be utilized for supportive services. Ultimately the child welfare system, under the transformed Pelton proposal, would be divided into three main agencies: 1) family preservation and supportive services, 2) child placement and foster care services and 3) abuse and neglect investigations. All three components would operate from similar perspectives, in that providing services (versus investigations and punishment) would be the goal. Pelton stressed the importance of a strengths perspective; in that the child welfare threesome would focus energies on helping families succeed, in part, by providing increased concrete services (p. 294).

In more recent times, others have also called for “efforts at overall transformation and reform” (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002, p. 2) for child welfare. Prevention efforts, calculated and judicious placement strategies, child protective services, children and families agencies, an expansive interpretation of family preservation efforts, inclusion of parents in treatment planning, a high degree of value placed upon quality of care – not quantity of care, and in-home supportive services are all presented as ideal in a newer and broader interpretation of a better child welfare system (Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002). The goal is to glean the assets of several existing child welfare areas and programs, combine them, and in the end develop a system that is more effective.

And while the eclectic suggestion would appear to be ideal, it is easy to propose a new concept even where little or no research exists to support an alternative. Whether the suggestion for the reorganization of child welfare was made eleven years ago, or one year ago, or today’s suggestion of an adult welfare system, at issue is what data exists to support the call for reformation. Certainly there exists a great deal of research that dissects existing child welfare programs, and finds faults with a great deal of the system as a whole, but too there is evidence that the current system is doing some things right. And not everyone agrees that the system is failing, or that it needs changing. Suggesting a new and more diverse system, one that pools the benefits of numerous programs under one new structure, is much easier said than done. And no one can underestimate the consequences of making an error in devising a new system; often a child’s very life is at stake. Are the unknown possibilities worth the risk?

Other Factors

Quality Control and Monitoring

Many state run child welfare systems, protective service teams, foster care services, and child-placing agencies, lack a monitoring and policing authority. The data regarding states that utilize watchdog programs reveal that only 13 have developed such mechanisms (Bearup, 1999). In other words, on a national scale, 74% of state child service agencies do not have independent monitoring mechanisms to ensure quality control measures for America’s abused children (Florida falls into this category).

The data from the Bearup study, which included 443 case histories from just one state, identified numerous other child welfare problems. The areas of concern included: the lack of supervision in 50 cases, non-compliance in 173 cases, “deficient” communication in 129 cases, “lack of medical knowledge” in 117 cases, 209 cases in which administrative acts led to real or potential harm to children, and investigative practices were labeled as “problematic” in 216 cases (Bearup, 1999). Ultimately, in the 443 case histories there were a total of 894 problems identified indicating that in many situations two or more problems actually existed, for each abuse/neglect case.

Follow-up

In review of research related to child welfare programs a consistent and alarming pattern emerges: that long term follow up on system children into adulthood is almost non-existent, and that possibly no research exists that is reliably generated via scientific methodologies to indicate success or failure for existing programs (Reddy, 1997). In fact, the Reddy (1997) study attempted to gather data from 1974 through 1996 and found that “only one study has examined the relationship between…program characteristics and program outcomes” (p.2).

While the Reddy research spanned some 22 years of data (quite possibly the first of its kind), pooled some 40 different articles, included 12,282 subjects, and included six infant and preschool investigations, nine child studies, nine adolescent investigations and 16 combined child/adolescent studies, even it fails to address long term outcomes for the youth it studies. A key missing component of the Reddy study is that it only assesses a change in educational, vocational, emotional, behavioral adjustment, and placement stability for youth in the system. It does not address those who have left the system. According to Reddy’s research, only three of 40 investigations included aftercare services (p. 6), where the true nature of program success can effectively be measured. The Reddy study acknowledges that much of the data used to reach its conclusions, was missing key components; 60% of the literature lacked the use of published measuring devices, 80% of the articles lacked the use of control groups, and 73% failed to use statistical tests to evaluate the impact of treatment (p. 3). So besides the fact that valid and reliable research is hard to come by, “data on the long-term outcomes of children reared within the child welfare system are sparse” (Berrick, Barth, Needell, & Jason-Reid, 1997, Long-term outcomes section, para. 1).

