Expanding the conceptualization of re-entry: The inter-play between child welfare and juvenile services

Child, Family, and Case Characteristics Associated With Reentry Into Out-of-Home Care Among Children and Youth Involved With Child Protection Services

“…Indeed, lowering the odds of reentry can be achieved with use of minimal resources. For example, one study found that children of families who receive a single caseworker visit following reunification are less likely to reenter into out-of-home care than children without caseworker contact (Shipe et al, 2017).…”

“…To date, findings commonly investigate factors associated with reentry by combining children and youth who may be involved in multiple CPS programs in analyses, thereby failing to account for the unique conditions associated with their CPS involvement. Although prior research demonstrates that there are co-occurring risk factors associated with reentry into out-of-home care among children and youth, there are also unique child and youth characteristics linked to reentry risk for those involved in multiple systems such as CPS and the juvenile justice system (Jedwab & Shaw, 2017; Shipe, Shaw, Betsinger, & Farrell, 2017). Therefore, the current study aims to better understand reentry risk factors by stratifying analyses by two primary program areas in Colorado: Program Area 5 (PA5)—children and youth involved with CPS as a result of reports of abuse and/or neglect and Program Area 4 (PA4) —children and youth involved with CPS as a result of “youth-in-conflict,” namely, children and youth who may present with behavioral issues, have been characterized beyond the control of their caregivers, or have engaged in status offenses (Orsi, Lee, Winokur, & Pearson, 2017).…”

Driving for Success in Family Reunification—Professionals’ Views on Intervention

“…Some empirical studies have revealed that overly short periods in foster care—less than six months—do not provide sufficient time for effective intervention [ 24 , 29 , 30 ]; furthermore, longer periods—over 12 months—present a risk factor for reunification, which increases the longer the child is in care [ 21 ]. The literature also points to several other factors deemed detrimental to the success of the reunification process: recurrence in foster care [ 27 , 30 , 37 , 41 ]; inconsistencies in assessment and intervention practices [ 18 ]; inadequate preparation of children and parents for reunification [ 18 , 19 , 28 , 33 ]; poor communication between professionals and family, which discourages parental involvement [ 18 , 42 ]; a large number of foster placements [ 29 ]; lack of the development and implementation of predictive risk assessments for re-entry [ 21 ]; intervention restricted by tight deadlines in order to accelerate the reunification process [ 21 , 41 ]; returning to the family without sufficient professional support [ 18 , 31 , 35 ]; inadequate practices after reunification [ 18 , 26 ] and no contact between the professionals and family after reunification [ 30 , 43 ]; failures regarding decision-making [ 18 ]; and court decisions to reunify against the opinion of the professionals [ 18 , 30 ]. Some authors have also emphasized the family’s need for support from the protection system prior to the child’s removal [ 24 , 29 ] and the child’s placement in residential care compared to family foster care, which can have a negative impact on successful reunification [ 27 , 29 ].…”

“…Given the toxic impact of multiple highly adverse factors (e.g., previous experience of maltreatment, the violent moment of removal, the temporary loss of the family and their daily context) on children, the preparation for return to the family is imbued with considerable complexity [ 12 ]. Several authors argue that preparation for reunification should begin early, soon after the child has been removed from the family [ 20 , 23 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 43 ] and prolonged after returning to the biological family [ 18 , 20 , 39 ].…”

“…Following reunification, support for the children and their families should be ensured for the initial months, at least through a post-reunification service [ 18 , 20 , 21 , 26 , 29 , 43 , 45 ], as this is the period in which relationships and bonds are re-established [ 30 ]. Font et al [ 21 ] add that commitment to continued support after reunification also offers greater security to the reunification decision.…”