Socw 6361 WK 11 discussion 2: Becoming a Lifelong Advocate

Journal of Public Child Welfare, Vol. 3:213–234, 2009

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1554-8732 print/1554-8740 online

DOI: 10.1080/15548730903129764

Fatherhood in the Child Welfare System: Evaluation of a Pilot Project to Improve Father Involvement

DIANA J. ENGLISH University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

SHERRY BRUMMEL Washington State Department of Social and Health Services,

Friday Harbor, WA, USA

PRISCILLA MARTENS National Family Preservation Network, Buhl, ID, USA

Fathers provide emotional and physical, as well as financial sup- port to their children. However, little is known about public child

welfare policies and practices related to involving fathers and

fathers’ families in case planning and services to children involved

in child welfare services. This article reports on the results of a pilot

project designed to improve child welfare principles, policies, and

practices related to the involvement of fathers in the lives of chil-

dren served in one Northwest public child welfare agency. The pilot

project provided training on father involvement in child welfare

decision processes and evaluated changes in practice over time.

The evaluation included an assessment of agency policy and prac-

tice, an assessment of social workers’ perceptions regarding fathers’

involvements in the lives of their children, and examination of ac-

tual social work practices related to father involvement over time.

Changes in key areas of policy, beliefs regarding father involve-

ment in child welfare case practice, and changes in actual involve-

ment of fathers and fathers’ families in practice were suggested.

KEYWORDS father involvement in child welfare, child welfare

practice, family centered practice

Received: 1/6/09; revised: 11/3/06; accepted: 2/6/09 Address correspondence to Diana J. English, Child Welfare Research Group, School of

Social Work, University of Washington, 4045 Delridge Way S.W., Ste. 400, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: [email protected]

213

214 D. J. English et al.

Research findings on the role of father involvement and child well-being are complex, including findings that suggest both direct and indirect effects of father involvement and child well-being. Most research on father involve- ment has focused on samples in the general population. In a review of the research literature on the effect of father involvement on child development, Lamb (1997) found that parental warmth, nurturance, and closeness are associated with positive child outcomes regardless of child gender. This review also found that individual characteristics of fathers, rather than the presence or absence of a father figure, are key factors related to child well- being. However, Lamb’s (1997) review also reported research that suggests that individual father characteristics are less influential than overall family atmosphere in terms of child well-being.

Little research has focused specifically on the relationship between father involvement and child well-being in child welfare populations. A few recent studies from the Longitudinal Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN) have focused specifically on maltreated samples. LONGSCAN is a multi-site, 20-year longitudinal study examining the antecedents and consequences of abuse or neglect on children’s growth and development. These studies found different relationships between father involvement and child well-being based on type of father’s relationship to the child (e.g., biological or step-parent) (Radhakrishna et al., 2001), type of maltreatment (Dubowitz et al., 2001), and differences based on whether the child perceived the relationship with the father or father figure as supportive (Dubowitz et al., 2001). Direct and indirect effects of father involvement have also been found. For example, Marshall and English (2001) found that higher levels of father involvement are associated with lower maternal depression, which was in turn associated with less severe physical and verbal discipline by the mother, as well as improved child outcomes. Dubowitz et al. (2001) examined child neglect and found that families with a higher degree of father involvement (duration and parenting efficacy) were less likely to be neglectful. In a separate study of home visiting programs, Duggan et al. (2004) concluded that the family context needs to be carefully considered before including fathers in family decision-making, especially when domestic violence is involved.

Findings from studies such as these are important because they expand our understanding of the dynamics of relationships between fathers and mothers and their children. However, research has not yet fully addressed the complexity of father or mother involvement in cases where children are victims of abuse or neglect. In addition to gaps in knowledge on specific effects of father involvement in families where abuse or neglect is an issue, there is virtually no information on how child welfare policies and practices address the father involvement issue.

Despite significant gaps in knowledge related to the involvement of fathers in cases where abuse or neglect has occurred, emphasis on fathers’

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 215

involvement in the lives of their children has increased dramatically during the past several years (See, for example, Strug & Wilmore-Schaeffer, 2003). While early interest in the involvement of biological fathers with their chil- dren focused on child support, more recently there has been a shift in policy that includes a focus on fathers’ involvement with the physical and emotional support of their children as well (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).

The passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997 has the potential to dramatically influence child welfare practice related to fathers’ (and extended family) involvement in the lives of children. The 1997 ASFA provisions include policies regarding concurrent case-planning, increased use of kinship placements for children removed from parental custody, and the use of family decision-making in case planning. In the concurrent planning process child welfare agencies are required to routinely identify and assess non-custodial parents (usually fathers) and extended family members as potential support, as well as a placement resource, if a child is removed from parental custody. Abbreviated timelines for the development of permanent plans for children include provisions for locating and involving a child’s non-custodial father at early stages in the process in order to avoid delays in achieving permanency for the child.

It is unclear how many children involved in the public child welfare system have non-custodial fathers, although annual federal statistics on child abuse and neglect indicate that 55% of all substantiated abuse and mistreat- ment is related to single parent coping/resource issues (Administration for Children and Families, 1997). Although many children served by the public child welfare system live with their mothers as primary caregivers, available data also suggest that in the majority of cases the father of the child has been legally identified (National Survey of America’s Family, 1999) and could be a participant in decision-making regarding a resource for the child.

Until recently, the major effort in public child welfare has been to identify fathers as a source of financial support for children. In general, the primary focus of family-centered child welfare services continues to be oriented toward the child’s mother (National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family Centered Practice, 2002; Franck, 2001). Studies that have examined overall father involvement in child welfare cases have found that fathers are less involved in cases than mothers, that social workers directed their attention to the mother as the primary parent, and caseworkers did not identify the absence of father involvement as an issue (Franck, 2001; O’Donnell, 1999). A recent review by Sonnenstein et al. (2002) found that child welfare agencies are making greater efforts to identify fathers for the purpose of complying with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and ASFA requirements.