Academic Differences

One research document addressed the educational aftereffects of children who leave the child welfare system. The study identifies the significant differences between foster care youth and non-foster care youth, relative to their academic performances (Blome, 1997). The research reveals that foster care youth perform at a lower level compared to their non-foster care counter-parts, in numerous areas, particularly in higher education. The overall findings of the study show weaknesses in foster care youth when compared to their contemporaries; as many as 67% were performing below grade level, 67% repeated one or more grades, and only 39% ever completed high school, whereas 86% of the comparison group did finish. The fact that the control group outperforms the foster care group and the fact that foster care youth tend to not go to college suggests that these outcomes leave something to be desired. The majority of the inequities found in the two groups are attributed to the fact that most foster children undergo several school transitions, as well as having to adapt to numerous placement shifts.

Withholding of Services

When foster children are moved around among various placements, adequate service necessities can hardly be provided. One example is that abused and neglected children often need therapeutic and mental health services to deal with the pain in their lives. Unfortunately, and again due to instability in placement, services such as psychotherapy are not always provided (Schroeder, 1993, p. 15). Even as psychotherapy is highly effective, and has been noted to have “…spectacular results…” children in care do not get that service until after a long-term placement is found (Schroeder, 1993, p.16). Often times abused children “may need immediate help to cope with the trauma and the resulting disruption of…[the]…family” (Shulman, 1999, p. 218).

Bureaucracy

At a much broader level, problems can be found in child welfare by looking at the larger system as a whole. Sociologists have identified limiting factors in large scale organizations whereby the colossal structures needed to care for so many youth actually serves to limit a worker’s ability to perform at peak levels, and to come up with new ideas for improving the quality of care. In an effort then to give explanation to some of the damning extremes in various patterns within the child welfare system, a consideration should be made via the principles of bureaucratization. As the system of child welfare expands and evolves it becomes increasingly important to develop guidelines and structures that ensure efficiency. Bureaucracy is vital in the effort to facilitate the practical provision of services and promote consistency in day-to-day operations. Efficiency and consistency are plausible, but, as sociologists Richard Schaefer and Robert Lamm (1998) make clear, bureaucratization does not occur without consequence; it can lead to poor training, narrow perspectives, concealment of mistakes, stifling of initiative and can discourage ambitions for improvement (p. 161). David Devine, Assistant Director of the Social Work Training Council in London, himself once a youth housed within the European child welfare system, indicates the problems of systemic practice: “we are focusing on protocols of various kinds…any deviations from those open up workers to potential sanctions…Policies and procedures are necessary but they have to be helpful and enabling, not constrictive, punitive and unnecessarily directive, and should not be created without the involvement of those who have to carry them out” (Schroeder, 1993, p. 15).

Unclear Terminology

The ambiguity of the definition of what constitutes abuse should not be overlooked in the review of what is and is not successful in relationship to the system of child welfare. One state may call a behavior of a parent abuse, whereas another state may not. Andrew Cherlin (1999) in his text, Public and Private Families, attributes many child protection inconsistencies to the fact that ” there is no single definition of exactly what constitutes child abuse [and]…the greatest [italics added] consensus among child welfare professionals is serious physical harm…with intent to injure” (p. 346).

Changing Educational Requirements

More complex is the fact that as many as fully fifty percent of the professionals in the field of child welfare are under or uneducated (DiNitto & McNeece, 1997, p. 140). Comparatively, front-line child welfare workers were once required, under the regulations of the Children’s Bureau, to have graduate degrees; and in fact, the Children’s Bureau was created in 1912 to, among other things, monitor the educational requirements of those who worked with children (Schorr, 2000). In time, the educational requirements of child welfare workers decreased from graduate level to bachelors level for some workers and many were no longer required to have a degree at all.

In addition to the problem of lack of education, there exists the possibility that agencies “are still using intervention techniques…established in the sixties and seventies rather than from any new development. And those services do not seem to have changed much in their approach” (Gilmore, 1993, p. 23).

Summary

The literature review concerning existing service delivery structures highlights both case-by-case problems and systemic problems; from the micro and macro levels the child welfare system is not only busting at the seams, but it is unable to provide adequate and effective treatment for today’s distressed youth. Contemporary programs such as shared family care and family drug courts are still too new to establish large-scale success or failure rates. In order for treatment efforts to be successful it is likely that they will need to be evenly applied to both the abused children and their parents. Furthermore, supplementary policy changes will be necessary and current treatment modalities will need to be continually adjusted. Some of the changes will seem radical in nature, in particular to a system that customarily tells itself it is a successful direct care provider.

