Family Preservation Elusive without Credible Risk Assessment

Schwartz,IraUnless and until child welfare risk assessment instruments and tools can be made more accurate and reliable, child welfare systems around the country will continue to be plagued by scandals including high rates of families being re-referred for abuse and neglect, and worse: too high an incidence of child fatalities where the families were known to child welfare authorities.

For nearly four decades, child welfare officials, child advocates and elected public officials have been desperately searching for ways to reform child welfare systems. I say desperately because the recent history of child welfare has been characterized by periodic episodes of scandals, media exposés and class action lawsuits followed by infusions of cash into the system(s) to hire more social workers, lower caseloads, provide more staff training and to support the latest programmatic fad. Throwing large amounts of money at these systems usually quiets them down for a while. But, before long, the cycle repeats itself.

In the mid 1970s and 1980s family preservation was the answer. Initially supported and promoted by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation, and later by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, family preservation programs spread rapidly throughout the country. The supporters of family preservation claimed these programs were effective in keeping families intact and preventing the out-of-home placement of children. They believed in family preservation despite the fact that the concept was not grounded in any known theory and even in the face of mounting evidence that family preservation programs were not living up to expectations and exaggerated claims of success. The supporters, particularly the true believers, were quick to dismiss the critics of family preservation, including researchers whose studies of family preservation programs were not generating the results the supporters had hoped for.

Family preservation has largely been discredited. What credible research that exists does not present a compelling case for such programs.

One of the major problems family preservation programs faced, and continue to face today, is the inability to accurately identify which families could benefit from such programs and be kept intact while ensuring the safety and well being of children. As the research indicates, many children who should have been removed from home in order to ensure their safety were kept with their families and were victims of further maltreatment.

Tragically, some of them, particularly infants and toddlers, were subsequently killed at the hands of their parents or guardians. Aside from the disappointing results from carefully done studies, family preservation took a beating from the scandals that surfaced in the media and from the horror stories presented to state legislative committees.

While the bloom on the family preservation rose was fading, it was gradually replaced by a new fad, Differential Response, more commonly referred to as DR.

DR is simply the creation of a dual or multi-track pathway for managing and providing services to families referred to child welfare agencies for abuse and neglect. Under DR, the lower and, to some extent, moderate risk families are diverted from formal processing and are provided services on a voluntary basis. The assumption being that families who presented a lesser risk would be more amenable to voluntary services than if they were handled in a more official and, presumably, adversarial manner. The high-risk cases would continue to be handled in the traditional manner.

Like family preservation, the supporters of DR are making claims about the effectiveness of DR programs that are not supported by the best available research. And, once again, it appears that one of the major problems confronting DR is the inability to identify which families are at less risk for committing future acts of abuse or neglect and would be appropriate to be handled informally.

I’m not particularly optimistic that more research on family preservation and DR programs will advance our knowledge about how to make these programs more effective. I think that greater progress would be made by focusing more of our attention and research efforts on improving risk assessment in child welfare. It is generally understood that risk assessment protocols and tools that are actuarially based are more accurate and reliable than others.

Despite this, a recent systematic review of risk assessment tools from throughout the world conducted by Dr. Jane Barlow and her colleagues in the United Kingdom concluded that there is “limited evidence about the effectiveness of the available tools,” including those that are actuarially based. The available tools are simply not accurate enough and fall short of what child welfare staff need in order to make truly well-informed decisions.

I’m also somewhat skeptical that traditional social science methods will help in boosting the accuracy of existing child welfare risk assessment instruments. There have been many attempts to improve them over the years, and these efforts have only resulted in marginal improvements in their levels of accuracy.

There is, however, some cause for optimism. There is emerging evidence that risk assessment accuracy and reliability can be significantly improved by using data mining, predictive analytics and machine learning, research methods not typically used by traditionally trained social scientists. For example, a study of juveniles adjudicated in the Philadelphia Family Court that I worked on generated results in the 90 percent range with respect to classification and predictive validity.

A similar study involving approximately 140,000 cases using these methods is now underway in Florida. While not yet completed, the preliminary findings are very encouraging. Also, in Florida, a recent study using these methods was completed that examined child fatalities. And another is underway using predictive analytics and machine learning to predict which youth who age out of foster care are at most risk of becoming homeless.

As I mentioned earlier, family preservation has been discredited because of the scandals and horror stories about what happened to abused and neglected children who were kept at home when they should have been placed into foster care. These children suffered further maltreatment, and some of them were killed. Differential Response has not yet been discredited, but it is on the path to becoming so unless significant advances can be made in our ability to identify which families and children can benefit from this kind of program without keeping the children in harms way.

Ira M. Schwartz is a consultant, former provost of Temple University and former dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Comments

  1. Professional practices do not get implemented and certainly do not enjoy sustainability without leadership champions. Leadership is required first and foremost as the fundamental critical success factor required before any other practice, program or service array issues can be resolved. That’s what is meant by developing a better business model…nothing changes for kids and families if we don’t address what is happening at the top.

  2. The idea that better “tools” will correct the problems we have in child welfare is, at best, a simplistic response about what we see in our public child welfare systems today. The only way we will resolve what is happening in our child welfare systems is to ensure we recruit and retain highly credentialed professionals with strong leadership skills. It is not the way we do our work, it is the culture in which the work gets done which fosters and supports the current climate in child welfare in which child die (and we kill them in more ways than just taking their life away…languishing in the foster care system, failing to get them a forever family, failing to advocate with the Courts and education system, placement disruptions, failing to develop an adequate service array and implementing and sustaining evidence/science based practices, etc. etc., etc.). We have turned the practice of child welfare, the most difficult and challenging field of practice in the profession of social work, into a Polly Anna endeavor by allowing the promotion of individuals into leadership positions who have no credentials and who have never done the work
    (presumably because there is an assumption that one learns this work through osmosis)and who lack core leadership competencies. We promote individuals into supervisory and managerial positions because their are “liked” or because they proved themselves to be competency based direct service practitioners…a recipe for disaster as these skills rarely translate into leadership core competencies (leading people, leading change, business acumen, results driven, and coalition builder) absent a great deal of mentoring and coaching and intrinsic courage. When we do hire leaders (i.e., those who always do the next right thing and therefore not necessarily the politically correct or popular thing to do) we tend to chase them away because they “upset staff” or failed to make others “feel good” (regardless of the fact that in the best functioning organizations, this sort of nonsense is nonexistent as leaders focus on rewarding what gets done and setting the standards for achievement; the focus is on the organization which is currently in direct opposition to what we see in child welfare today). Child welfare does not need better “tools”; child welfare needs to develop a better business model and needs to get serious about hiring well credentialed professionals who have the courage to led.

    • I certainly agree that we a better business model in child welfare and a more professionalized and better trained work force. However, without professional practices based on solid research too many vulnerable children will still be kept in harms way.

      Thank you for commenting on this piece.

Comments are closed.