The National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) (2001) conducted a series of focus groups with child welfare professionals, family service

216 D. J. English et al.

workers, court officials and fatherhood employees to learn more about father involvement in child welfare. Data from these focus groups suggest that fathers, when considered at all, were generally viewed negatively. The NFPN study also found that the child welfare staff did not report receiving training on the importance of involving fathers, nor were there agency-specific father- related policies or practice guidelines regarding father involvement in the lives of their children.

In summary, research on father involvement and child well-being sug- gests greater father involvement is associated with overall child well-being and less neglect. Some research also suggests fathers and father figures are sometimes a risk to their children. However, presence alone is not the determining factor related to child well-being. More research on the dynamics of father involvement in the lives of children, especially on children served in public child welfare agency settings. Despite the lack of definitive research findings, there is a major national trend toward increased engagement of fa- thers in the lives of children involved in public child welfare. Little or nothing is known about how this increased emphasis is actually operationalized in practice and whether this increase in emphasis results in a change in actual child welfare practice related to engaging fathers in case decisions.

PURPOSE

This study was designed to assess current practice related to fathers’ in- volvement in child welfare and to improve case practice related to father involvement in child welfare decisions over time. Three research questions framed the study: 1) With a focus on fathers’ involvement, do agency ad- ministrators demonstrate increasing organizational support for father-friendly policies and practice? 2) With training and a focus on fathers’ involvement, do social workers change their perspective about fathers over a period of time? 3) With training and a focus on fathers’ involvement, do social workers increase efforts to identify and locate fathers and include the fathers and their families in case planning?

METHODS

Study Context

The data from this study come from the Father Involvement in Child Welfare (FICW) pilot project conducted in a state child welfare agency. Four of six offices in one region in a Northwest child welfare state agency volunteered to participate in the FICW project. These offices included rural and suburban jurisdictions. In this child welfare agency, voluntary and involuntary child

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 217

welfare services are provided to families whose children have been deemed to be at risk of abuse and/or neglect, and intervention is required for the protection of the child(ren). Casework services are provided to the child’s primary caregiver(s). If placement with the child’s primary caregiver is not possible, policy mandates that if it is safe to do so, the child must be placed with a non-primary caregiver (usually the father). If the child cannot be placed with a parent, placement resources with maternal or paternal relative/ kin are the next level of priority. Placement with a non-relative caregiver is the last preference in the placement choice hierarchy.

As voluntary participants in the FICW pilot, agency administrators agreed to participate in an agency self-assessment at start up and one year after project implementation. Line social workers agreed to participate in training on father centered child welfare practice and to complete a pre-pilot and one year post-training follow-up self-report survey on beliefs and attitudes related to father involvement in child welfare case decisions. In addition, agency staff agreed to participate in a case review process designed to examine whether actual changes in practices related to father involvement occurred during the pilot period. It was expected that there would be an increase in father friendly attitudes and beliefs as well as documentation of father oriented case practices in case records over time as a result of the pilot project. More specif- ically, it was expected that the more familiar the social workers became with father-friendly practices, the more likely it would be that they would integrate father friendly practice in actual case decision-making. It was expected that there would be an increase in father-oriented practices incrementally over time. The evaluation included father involvement in two cohorts of cases recruited across two separate and consecutive years of the project.

Study Sample

Data were collected on all of the children at the study sites who were made dependents of the court in the study time frames. Cohort A included 136 chil- dren who were made dependents of the court from September 2002 through February 2003. Cohort B included 97 children who were made dependents of the court from March 2003 through August 2003. Data were collected at three time points for each cohort: at point of entry into dependency (time 1); at 6 months after dependency (time 2); and at 12 months after dependency (time 3). It should be noted that by 12 months most placement decisions had already been made. Thus, the focus is on data collected in the first six months of the dependency. These data collection points were selected to obtain real- time data about case practice during the time periods when permanency decisions were being made. As soon as a case was identified (e.g., a child was made dependent) information on initial case practice was collected. By time 2, it was expected, based on agency policy, that the social worker would have completed an initial case assessment, and a service plan would have

218 D. J. English et al.

TABLE 1 Number of Children and Caregivers in Cohorts Over Time

Number

Cohort Children Primary

caregivers Non-primary caregivers

Cohort A Time 1 136 73 81 Time 2 135 72 77 Time 3 121 62 68

Cohort B Time 1 97 67 68 Time 2 94 64 64 Time 3 83 54 56

Note. The n for children and caregivers changes across time be-

cause dependency was dismissed for some children and families

during the study period. Time 1 was entry into dependency. Time 2

was 6 months after entry into dependency. Time 3 was 12 months

after entry into dependency.

been identified and initiated. At time 3, a decision regarding likelihood of reunification with the primary caregiver and/or optional permanency plans should be determined.

Table 1 provides information on the number of children, primary care- givers (biological mother), and non-primary caregivers (biological father 95% of cases) in each cohort at each measurement time.

Table 2 provides data on child, caregiver, and case characteristics at the time the two cohorts were established. Approximately two-thirds of the

TABLE 2 Child, Caregiver and Case Characteristics

Time 1, %

Characteristic Cohort A Cohort B

Child age 6 years or younger 68 65 Child female 49 54 Child White 71 84 PCG single female head-of-household 19 37 PCG employed (with or without public assistance) 21 26 NPCG employeda 36 26 NPCG living with other adult 55 41 NPCG living with other children 32 19 Reason for out of home—neglectb 90 89 Children in foster care or group care 68 59 Plan to return child to PCG 80 87

Note. PCG D primary caregiver; NPCG D non-primary caregiver/biological father. aOne-third of NPCG employment status was unknown. bEither primary or secondary allegation precipitating out-of-home placement.

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 219

children in the study were under the age of 6, with slightly more females and White children in Cohort B. Approximately twice as many single female head- of-households were identified for Cohort B. The percentage of custodial primary caregivers who were employed was about the same for each cohort. Fewer non-primary caregivers were employed at Cohort B entry, fewer were living with other adults, and fewer were living with other children. There were no differences in the reason that children were placed in out-of-home care.