What are the consequences of putting a child into “a strange house with strange people, beds, smells foods, schools, rules, neighbors” (Forsythe, 1992, p. 38)? Moving an abused child from home, to shelter, to temporary placement, to foster home, to yet another foster home and maybe on to adoption certainly costs the child a great deal (Blome, 1997, p. 51). Imagine instead what it might look like to tell an abusive father that it is he who will need to go get professional help for his problems and that his sons and daughters will remain in the family home where they will be supervised by family members or social workers. It seems that it would be better to keep abused children in the schools they are accustomed to and in the homes that that they know. Why are children leaving abusive homes, while their parents often remain? It really is not the children who should be leaving, but rather it should be the abusive parents who are leaving. And parents will be gone for as long as it takes for them to get better, at which time they can come home to take on their parental obligations, supervised at first, and then gradually the family can move toward independence.

Literature Review Conclusion

Agencies often measure success by whether or not a youth completes “treatment.” While much speculation exists about the success/failure rates of foster care youth, and perhaps for all children within the child welfare system, actual outcomes are unsupported through valid research practices. In fact, the research that does exist, even the extensive sort that is evident in the Reddy and Bearup studies, hardly provides favorable results concerning the children who live within the system and the children who grow up to leave the system.

The ability of a system child to successfully adapt to society when he/she reaches adulthood must be a factor in determining whether or not treatment strategies are successful. Stability in placement, schooling, and safety, are key components of what normally defines success in placements. It is not enough however to provide safety from an abusive environment, if that safety cannot comparatively prepare the child for the normative expectations of adulthood.

In review of the current child welfare system, much of it appears to be in dire need of adjustment. Yes, there are success stories, hopefully as many as there are horror stories, but the “question is, ‘is there not another way to look at the issue?’ We see that question as one that we ourselves must tackle anew, rather than something that has to be done the way it has always been done…The existence of children, the importance of health…whatever we turn to demands a shifting of our perceptions” (Duhl, 1990, p. 57).

Methods

Supporting Rationale

Child welfare, in and of itself, has many flaws. The child welfare system should be converted into a more appropriately named, and conceptually different adult welfare system. The call for transformation is not new (as suggested by Pelton, 1992) nor has the call for change subsided in recent years (see Whittaker & Maluccio, 2002 and also see Schorr, 2000). That is not to suggest that children will no longer need to be removed from homes, because they will. As long as parents are unable, or unwilling to change abusive patterns, foster care will be a vital safety mechanism for children.

Building upon the notion that children are being hurt, not only by abusive parents, but also within the structures of the present day child welfare system, lends itself to the idea that an adult welfare system may in fact better serve everyone who is in need of support. The key words are: to better serve everyone.

The goal of a newly proposed adult welfare system is to keep the most effective aspects of today’s child welfare system (such as the permanency found in adoptions), and to modify the purposes of foster care so that it is used as a means to get children adopted rather than being used merely for temporary placements. As such, and as one phase of adult welfare, foster adoption (see Appendix G, Phase V) becomes a blend of the benefits found in adoptions and reorganizes foster care. In adult welfare foster adoption is used in the most extreme cases when parents fail to rehabilitate and children must be permanently removed from their homes.

In the adult welfare model, with more thorough and comprehensive service provisions (similar to those found in family drug courts), a great deal of therapeutic and holistic interventions can be not only applied to the children but also to the adults. Children can be given a multitude of “home preservation and youth services” (see Appendix G, Phase III) allowing them to remain in their natural homes while abusive parents undergo treatment. In the crucible of the new adult welfare system, adults will be able to change abusive patterns and, simultaneously children can be protected and safe while they continue to live in familiar environments.

As the research suggests, the existing child welfare system fails to consistently provide successful long-term outcomes (Blome, 1997). Finding placements for children is not necessarily a true measure of success. Once permanency planning (the idea of moving a child to a final placement) became a priority, placement became a focus with little attention paid to family supportive services (Schorr, 2000); Schorr suggests that children would often be returned home after having “received little service in foster care. [And] when they were returned home, the reasons they had been removed had not even been addressed” (p. 130).

Ultimately, short-term outcomes must show stability in the young lives of children, while long term outcomes must show that transitions into adulthood, lead to productive lives. Additionally, assistance to parents, and whether or not they are successful once treatment is applied, must be factored into what child welfare professionals define as desired outcomes.

