The evaluation failed to find evidence that family finding improves the outcomes of older youth at risk of emancipation from foster care.

This study evaluated effects of family finding on relative placement and positive permanency outcomes for children in foster care. The sample was randomized to evaluate effects on permanency and relative placement. The impact of the timing of service was examined. The study failed to show significant differences in placement and permanency for the treatment versus the control group. Examination of program outcomes showed that many connections were found for children who have lingered in care. Family finding impacted positive permanency for the lingering-in care group and relative placement for the new-to-care group; permanency and relative placement increased with lengthier evaluation.

The purpose of this mixed methods study was to assess the experiences of child welfare workers trained in Family Finding and to assess the experiences of the youth who participated in Family Finding. Findings from this study suggest the efficacy of Family Finding in establishing relational permanence for youth. Findings from qualitative analyses indicate that Family Finders modified the actual steps of the model. Both youth-recommended and Family Finders-recommended Family Finding services begin when children and youth enter child welfare. However, quantitative findings suggest there is not any significant difference in Family Finding outcomes for younger and older youth.

No abstract

To assess reasons for patients being lost-to-care (LTC) at an urban health center (Philadelphia, PA, USA) that provides access to oral tenofovir/emtricitabine(TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis(PrEP) to patients ages 13-30 years through a drop-in model of care. Methods Ninety-nine patients were identified as LTC based on not visiting a clinician in ≥4 months during the period April 2016-January 2017. Patients were contacted by phone/email to participate in a voluntary telephone survey regarding reasons for falling out of care. Results were analyzed descriptively. Results Of the 99 patients preliminarily identified as LTC, 19 completed the survey. Reason(s) for becoming LTC included: 47%(9) relocation, 11%(2) transportation difficulties to/from clinic, 26%(5) financial/insurance problems, 5%(1) perceived medication side effects, 16%(3) trouble remembering to attend appointments regularly, 5%(1) difficulty with daily medication adherence, and 0% social stigma. Furthermore, 21%(4) remain at high-risk of HIV/STI acquisition after becoming LTC. The main study limitations are selection bias and small sample size, where the small sample size did not allow for statistical significance. Conclusion While the major cause for becoming LTC was relocation, these findings suggest 37% of LTC incidences may be preventable with additional/up-front support. Because 21% of LTC patients remain at high-risk of HIV/STI acquisition, proactive re-engagement initiatives are potentially useful.