Study Implementation

Prior to the initiation of the FICW pilot project the child welfare staff in each of the four pilot offices participated in an orientation to the project. The orientation included a description of the purpose of the pilot, an overview of the planned training, and plans for the evaluation of the pilot. In 2002, staff in the pilot site offices participated in a four-hour training session. The training included information on the role and importance of fathers in their children’s lives, barriers to involving fathers, communication with fathers, acknowledging mother’s role as gatekeeper of father involvement, and application of best practice principles related to father involvement in child welfare practice. These topics were included based on available research, recommendations from fatherhood experts, and feedback from social workers in the field. Training also included a video demonstration of techniques for engaging fathers and written case examples of father involve- ment in assessment and case planning. Subsequent trainings were scheduled based on the agency’s preference and topics of interest to pilot staff and were not tied to data collection. Additional training included modules on how to involve the father’s biological family, how to engage fathers, and discussions about strategies for involving fathers in specific case types.

Data Sources and Collection Methods

Agency administrators, including the agency director, the child welfare pro- gram director, and project site coordinators were asked to complete an agency self-assessment, and the social workers in each office were asked to complete a survey assessing their beliefs and practices related to father involvement. These surveys were collected at two time points to assess change in father friendly agency policy and practice, and staff attitudes and beliefs related to father involvement. In addition, data on actual case practice relating to mother and father involvement as well as father’s extended family involvement were collected through a case review process on two cohorts of cases.

220 D. J. English et al.

AGENCY SELF-ASSESSMENT

The agency self-assessment utilized in the pilot was a modified version of the National Head Start agency assessment survey titled ‘‘Father Friendliness Organizational Self-Assessment’’ (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). This survey was the only father friendly agency assessment available at the time the FICW pilot was initiated. The National Head Start Assessment survey was adapted for this pilot by changing words related to child welfare practice such as agency name, or program specific references such as child protection or child welfare. The 40-item question- naire utilized a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 4 (neither agree nor disagree), to 7 (strongly agree). There are no known tests of reliability or validity of this survey. Utilization of the survey was for the purpose of identifying agency strengths and weaknesses related to father-friendly practices. Specifically, the survey examined administrators’ perceptions of current practices related to organizational support of service delivery to fathers, policies and procedures regarding inclusion of fathers in assessment and service planning, and services and resources available to fathers and agency friendliness toward fathers. The pilot site administrators were offered anonymity, but chose to complete the survey by e-mail. The results of the survey were used to examine progress or changes in agency policy and practice at the administrative level when the pilot was initiated (pre-test) and after one year of implementation (post-test). There were 5 completed assessments at pre-test, and 4 completed surveys at post-test.

SOCIAL WORKER SURVEY

The social worker survey was developed for use in this pilot project based on the work by E. Franck, the National Research Council, the National Center on Fathers and Families (NFPN, 2002), a review of the literature, existing reports, and input from agency site coordinators. Project staff developed items to as- sess staff attitudes and perceptions of how prepared the social workers were to work with fathers, and perceptions of current practices and procedures related to the inclusion of fathers in case planning and service delivery. The 47-item questionnaire utilized a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree), 4 (neither agree nor disagree), to 7 (strongly agree). The survey was administered by evaluation staff prior to the onset of the fatherhood training provided by the NFPN trainer. Social workers were advised that the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Staff could complete and leave the survey in a box at the training site or they could take it with them to complete and return in a stamped pre-addressed envelope. The results of the survey were used to examine changes in attitudes, perceptions and practices related to father involvement in child welfare cases when the pilot was initiated (pre- test) and after 1 year of implementation (post-test). There were 57 completed surveys at pre-test and 40 completed surveys at post-test.

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 221

CASE REVIEWS

The case review examined case characteristics and practices related to fa- thers’ involvement in child welfare cases at three different time periods for two cohorts of families served in the pilot sites. Two cohorts were selected because it was expected that if change were to occur, it was likely to occur in- crementally and over time, and to examine replication effects. Data collection procedures for each cohort were identical, with data collected at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. Information collected included documentation in the case record regarding whether the child’s father was identified as a resource, whether the mother (primary caregiver) agreed and participated with the case and visitation plan, whether the father (non-primary caregiver) participated and agreed with the case plan, whether either (the primary or non-primary caregiver) complied with the case and visitation plan, the involvement of the father’s extended family, and whether the extended family was included in the case plan. Case data were collected utilizing multiple sources including extraction of data from a combination of electronic case data files, hard copy case records, court records, and in-person or telephone interviews with the assigned social worker (at 6 and 12 months). The child’s assigned social worker was asked to complete a series of questions regard- ing the primary and non-primary caregivers’ participation, agreement and compliance with the case plan for the child during a telephone interview conducted by a project research analyst. Initial data collection instruments and procedures were developed and piloted in September 2002. Procedures and the data collection instruments were refined and cases were cross-coded to reach an inter-rater reliability of .90 Kappa between the case rater and the project manager before formal data collection procedures were initiated.

Data Analysis

Upon collection, data were initially entered into an access database for transfer to the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (Version 9, SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL) for subsequent analyses. Since more than one sibling could be included in each cohort, caregiver data were unduplicated. That is, for each family only one set of caregiver data (including data for primary and non-primary caregiver, if available) was included in the analysis if there was more than one child in the study. However data for each child were included in the analyses.

For the agency self-assessment and the social worker survey, basic de- scriptive statistics were calculated as well as mean scores for each item at the pre-test and post-test, including standard deviations. Mean score differences were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U-test for non-parametric data and T-tests for use as a reference point for change. For case review data, the unit of measurement was the child. The number of children in each cohort

222 D. J. English et al.

window varied by whether or not, during the study period, a child was returned home or exited placement to permanency. The number of children and caregivers at each time point in the analysis reflected those children and families still involved in an open/active case at that measurement point.

Analysis consisted of comparisons between Cohort A and B, and within each cohort over time. It was expected that change would be incremental across time within and between cohorts.

RESULTS

Agency Self-Assessment

Table 3 provides mean scores on the agency self-assessment at pre-test and post-test. Column 3 displays the change in mean scores from pre-test to post- test. Although a small number of administrators completed the assessment, the data do reflect all of the administrators in the pilot sites during the study period.