The Adult Welfare Project Format

Public Presentation Details

A large part of the Adult Welfare project is contained in these pages, consumed by more than 100 pages of text, which also includes a sizable literature review; it is very much research based. But that is only one part of the Adult Welfare project.

The second component of the Adult Welfare project is the public presentation. The project, while largely research oriented, ultimately results in a public presentation that is delivered to social service professionals, college professors, agency directors, social workers, professional therapists, child abuse victims, members of the clergy, and former foster parents.

In the context of a group setting, where social service professionals and others are gathered, a presentation is given that outlines the various strengths and weaknesses of existing child welfare practices, and the idea of an adult welfare system iss propagated. During the presentation not only are existing child welfare programs reviewed and discussed, but also a diagrammed model (Appendix F) of an adult welfare system is highlighted and distributed. In conjunction with recent developments in child welfare (such as family drug courts) the adult welfare system is promulgated as a better way for dealing with abuse and neglect. The model is a flow chart (Appendix F) for the proposed system, which begins with the origination of an abuse report, to the termination of treatment provisions.

The format of the presentation includes the use of Power Point® slides (Appendix D). Power Point® provides a dynamic medium where computer generated slides are shown on a large screen, and the slides include a wide range of text and graphics. Various adult welfare handouts (for example, the 5 Phase Adult Welfare Flowchart, and the diagrammed adult welfare model) are given to each attendee so that they have materials that can easily be reviewed and referenced at a later time.

A presentation to professionals is a good way, and perhaps the easiest way, to promote the suggestion of an adult welfare system to those who already have an interest in child welfare. Such a format provides the forum where this new idea can be discussed, dissected, and analyzed. And with a multitude of different levels of child welfare professionals in attendance, from direct care to administration, intelligent and realistic expectations of adult welfare are discussed during the final 30-minute question and answer period.

Public Presentation of Adult Welfare Concepts

Outline (public presentation details intentionally omitted – see links throughout this literature review)

Presentation Section One – Opening Remarks

Presentation Section Two – Introduction of Problem – Child Welfare in Disarray

Presentation Section Three – Does Anybody Really Know the Answer?

Presentation Section Four – Interactive – How Do You Determine Success?

Presentation Section Five – Introducing the adult welfare system

Presentation Section Six – Reality Check

Presentation Section Seven – What Next?

Presentation Section Eight – Let the Dialogue Begin

Criteria for Presentation Evaluation

In addition to the literature review and research references used to discuss the current child welfare system, there are a couple other evaluative components for the adult welfare proposal. A presentation evaluation form (Appendix H) was developed and is used for each presentation) and distributed so that attendees of the Adult Welfare public presentation could/can complete the evaluation. The evaluation form includes six questions about the presentation. Five of the questions include a four-point scale ranking various areas of the presentation and the overall proposal of adult welfare. A desired outcome of the evaluation was that at least 80% of those who attend(ed) the presentation complete the evaluation (96% actually did so), and that at least 80% of those who completed the evaluation would rate each questioned area favorably, as good or excellent (86% actually did so). Additionally, a video recording of the actual presentation was made (Appendix I).

Conclusions for the Adult Welfare Project

Presentation Outcomes

100% of those who completed the evaluation form agreed or strongly agreed that the current child welfare system is in need of transformation; compared with the total number in attendance (for one presentation) 96% agreed with the presented concepts. Numerous professionals agreed that the current system is lacking, and that they were willing to consider far-reaching and new concepts for change; 82% of the evaluations indicated that the idea of adult welfare was either “good” or “excellent.”

Agreeing that the system falls gravely short is only the first step in moving toward change. If true change is going to be implemented, the professionals in the field of child welfare will have to, as they did in the initial presentation, agree and buy into the idea that concerted rehabilitation efforts logically belong to those who are abusers, and not only to those who are victims.

It was anticipated that many child welfare professionals were going to perceive adult welfare as too idealistic, or too radical to be promoted to the larger child welfare community. To the contrary, 91% of the evaluations clearly revealed that those who attended the presentation would recommend that others in social services also attend. Ultimately, several members of the audience suggested that the presentation be duplicated for very large organizations such as the Florida Department of Children and Families. Regardless, the possibility that child welfare professionals would be resistant to changing the system, which they often perceive as being as good as it gets, was highly expected, however that assumption proved to be erroneous.

