More Money, More Problems? Addressing the Funding Conditions Required for Rights-Based Child Welfare Services in England

Policymakers and academics continue to debate the criteria used in formulas to allocate funding to children’s services, but few studies have considered how well the results of these formulas align with rights-based entitlements and commitments after implementation. This research measured correspondence between local authority spending per child and levels of income deprivation, special educational needs, and child development from 2011–2019 to assess the extent to which funding matches local authorities’ statutory responsibilities to provide support to children ‘in need’ under the Children Act 1989. There was weak and worsening correspondence between funding and needs, especially for preventative services.

Issues Facing the Birth Parents and Their Implications for Open Adoption

The 210 children in the full cohort came from 142 families. Their birth parents’ circumstances provide a context for evaluating adoption outcomes. The chapter explores data collected from the children’s case files and records presented to the court at the time the order was made. Parents demonstrated a high incidence of factors known to be associated with recurrent child abuse: 31% of mothers had experienced abuse in their own childhoods; 45% were known to statutory child welfare services before their child’s birth, and 29% had already experienced the permanent removal of a child. Almost all parents struggled with complex factors including mental health problems, substance misuse, unstable relationships and domestic abuse that placed their children at risk of harm; for some parents, cognitive impairment was an exacerbating factor. About 10% of birth parents had died, and 23% of mothers and 60% of fathers had already lost contact with children before the adoption placement.

Key Insights into What Makes Public Organizations Learn from Training Programs

Public organizations often operate in rigid environments with standardized procedures that are not conducive to learning, yet it is crucial that they continuously improve at solving their societal tasks in a satisfactory way. There is a lack of knowledge about what factors are important for learning to occur in public organizations. Based on a questionnaire, this study looks at how different factors condition the way in which employees perceive standardized training programs in public organizations. The study demonstrates how a training program was perceived by two different professional groups, one being more accustomed to and accepting of standardized procedures than the other. The results show that the child welfare services had a more positive attitude toward the program than did the family counseling services. Employees working in an environment that is positive to employee feedback also perceived the program as more relevant, important and useful. Employees working in an environment that prioritized competence development perceived the program to be better organized and implemented and to be relevant to their work tasks. The article argues that these factors contribute positively to organizational learning and stresses the importance for leaders to develop an environment that is positive to employee feedback.

Research to Consider While Effectively Re-Designing Child Welfare Services

An intense appetite for reforming and transforming child welfare services in the United States is yielding many new initiatives. Vulnerable children and families who become involved with child welfare clearly deserve higher quality and more effective services. New policies, programs, and practices should be built on sound evidence. Reforms based on misunderstandings about what the current data show may ultimately harm families. This review highlights 10 commonly held misconceptions which we assert are inconsistent with the best available contemporary evidence. Implications for better alignment of evidence and reform are discussed.

Parents at war: A positioning analysis of how parents negotiate their loss after experiencing child removal by the state

This study explores how parents involved in care order processes in Norway perceive being positioned by Child Welfare Services (CWS) in this process, how they negotiate these positions and whether their loss is perceived as legitimate or illegitimate in the face of societal expectations of parenthood. The data consist of qualitative interviews with 13 parents who have experienced child removals initiated by CWS. Drawing on positioning theory, the article provides an analysis of parental experiences of being positioned by CWS and investigates how cultural notions may affect their perceptions. The analysis showed that parents experienced being at war against a highly powerful CWS, which they felt dehumanised them and positioned them as failing. Moreover, parents challenged such positions by introducing alternative explanations that presented themselves as victims. However, the analysis also showed that parents would adopt positions of becoming their own judge and internalising the stigma. Parents experienced disenfranchisement of their grief due to the perception of their loss as illegitimate. Nonetheless, several parents launched a position of becoming a renewed parental figure by turning their prior parental failure into a storyline of growth and prosperity. The article concludes that parents, through language, challenge stigmatising positions to negotiate parental failure, which could be interpreted as valuation work of their identities and parenthood.

In-home Child Welfare Services

In-home services represent a wide range of approaches to supporting and strengthening families that child welfare agencies implement to achieve the important outcomes of child and family well-being, safety, and permanency. In-home services are an essential component of the child welfare service system, but often receive less explicit attention in child welfare practice and research than other system components such as foster care, adoption, and child protective investigation. In-home services have been known by different terms over time, from services to children in their own homes, home-based, family-based, or family-centered services, family preservation, or others. Child welfare service systems differ considerably across states and localities, and in-home services probably demonstrate the highest degree of variability in target population, design, and implementation. New federal legislation, the Family First Prevention Services Act (2018), has renewed interest in in-home services. Family First creates mechanisms for states to access federal Title IV-E funds, the primary funding stream for foster care, to use for preventive services, but it also requires that these services demonstrate a sufficiently high level of research evidence of their effectiveness. With increasing emphasis on evidence-based practice, the field is challenged to implement programs and practices that demonstrate efficacy as well as practicality within the budgetary and bureaucratic constraints of public child welfare systems. This bibliography reflects a changing landscape for in-home services. The focus is on specific program models, and the extant evidence base of these models. Most are used with families who are receiving in-home services because the child welfare agency opened a service case due to an allegation of child maltreatment with the goal of preventing repeat maltreatment or the child’s removal from home. Some jurisdictions also use in-home services, including some of the specific program models described in this bibliography, prior to a report of child maltreatment, during the assessment or investigative process, or as part of an aftercare program to facilitate family reunification following a placement. Some attention is also given to in-home child welfare services provided when a child’s behavior, rather than the parent’s, poses a risk for removal. Included in this review are differential response systems, which numerous states have implemented to provide in-home services earlier and without formally opening a child welfare case; however, home visiting and family support programs of a more primary prevention nature are excluded from this review.