Selected data from Table 3 are summarized in order of magnitude and direction of change. The largest improvement in scores was from neutral to agreement in areas related to the invitation of fathers to make suggestions about agency services, contact with local colleges to provide courses on fathers, and inclusion of father related services in the agency budget. Further- more, the administrators agreed that during the pilot, policies were instituted to facilitate father involvement, and the agency organized information about community services for fathers.

Other areas where improvement was suggested, but of lesser magnitude (1.5–2.0 mean score change), were the availability of parenting groups for fathers and literature appealing to fathers available at the agency. Change scores also suggest an increased focus on encouraging mothers to work cooperatively with fathers when possible. In addition, there were improve- ments (either disagree to neutral or neutral to agreement) on issues re- lated to the agency providing increased opportunities for father involvement in designing services, increased partnerships and collaborations, increased agency expectations regarding fathers, increased services to both parents, and standardization of case documentation for both parents in the case record. Less improvement was suggested in revised policies focusing on father’s interests, father’s views of the agency as a place to seek services, or that messages are given to fathers to reinforce that their role as a father figure is critical to healthy child growth and development. In summary, the data suggest that from the administrators’ perspective improvement occurred related to involvement of fathers at the macro level of practice (advisory), the addition of money in the budget for father related services, and improvement of policies related to father involvement.

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 223

TABLE 3 Mean Scores on Agency Self-Assessment

Mean

Item Pre- testa

Post- testb Change

1. Community partnerships and collaborations with providing services to fathers are available in my community.

3.6 4.8 1.2

2. Fathers in the community would view this agency as a place they can come to for assistance.

3.4 4.4 1.0

3. Agency procedures have been assessed to determine if the interests of fathers are uniformly represented.

4.0 5.0 1.0

4. Case documents are standardized for both parents rather than just modified from forms that emphasize mothers as the primary caregiver.

4.0 5.0 1.0

5. Service hours are scheduled to accommodate the time constraints of working mothers and fathers.

4.0 4.5 0.5

6. Policies have been instituted to facilitate male involvement. 3.0 5.0 2.0 7. This agency has clear expectations that fathers of children

should and will participate. 4.4 5.8 1.4

8. Agency policy allows services to be provided to both parents regardless of how the other parent feels about that involvement.

5.2 6.5 1.3

9. The social work staff have received training on the issue of working with men in general and on fatherhood specifically.

3.8 6.8 3.0

10. Staff are aware of issues faced by low-income fathers. 5.4 5.9 0.5 11. Staff are aware of issues faced by low-income mothers. 6.4 6.3 �0.1 12. The majority of frontline program staff are open and

receptive to the idea of providing services to fathers. 5.4 5.8 0.4

13. The inclusion of fathers in case planning (when appropriate) is included as an evaluation component in performance appraisals of all key staff.

3.2 3.5 0.3

14. Female and male staff in this agency work as a team. 6.6 6.3 �0.3 15. In this agency staff are comfortable working with fathers. 4.8 5.3 0.5 16. Case plans are inclusive of fathers. 4.8 5.0 0.2 17. Counseling with mothers includes a consistent focus on

encouraging her to work cooperatively with the father of her child(ren) (if possible/if father available).

3.4 5.3 1.9

18. When mothers don’t want the fathers of their children involved, efforts are still made to gain her support and to work with that father (except in DV and abusive situations?).

4.6 5.3 0.7

19. Fathers have opportunities to help design/feel ownership of the services being provided to them.

4.2 5.4 1.2

20. Mothers have opportunities to help design/feel ownership of the services being provided to them.

5.6 5.6 —

21. Parenting groups designed to deal with father issues are available in our community.

3.4 6.0 1.6

22. Information about community services for fathers has been collected and are available in our office.

3.2 5.3 2.2

23. Focus groups or individual fathers (from target population) have been invited to the agency to assess father-friendliness and make suggestions for making the space more welcoming.

3.4 6.5 3.1

(continued)

224 D. J. English et al.

TABLE 3 (Continued)

Mean

Item Pre- testa

Post- testb Change

24. The physical environment has a general feel that is inviting to men/fathers.

3.6 4.9 1.3

25. Positive and diverse images of men and fathers are displayed.

3.2 4.5 1.3

26. Literature available for parents to pick up and read is appealing to fathers and reflects services or programs that they might participate in.

3.2 4.8 1.6

27. Men are present in the agency and it doesn’t appear like a place just for women and children.

5.5 6.3 0.8

28. The message is given to fathers that their role as active parents is critical to their children’s development.

4.6 5.8 1.2

29. Input is sought from fathers about what they want and need from this agency.

4.6 5.1 0.5

30. Positive comments about men are expressed in both formal and informal settings.

4.2 5.1 0.9

31. The term ‘‘parent’’ in agency policies, in practice, really refers to the mother.

3.2 3.3 0.1

32. The agency has an active focus on fathers’ involvement with their children in: a. Open-CPS—non-placement cases 4.6 5.0 0.4 b. Open CPS—placement cases 4.6 5.7 1.1 c. Ongoing CWS—in-home 4.6 5.0 0.4 d. Ongoing CWS—out-of-home 4.6 5.7 1.1

33. This agency has formal policies about father involvement in any case involving out-of-home placement of a child.

5.2 3.8 �1.4

34. Even though the policy says we should consider both biological parents and their extended families equally as placement resources, we don’t do it that way in this office.

3.4 3.0 �0.4

35. If we can’t locate the father, the next best thing is locating the father’s family.

5.8 6.8 1.0

36. This agency has a clear policy about the involvement of biological fathers in decision-making.

4.8 5.3 0.5

37. This agency does not view fathers as a resource if paternity has not already been established.

4.6 3.8 �0.8

38. Informal policies in our agency are more influential in how we deal with fathers than formal policies.

4.2 5.0 0.8

39. Resources and funding for fatherhood are part of the agency’s planning and budget process.

2.6 5.8 3.2

40. Colleges and universities have been contacted to discuss the need for courses on fatherhood.

2.2 5.5 3.3

Note. DV D Domestic Violence, CPS D Child Protective Services, CWS D Child Welfare Services. Each

item describes how ‘‘father friendly’’ an agency is. Ratings were made on 7-point Likert scales (1 D

strongly disagree, 4 D neutral, 7 D strongly agree). aN D 5. bN D 4.