Even as there has been a long-standing convention that says removing children from their homes is “in the best interest of the child,” the opposite idea of leaving children in their homes appeared to be widely accepted. Conceptually, adult welfare was reported to be both believable and persuasive by 91% of the responders. Social service professionals not only endorsed the idea of adult welfare, but all of the comments made were highly supportive of adult welfare (see Appendix I, question and answer segment). To attempt to keep children in their homes, and to protect children while simultaneously treating the abusers, and then attempting to put the families back together again, was widely endorsed and accepted.

Those who evaluated the presentation rated the professionalism of the presenter as either “good” or “excellent” however not everyone noted full agreement or endorsement of adult welfare ideologies. One comment, likely in response to the idea that parents can undergo treatment or instead go to jail, simply stated that “social services already oversteps their bounds…Power in one’s hand becomes destructive.” Another comment questioned the feasibility of keeping children in their homes: “I do somewhat like the idea of keeping the child in the home. But is it realistic?”

Several people suggested changing the name from “adult welfare” to something that does not imply welfare. The argument was that adult welfare can be perceived not as something related to child abuse and neglect. One author, Amy Price, who has done a great deal of child welfare research (who has been referenced in this report on several occasions) said in a personal email that maybe a better suited name for the model would be “family welfare system” (July 24, 2003). Nevertheless, a name change is likely in order.

Project Learning Results

There are interesting numbers in the presentation related to foster children that are not included in this written report. For example, the incidence of homelessness, imprisonment percentages, and entitlement benefit rates, such as welfare, among former foster children (see Appendix C, slide fifteen) is particularly high and/or disturbing. The research related to the child welfare system is massive and fragmented, and more and more data could easily be added to the project or presentation.

At the outset of this project it was believed that the adult welfare model would be so new and so innovative that it would have virtually been unheard of. The hope of originality went to the wayside as the research progressed. It quickly became apparent that many others before now have called for sweeping changes. In the end the adult welfare model was hardly a new concept at all. In fact, virtually every phase of adult welfare either has been previously proposed or already exists to a certain degree.

Unique to the adult welfare model, is that it actually takes the processes of many different programs and systems and merely builds on them and unites them into one highly intense and comprehensive program. Adult welfare has at its core these basic ideas: 1) that abused children should remain in their homes, 2) that foster care should become foster adoption, 3) that every substantiated case of abuse should begin with legal charges being brought against abusers and that in every substantiated case of abuse an arrest is made, and a court appearance is required, 4) that abusive parents should be given one of two choices – treatment or jail, and 5) that children and family treatment services be provided in conjunction with one another and simultaneously.

The most surprising learning result for the Adult Welfare project and presentation is an awareness of the positive opinions and ideas from social service and child welfare professionals who readily endorsed adult welfare concepts. The expectation was that many would be offended by the onslaught of negative research related to the current system, particularly because no one in the current system intends to do harm.

It was also interesting to hear former victims of child abuse support the idea of rehabilitating perpetrators, and to hear former foster parents call adult welfare a good idea. And while it may not seem to be a paramount learning result, the opinions matter significantly in the development of the adult welfare system. If foster parents and abuse victims endorse adult welfare, in harmony with social service professionals, the model already has a lot going for it. The opposition could have been so great that an adult welfare system would not likely progress. On the other hand, and this is pleasantly one of the main learning results from the presentation, agreement was such that the adult welfare system will likely be further communicated to other professionals in the field so that a larger awareness of the concept will most likely expand.

Other learning results became apparent in the development of the project proposal. Prior to the development of the proposal, little was known about what child welfare workers were doing in relation to the adults who perpetuate abuse and neglect. The belief was that little was being done, or quite possibly that nothing was being done to and for adults. In the end, it was and is apparent that there are programs that deal with adults in abuse cases. It seems that increased funding for those programs might be a wise step in the right direction. The family centered programs, such as family preservation, shared family care, and family drug courts, appear to be having good results. It is possible that, even while the adult welfare presentation suggested that pilot programs need to be started, those pilot programs can be found within the three existing family centered programs. More simply, pilot programs, that mirror adult welfare concepts, especially family drug courts, are already in place.

Implications

Support for children who remain in their own homes will be costly – social workers will have to spend weeks and months in a child’s home as the new adult welfare system attempts to motivate the abusive adults to change. And even when the professionals, who will rehabilitate adults, all agree that the rehabilitation has occurred, a monitoring system will have to be in place as the reformed abusive adult is moved back into their home of origin. Keeping kids safe, assisting them in dealing with the traumas of their abuse, will continue to be an obvious and costly priority.

One of the problems with the current system is that child focused treatment exists (as can be found in foster care and group homes) and adult treatment exists (as is evident in chemical dependency treatment and halfway houses) but these seldom work in concert with each other. In adult welfare the current fragmented provision of services to children and to families are united under one model. Group homes, foster homes, therapy, treatment centers, and even detention centers are all components of the existing child welfare system. The point is, that these same components can be applied to adults who abuse and neglect children. How to make such a transition, moving from child only programs to include adult programs, will be at least complicated, and at the very best it will be gradual.

Child welfare research has already revealed most of the findings that indicate that more could be done to help abused and neglected children. Abused and neglected children continue to be victimized in a system that is supposed to protect and save them. The victimization is not only in ongoing abuse at the hands of different caregivers but also victimization occurs simply in the many shifts that children experience in the modern child welfare system. But child welfare research and outcomes are only one part of the adult welfare suggestion.

It will be important to determine whether or not treating an abusive adult is realistic. If abusive adults, who have already undergone some kind of intensive treatment related to abuse and neglect can rehabilitate, then the adult treatment phase (see Appendix G, phase II) of the adult welfare model will have potential positive outcomes. Credence to treating adults is a critical needed determinant in moving forward with adult welfare concepts. Further research related to the palatability of helping adults heal, will either support the adult welfare concept, or undermine it. Regardless, a look at treating adults will require that more research be done, before adult treatment options can be further considered.

Contemporary child welfare programs that are showing promise are those that tend to be moving in the direction of an adult welfare model. Some other child welfare programs report success, but a closer look at what defines success is needed. Many programs are largely too new to know whether or not they are accomplishing their goal of keeping families together or accomplishing family reunification. And the question remains, as to whether or not keeping families together is the best option. Regardless of the adult welfare system concept, a trend towards keeping troubled families united, even as they try to rebound from abusive dynamics, may very well be fully underway. Further study of family preservation, shared family care, and family drug courts is needed

In a broader sense, it would be nice if professionals in the field would begin to pursue the feasibility of placing abusive adults into mandatory treatment programs while providing support services to the children who would remain in their own homes. If parents are successful, and family reunification looks realistic and safe, the costs of the rehabilitation efforts will need to be seriously considered. If the parents fail at treatment, and consequently are sent to jail, it will be important to know if the penal system can handle an influx of new prisoners. In a larger context, and with longer-term goals in mind, maybe feasibility studies can be done, cost analysis can occur, and quite possibly new pilot programs can be developed.

The adult welfare model can only be fully realized with ample legal and political backing. Legally there will likely be many challenges as more and more abusive parents are charged and arrested. Other legal challenges will likely occur when parental rights are terminated and the child is moved directly into the foster adoption centered child placement phase.

Politically, the United States government will have to revamp existing child welfare legislature and the current bureaucracy will have to be entirely reorganized. The current vast amount of money that is poured into foster care each year, billions and billions of dollars (Pelton, 1992, p. 296), will need to be redistributed to natural and biological families so that they can fiscally and feasibly be helped under a new adult welfare system.

Final Summary

What are the risks in moving toward an adult welfare model? The greatest risk is that children will get hurt again. No matter how comprehensive the treatment, and no matter how stable a family becomes, children will be re-victimized, and some will even die. But even that risk, cannot be worse than all of the abuse and combined failures that are inflicted upon the youth who grow up in today’s mangled child welfare system.

Children will heal from their abusive pasts more quickly if they can remain in the environment they know. Children who are not raised in foster care are almost universally known to fare better than those who are. Continuing to keep abused children in the current child welfare system is simply an extension and perpetuation of more abuse; this madness should certainly end.

In the final analysis of today’s child welfare system, the time has come for a complete revamping and overhaul. Much of the adult welfare model was developed with the idea that parents can and should raise their own children. Removing children from abusive parents, while understandable, is not the best solution to child abuse and neglect, particularly if no other consequences or sanctions are applied. Under today’s child welfare standards, in substantiated cases of abuse, parents simply are lifted of their obligations to parent their children. “When parents are separated from their children, they develop other relationships, lifestyles, and interests. Some of those make it difficult for parents to rebuild their interest in resuming the care of their children and their capacity to parent” (Barth & Price, 1999, p. 102).