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 225

Social Worker Survey

Table 4 provides mean scores and standard deviations on social workers’ perceptions of father friendly policies and practices at pre-test and post-test.

At pre-test, social workers strongly agreed or agreed that father involve- ment is important, that standards related to practice should be the same for fathers as they are for mothers, including similar visitation rights for children who are in placement. Furthermore, social workers agreed fathers should have access to the same services, and efforts to engage fathers in service plan- ning should be the same as those expended in engaging mothers, including employment services. Social workers also agreed that non-residential fathers’ identity and paternity should be confirmed, fathers should be included in placement decisions, and if fathers are not available, a father’s family should be the next best alternative for children. In addition, social workers report agreement that mothers who are hostile toward the father’s involvement with their children should receive counseling to help them understand the importance of the father’s emotional support to children as well as financial support. Finally, social workers indicated they would welcome training on father involvement and that they should expend the same efforts to engage fathers as they do to engage mothers.

Social workers were more neutral regarding whether the agency has an active focus on father involvement, whether different skills are needed to work with fathers, whether fathers’ prior involvement with their children was an important consideration, and whether there are clear policies regard- ing biological fathers’ involvement in decision-making. Furthermore, social workers were neutral regarding whether informal policies in an office are more influential than written or official policies. Social workers did not agree that biological fathers and their families are excluded from consideration, that a father’s role was primarily economic, that fathers were a last resort for placement, and that father involvement with sons was more important than daughters. In addition, social workers were also neutral regarding whether fathers with criminal records could effectively parent, that primary services for fathers should be related to employment, that biological mothers were easier to deal with than biological fathers, and that social workers with poor relationships with their own fathers should not work with fathers in child welfare. Finally, social workers were neutral about whether unmarried fathers should have fewer rights than married fathers, that fathers had fewer parenting skills than mothers, that biological fathers do not want to be in- volved with their children, that the primary purpose of establishing paternity is financial, that if mothers do not want fathers involved with the children they should not be involved, and that father involvement should be based on the willingness of the mother.

As noted in column 3 of Table 4, the largest improvement in social worker perceptions of father involvement from pre-test to post-test occurred

226 D. J. English et al.

TABLE 4 Mean Scores on Agency Social Worker Survey

Mean (SD)

Item Pre- testa

Post- testb Change

1. The term ‘‘parent’’ in Children’s Administration policies, in practice, really refers to the mother.

3.0 (1.9) 2.7 (1.9) �0.3

2. This agency has an active focus on fathers’ involvement with their children in: a. Open CPS—non-placement 4.0 (1.6) 4.3 (1.4) 0.3 b. Open CPS—placement 4.6 (1.7) 4.7 (1.3) 0.1 c. Ongoing CWS—In-home 4.6 (1.6) 4.6 (1.4) — d. Ongoing CWS—out-of-home 4.5 (1.5) 4.8 (1.4) 0.3

3. This agency has clear formal policies about father involvement in any case involving out-of-home placement of a child.

4.2 (1.9) 4.2 (1.6) —

4. Even though the policy says we should consider both biological parents and their extended families as placement resources, we don’t do it that way in this office.

2.5 (1.6) 2.8 (1.6) 0.3

5. If we can’t locate the father, the next best thing is locating the father’s family.

5.7 (1.5) 6.1 (1.4) 0.4

6. A father’s involvement in their children’s life is important. 6.4 (1.3) 6.6 (1.0) 0.2 7. A father’s primary role in their children’s life is to provide

economic support. 2.0 (1.1) 2.2 (1.2) 0.2

8. Fathers are seen as placement resources only as a last resort. 2.4 (2.0) 2.0 (1.6) �0.4 9. It’s more important for fathers to be involved with their sons

than with their daughters. 1.7 (1.3) 1.5 (1.2) �0.2

10. Fathers who have criminal records cannot effectively parent their child.

2.1 (1.3) 2.3 (1.3) 0.2

11. Fathers who have a history of being violent towards others should not have access to their children.

3.5 (1.5) 3.2 (1.3) �0.3

12. The service needs of fathers are different than mothers. 3.5 (1.7) 4.2 (1.8) 0.7 13. All things being equal, the primary service goal for fathers

should be employment services so they can support their children.

2.5 (1.3) 2.6 (1.2) 0.1

14. Different skills are required to engage fathers than those needed for mothers.

4.4 (1.6) 4.9 (1.3) 0.5

15. Generally, in my experience, fathers don’t want to be involved in the primary care of their children.

3.2 (1.6) 3.1 (1.6) �0.1

16. Biological mothers are easier to deal with than biological fathers.

2.5 (1.5) 2.2 (1.4) �0.3

17. Social workers who have a history of poor relations with their own father should not do casework with fathers.

2.0 (1.4) 1.8 (1.3) �0.2

18. Unmarried fathers should have fewer rights than married fathers.

1.6 (1.3) 1.4 (1.1) �0.2

19. Fathers have fewer parenting skills than mothers. 2.2 (1.5) 2.1 (1.4) �0.1 20. My community has father-focused services. 3.3 (1.6) 3.8 (1.5) 0.5 21. I would support training specifically on father involvement

in case planning. 5.6 (1.6) 5.1 (1.6) �0.5

22. This agency has a clear policy about the involvement of biological fathers in decision-making.

4.5 (1.7) 4.2 (1.4) �0.3

23. In my experience biological fathers rarely want to be involved with their children.

2.7 (1.6) 2.6 (1.5) �0.1

(continued)

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 227

TABLE 4 (Continued)

Mean (SD)

Item Pre- testa

Post- testb Change

24. The primary purpose of establishing paternity is to obtain financial support for a dependent child.

2.6 (1.8) 2.6 (1.5) —

25. I put as much effort into engaging biological fathers in the decision-making process as I do biological mothers.

5.4 (1.5) 5.2 (1.6) �0.2

26. In general, mothers are helpful in finding biological fathers so they can be involved in the process.

3.7 (1.4) 3.7 (1.2) —

27. Fathers’ roles in the lives of their children are the same regardless of culture.

3.3 (1.8) 3.2 (1.6) �0.1

28. If a mother doesn’t want the father involved it is better not to involve the father in the case.

2.2 (1.2) 1.8 (0.9) �0.4

29. Mothers who are hostile to the child’s father should receive counseling regarding the effects on their children.

5.8 (1.2) 5.7 (1.1) �0.1

30. It is important to help mothers understand the emotional as well as financial support fathers can provide.

6.1 (1.1) 6.1 (1.2) —

31. The standards applied to fathers should be the same for mothers.

6.1 (1.2) 6.0 (1.3) �0.1

32. This agency does not view fathers as a resource if paternity has not already been established.

3.4 (1.9) 4.2 (1.9) 0.8

33. Involvement of a father should be dependent on the willingness of the mother.

1.7 (1.3) 1.8 (1.6) 0.1

34. Informal policies in our office are more influential in how we deal with fathers than formal policies.

4.4 (2.0) 4.6 (1.4) 0.2

35. Biological fathers should have the same visitation rights as the biological mother.

6.0 (1.2) 6.4 (1.3) 0.4

36. A father’s involvement with the child prior to agency involvement is an important predictor of how much the father should be involved in the care of and planning for their child.

4.0 (1.9) 3.2 (1.3) �0.8

37. Fathers should be provided with the same level of services as mothers.

6.3 (1.4) 6.5 (1.1) 0.2

38. Non-resident biological fathers are included in case plans whenever a child is placed out-of-home.

5.1 (1.8) 4.9 (1.9) �0.2

39. Non-resident fathers are identified and paternity is confirmed and/or established upon filing of a dependency petition.

5.0 (1.7) 4.5 (1.6) �0.5

40. Employment training should be available as a part of a service plan for fathers.

5.2 (1.8) 5.1 (1.7) �0.1

41. Fathers who are already involved in their children’s lives are easier to work with.

4.7 (1.6) 5.0 (1.3) 0.3

42. If a father indicates he does not want to be involved with his child, no further effort to engage him should be attempted.

2.7 (1.6) 2.7 (1.5) —

43. I am more likely to be successful engaging mothers than fathers.

3.5 (1.6) 3.2 (1.5) �0.3

44. My workload prohibits me from spending too much time working on separate plans for the mother and father.

3.3 (2.0) 3.5 (1.7) 0.2

45. I use the same approach to engage mothers as I do fathers. 4.6 (1.8) 4.2 (1.7) �0.4 46. Visitation by fathers should only be allowed when child

support payments have been made. 1.9 (1.4) 1.4 (0.8) �0.5

Note. CPS D Child Protective Services, CWS D Child Welfare Services. Each item describes beliefs regard-

ing work. Ratings were made on 7-point scales (1 D strongly disagree, 4 D neutral, 7 D strongly agree). aN D 57. bN D 40.

228 D. J. English et al.

in five areas. Social workers were more likely to shift from disagree to neutral (scale point 4: neither agree nor disagree) regarding their perception that the service needs of fathers are different than mothers, that biological fathers should have the same visitation rights as biological mothers, that father involvement prior to agency involvement was an important predictor of father involvement in the care and planning for their child once dependency was established, that the father should be allowed to visit regardless of child support status, and that the agency does not view fathers as a resource unless paternity has been established.

In summary, at pre-test social workers agreed with the principles of father involvement in case decision processes, but were more neutral about whether actual practice reflected these beliefs. Little improvement in beliefs was indicated at post-test related to attitudes toward father involvement, service needs and visitation, but most social workers already had very pro- father attitudes. Statistical comparisons on an individual social-worker level could not be conducted because social worker specific identification was not collected.

Case Reviews

Table 5 provides data on actual caregiver involvement in case processes as reported in case documentation and/or interview data from the child’s social

TABLE 5 Caregiver and Family Involvement in Case Plan Activities

Percent

Cohort A Cohort B

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Father identified as a resource 33 43* 41 49** 45 21 PCG

Agree with case plan 72 62 71 76 72 80 Comply with case plan 35 32 37 37 39 43 Comply with visitation plan 59 32 26 55 38 37

NPCG Participate in case plan 40 45 38 36 34 30 Agree with case plan 43 42 38 42 36 39 Comply with case plan 28 23 27 21 22 20 Comply with visitation plan 31 33 25 31 30 18 Extended family involvement 31 39 33 37 26 29 Case plan included involvement

of extended family 41 40 36 41 39 36

Note. PCG D primary caregiver/mother; NPCG D non-primary caregiver/biological father. Time 1 was

entry into dependency. Time 2 was 6 months after entry into dependency. Time 3 was 12 months after

entry into dependency.

*p < .05. **p < 01.

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 229

worker. Data on percent involvement of the primary caregiver (mother), the non-primary caregiver (father), and the non-primary caregiver’s family in case planning activities are provided for each of the three time points for Cohort A and Cohort B.

The data indicate that less than one-half of the fathers in either cohort were identified as resources for the children in this study. However, com- pared to Cohort A, there was a significant increase at time 1 in Cohort B (from 33% to 49%, p < .01) in the number of fathers identified as a resource for their children. Further, in Cohort A, there was a significant increase in the numbers of fathers identified as a resource from time 1 to time 2 (33% to 43%, p < .05). These results suggest an increase in father involvement for the second cohort of children.

Most primary caregivers agreed with the child welfare case plan for their child(ren) at each measurement time in both cohorts. However, even if primary caregivers agreed with the case plan, only about one-third of the primary caregivers actually complied with the case plan in both cohorts. Compliance with the visitation plan by the primary caregiver was higher at earlier stages in the case process than later stages in both cohorts. However, there was a large increase in compliance at time 3 (26% to 37%) for Cohort B as compared to Cohort A.

Non-primary caregivers became less involved in the development of the case plan over time for each cohort, and overall non-primary caregiver participation in case planning decreased from Cohort A to Cohort B. Even though more fathers were identified as a resource in Cohort B, fewer were actually participating in the development of case plans. There was less agreement with case plans for non-primary caregivers (averaging 40% across cohorts and time) as compared to primary caregivers, and similar to primary caregivers, non-primary caregivers were not very likely to comply with the case plan (averaging 24% across cohorts and time). Non-primary caregivers were more likely to comply with the visitation plan than the case plan at time 1 and time 2 for both cohorts. At time 1, there was an increase in the proportion of extended family involvement from Cohort A to Cohort B (31% to 37%), and within Cohort A, an increase from 31% at time 1 to 39% at time 2.