Family values, if there is any weight to the term, must be about how to keep families together: how to change those very families that are falling apart – or are being torn apart. Abusive adults must be held responsible for what they do, and what they do not do, and for what they should do. Becoming a parent does not give one the right to beat or molest, and when such abuses do occur, neither should the state remove children and leave the adults untreated.

This child welfare literature review and its Power Point Slide Show are brought to you by Kurt D. LaRose as one component in a series of professional development and onsite training presentation material provided at TalkifUwant.com. It is published here (along with other such material) for informational, marketing, educational, training, and technological display purposes.

Article References

ABCNEWS.com (2002, November 21). UpClose: Foster Kids. Retrieved July 28, 2003, from American Broadcasting Company website: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/upclose/dailynews/Foster_Kids_Email.html
About Jane Addams. (n.d.). Retrieved May 22, 2003, from University of Illinois at Chicago Web site: http://www.uic.edu/jaddams/hull/newdesign/ja.html
Association of Trial Lawyers of America (February, 2002). Winning for children: For too long, foster care systems across the country have acted as little more than dumping grounds for abused and neglected children. Trial, 38, 58. Retrieved April 12, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Barth, R. P., & Price A. (1999). Shared family care: Providing services to parents and children placed together in out-of-home care. Child Welfare League of America 78, 88-107.
Bearup, R. (1999). Improving child welfare through a children’s ombudsman. Child Abuse and Neglect, 5, 449-456.
Berrick, J. D., Barth, R. P., Needell, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (1997). Group care and young children. Social Service Review, 71, 257. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Blome, W. W. (1997). What happens to foster kids: Educational experiences of a random sample of foster care youth and a matched group of non-foster care youth. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14, 41-53.
Bridges, T. (2003, March 9). Finding love and a place to call home. Tallahassee Democrat, pp. 1A, 8A-9A.
Brooks, D., James, S., & Barth, R. P. (2002). Preferred characteristics of children in need of adoptions: Is there a demand for available foster children? Social Service Review, 76, 575. Retrieved May 9, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Callahan, J., (1992). Foster care at the crossroads. Parenting, 6, 68. Retrieved abstract July 19, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Family courts come of age as drug court movement flourishes. (2001, October 8). Alcoholism & Drug Abuse Weekly, 13. Retrieved May 26, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Forsythe, P. (1992). Homebuilders and family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 37-47.
Goodwin, J., (1999). Suddenly homeless. (when foster care ends). Family Circle, 122, 64. Retrieved abstract July 26, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Littell, J. H. (2001). Client participation and outcomes of intensive family preservation services. Social Work Research, 25, 103. Retrieved April 22, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Lovato N., & Mack K. (2003, March/April). Courts that heal. Children’s Voice. Retrieved April 26, 2003, from Child Welfare League of America’s Web site: http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0303courts.htm
Mikkelson, M. (2002, November 19). New foster care program trains parents. National Public Radio. Retrieved May 4, 2003, from National Public Radio Web site: http://discover.npr.org/features/feature.jhtml?wfId=847312
Pelton, L. H. (1992). A functional approach to reorganizing family and child welfare interventions. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 289-303.
Reddy, L. A. (1997, May). Effectivenessof treatment foster care with children and adolescents: A review of outcome studies. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 581-589.
Rossi, P. H. (1992). Assessing family preservation programs. Children and Youth Services Review 14, 77-97.
Schorr, A. L. (2000). The bleak prospect for public child welfare. Social Service Review, 74, 124. Retrieved April 17, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Schroeder, I. (1993). Inter-agency: Child psychotherapy. Journal of Social Work Today, 25, 15-17.
Shulman, L. (1999). The Skills of Helping Individuals, Families, Groups, and Communities (4^th ed). Itasca: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
Simmel, C., Brooks, D., Barth, R. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001). Externalizing symptomatology among adoptive youth: Prevalence and preadoption risk factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29, 57. Retrieved March 29, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Whittaker, J. K., & Maluccio, A. N. (2002). Rethinking “child placement”: A reflective essay. Social Service Review, 76, 108. Retrieved April 21, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.
Zlotnick, C., Robertson, M. J., & Wright, M. A. (1999). The impact of childhood foster care and other out-of-home placement on homeless women and their children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 1057. Retrieved July 28, 2003, from Info Trac Onefile database.

Kurt LaRose

Connect with Me

Get Started