In summary, despite increased efforts, only about one-third of the fathers were involved in the case planning process. Although there was a significant increase in fathers identified as a resource from Cohort A to Cohort B, there do not appear to be increases in father participation, agreement and compliance in Cohort B. There appears to be some increase in non-primary caregiver extended family involvement over time. However, when the data are examined a little more closely, looking at select groups of non-primary caregivers (fathers), a different picture of involvement emerges. These data are presented in Table 6.

The first half of Table 6 provides data on the percent of cases when the non-primary caregivers were located, and the second half of Table 6 provides

230 D. J. English et al.

TABLE 6 Involvement in Case Plan Activities for Select Groups of Fathers

Percent

Cohort A Cohort B

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 (n D 56) (n D 53) (n D 50) (n D 38) (n D 41) (n D 38)

NPCGs Located Father identified as a resource 48 60 52 68 58 32 Father participates in case plan 52 62 52 55 51 42 Father extended family involved 39 45 38 45 46 37 Case plan involves extended family 48 49 40 47 51 45

NPCGs Located/Used as Resource n D 27 n D 32 n D 26 n D 26 n D 24 n D 12 Father identified as a resource 100 100 100 100 100 100 Father participates in case plan 70 78 70 65 67 83 Father extended family involved 48 50 50 50 50 50 Case plan involves extended family 63 59 58 58 46 50

Note. NPCG D non-primary caregiver/biological father. Time 1 was entry into dependency. Time 2 was 6 months after entry into dependency. Time 3 was 12 months after entry into dependency.

data on the percent of cases when the non-primary caregivers were located and used as a resource. The data were examined this way because many non-primary caregivers cannot be located from the earliest stages of agency involvement and throughout key decision points in a case. Also, even if fathers are located, many are not considered resources for their children, as detailed in Table 5. Reasons that fathers are not considered resources include: incarceration, sexual abuse of the child, convicted sex offender, domestic violence, substance abuse, anger control or mental health issues, termination of parental rights, and father wanting no contact.

When the non-primary caregiver was located, there were substantial increases in the proportion identified as a resource from Cohort A to Cohort B (48% compared to 68% at time 1). For both cohorts, there appears to be a trend towards decreasing father identification over time. When located, half of fathers participated in the development of the case plan at time 1, and about two-fifths of cases had involvement from the father’s extended family at time 1. There were also increases in both of these measures from Cohort A to Cohort B. When the non-primary caregiver was located and identified as a resource, the majority of fathers then participate in case planning activities. However, there was a decline at time 1 from Cohort A to Cohort B (70% to 65%). Further, extended family involvement increases to half or slightly more than half, over time and for each cohort.

DISCUSSION

Fathers’ involvement in the lives of their children has been identified as important for healthy child growth and development. In response to im-

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 231

proved knowledge about the importance of fathers’ involvement with their children, the federal government passed legislation in 1997 requiring states to identify and assess non-custodial parents as potential supports when a child is removed from a primary custodial parent. Despite what appears to be a beneficial policy for children involved in the child welfare system, little is known about actual practices related to father involvement. This article reports on a pilot project that was designed to enhance social work practice related to father involvement through training and examination of potential changes in agency practice related to the training. First, it should be noted that the evaluation of the FICW pilot was developmental, that is, the pilot was being evaluated as it was being implemented. Furthermore, the measures utilized in the collection of data from agency administrators, social workers and the case reviews were either modified measures from other studies of father involvement in programs outside public child welfare agency settings or developed specifically for this pilot project. Modifications to the Agency Self-Assessment Scale from a four-point to a seven-point scale allowed for greater discrimination related to change, as the scale modification did not anchor the mid-range scales (2–3 or 5–6), and allowed a neutral–response. A forced-choice scale may have produced a different result. Psychometric properties of the measures were not tested prior to use in the pilot. Inter- rater reliability of the case review data collection procedures was in the realm of acceptable practice (Kappa .90 or greater). However, change scores on the two surveys (agency self–assessment and the social worker survey) could be related to properties of measurement, not actual change in the perception of agency staff. Furthermore, there were no comparison groups to test the impact of the father involvement training, and individual workers change scores were not assessed as the social worker surveys were administered anonymously. Another limitation is related to the case review. There was no comparison group to determine if the changes in practice could be directly attributed to policy and practice changes initiated as a result of the pilot. However, the evaluation included a staged cohort design to provide some controls for the measure of change over time and replication. The case review represents a preliminary evaluation of casework practice for several hundred children removed from parental custody and made dependents of the court during the pilot period. The review focused on the extent to which fathers were identified, located, involved in case planning, and the extent to which the fathers’ extended family members were involved.

Despite the limitations of this study, it was not the intent of this ex- ploratory evaluation to provide definitive answers to questions regarding the relationship between training on father involvement and actual changes in practice. The intent of the pilot was to influence change in practice, but at project start-up little was actually known about practice, underlying beliefs about father involvement in this jurisdiction, or about issues over and above training that might influence child welfare practice related to father involve-

232 D. J. English et al.

ment. Although the evaluation has methodological limitations, it is one of the few studies that have examined policy and practice related to father involvement in a child welfare agency setting. While not definitive, this study does provide some useful insights about father involvement in child welfare cases that can inform future, more rigorous research in this area. Following an emphasis and training on involving fathers, social workers likely will increase efforts to identify and locate fathers, involve fathers in case planning, and involve the fathers’ extended family in case planning and placement.

The agency self-assessment suggests the agency did not have strong policies or practices related to father involvement, particularly at the macro level. At the initiation of the FICW there were no clear mechanisms for father involvement in the development of overall policies and procedures related to case planning for their children. Re-administration of the agency self- assessment after one year suggests key administrative movement toward im- proved father friendly practices in several areas. These changes included the development of an established mechanism for father involvement, increased funding to support father involvement at the macro level, and additional re- sources for training. While these changes cannot be unequivocally attributed to the FICW, it is likely that increased focus during the pilot influenced changes. Particularly significant was the increased funding in the agency budget for father involvement activities.

Findings from the social worker survey have important implications. First, even before the training, the social work staff in this agency held what could generally be termed father friendly beliefs about father involvement in child welfare practice. While there were some shifts (in a positive direction) related to the need for father friendly services and visitation, the training and pilot overall did not result in overwhelming changes in staff beliefs and attitudes. Reasons for limited change could be related to training content, but this study found that agreement about the importance of father involvement was high and in the ‘‘right’’ direction before the training. If social workers already hold values, beliefs and attitudes about father involvement in child welfare decision processes, and having father friendly values, beliefs and attitudes is related to father involvement in practice, then we should expect to see high father involvement in the third area of the study, the case review.

Perhaps the most important finding of this exploratory study was the finding related to actual father (for the purposes of this study non-primary caregiver) and mother (primary caregiver) involvement in case-decision mak- ing. One lesson learned from the evaluation is that it cannot be assumed, even with father-friendly attitudes, beliefs, policies, and practices, that fa- thers are identified as resources for all the children involved in the child welfare system. This study found that locating fathers was the first obstacle to identifying them as a resource. Even when fathers were located, many were still not identified as a resource, some for legitimate reasons. Reasons fathers were not identified included sexual abuse of the child, risk due to domestic violence, substance abuse, anger control, mental health issues and

Fatherhood in Child Welfare 233

the father himself did not want contact with the children. It may be that services to fathers for the identified risk issues may result in a change in the fathers’ status as a resource for their child, but little is known about actual case practice related to assessment and reassessment of these issues, or about service provision to fathers who are not initially identified as a resource.

Some of the same risk issues identified for fathers are also risk issues for mothers but current practice may not preclude the mother from being seen as a resource for her child. Furthermore, fathers who are incarcerated can be a resource to their children, albeit a limited resource. However, other reasons for fathers not being considered as a resource for their children appear legitimate, and apply to a considerable number of fathers who were not included in case planning in this pilot project.

This study suggests that training and a focus on father friendly policies and practices can have an impact on fathers’ involvement. Both top-down and bottom-up efforts are required to successfully involve fathers. Administrators reported shifts in organizational-level policies and practices that could subse- quently be reflected in line-level practice. Shifts in social workers’ beliefs and perceptions at the individual worker level were also evident. Furthermore, the data suggest that training and a focus on father involvement may be associated with actual changes in practice. When fathers are located and identified as a resource, there are incremental increases over time in fathers’ involvement in case planning and the fathers’ extended family involvement in case planning. This involvement frequently peaks at or before the sixth month of the dependency case. Thus, it is critical to identify and involve fathers early in the dependency process. There is also some indication that social workers’ initial motivation and efforts to involve fathers may decrease over a period of time and require reinforcement through ongoing training and agency emphasis. In order to sustain fathers’ involvement, all agency staff must commit to father-friendly practice. Administrators need to develop clear procedures and policies, supervisors need to link social workers’ efforts on involving fathers to performance evaluations, and social workers need to identify and locate every father and involve the father and his extended family to the greatest extent possible. The next step is to further develop and test a model for fathers’ involvement that reflects best practice for both mothers and fathers.

REFERENCES

Dubowitz, H., Black, M. M., Cox, C. E., Kerr, M. A., Litrownik, A. J., Radhakrishna, A., et al. (2001). Father involvement and children’s functioning at age 6 years: A multi-site study. Child Maltreatment, 6, 300–309.

Duggan, A., Fuddy, L., McFarleane, E., Burrell, L., Windham, A., Higman, S., et al. (2004). Evaluating a statewide home visiting program to prevent child abuse in at-risk families of newborns: Fathers’ participation and outcomes. Child Mal- treatment, 9, 3–17.

234 D. J. English et al.

Franck, E. J. (2001). Outreach to birthfathers of children in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 80, 381–399.

Lamb, M. E. (1997). Fathers and child development: An introductory overview and guide. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The Role of the Father in Child Development (pp. 1– 18). New York, NY: Wiley.

Marshall, D. B., & English, D. J. (2001). The effect of fathers or father figures on child behavioral problems in families referred to child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 6, 290–299.

National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family Centered Practice. (2002). Best Practice/Next Practice: Family-Centered Child Welfare. Retrieved March 1, 2003 from http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/newsletter/ BPNPSummer02.pdf

National Family Preservation Network (NFPN). (2001). An Assessment of Child Wel- fare Practices Regarding Fathers. Retrieved March 1, 2003 from http://www. nfpn.org/resources/articles/fathers.php

National Family Preservation Network. (2002). Fatherhood Training Curriculum. Retrieved March 1, 2003 from http://www.nfpn.org/fatherhood

National Survey of America’s Families. (1999). Special Tabulation. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

O’Donnell, J. M. (1999). Involvement of African American fathers in kinship foster care services. Social Work, 44, 428–441.

Radhakrishna, A., Bou-Saada, I. E., Hunter, W. M., Catellier, D. J., & Kotch, J. B. (2001). Are father surrogates a risk factor in child maltreatment? Child Maltreat- ment, 6, 281–289.

Sonnenstein, F., Malm, K., & Billing, A. (2002). Study of Father’s Involvement in Permanency Planning and Child Welfare Casework. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Strug, D., & Wilmore-Schaeffer, R. (2003). Fathers in the social work literature: Policy and practice implications. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 84, 503–511.

United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Chil- dren, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (1997). National Child Abuse/ Neglect Annual Statistics. Washington, DC: Author.

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Father Initiative. Retrieved January 1, 2003 from http://www.fatherhood.hhs.gov

CONTRIBUTORS

Diana J. English, PhD, is Research Scientist for the Child Welfare Research Group in the School of Social Work at the University of Washington in Seattle, WA.

Sherry Brummel, B.S., is Supervisor of the Division of Children and Family Ser- vices, in Children’s Administration at the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services in Friday Harbor, WA.

Priscilla Martens, M.S.W., is the Executive Director of the National Family Preser- vation Network in Buhl, ID.