Statement of Linda Spears, Vice President, Corporate Communications and Development, Child Welfare League of America

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

May 23, 2006

Hello, I am Linda Spears, Vice President of Corporate Communications and Development of the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). I am honored to submit comments on behalf of CWLA, and our nearly 900 public and private nonprofit, child-serving member agencies this afternoon. The attention given by the Human Resources Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee focusing on the child protective services system and the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families (PSSF) program further shows the intent to ensure that our children have the appropriate resources and services available to them.

CWLA believes that as a country we must confirm our commitment to prevent child abuse and neglect and to support children who have been abused and neglected. We support strengthened partnerships between federal, state, and local governments and providers in the nonprofit and charitable communities in order to do a better job of protecting our nation’s children.

IMPROVING THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

Child Protective Services

In 2004, an estimated 3 million children were reported as abused or neglected and received an assessment or screening to determine whether or not there was evidence of abuse or neglect. Approximately 872,000 children were substantiated as abused or neglected. These numbers are similar to previous years. Another consistent pattern is that more than sixty percent of child victims were victims of neglect, while eighteen percent were physically abused and ten percent were sexually abused. Thirty percent of victims were age 3 or younger. We also know that 1,490 children died from child abuse in 2004. Overall eighty-three percent of the time a parent or parents were involved in the abuse. Another consistent statistic from year to year is that of the children who have been substantiated as abused or neglected, nearly 40 percent do not receive follow up services.[i]

The foundation on which child protective services (CPS) is established and what should always be the first goal of any CPS response is keeping children safe from child abuse and neglect. The CPS response begins with the assessment of reports of child abuse and neglect. If CPS determines the child is at risk of abuse and neglect or has been abused or neglected, CPS should ensure the child and his or her family receive services and supports from the public child protection agency and the community.

CWLA believes the best ways to ensure children are safe from all forms of maltreatment are comprehensive, community-based approaches to protecting children and supporting and strengthening families. Public and private agencies, in collaboration with individual citizens and community entities, can prevent and remedy child maltreatment, achieve child safety, and promote child and family well-being.

Child protective service (CPS) systems in the fifty states are funded by a variety of sources.  In fact, funding goes beyond the two programs specifically targeted for today’s hearing, the IV-B part 1 and IV-B part 2 programs. Consistently the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) serves as a major source of funding with thirty-eight states spending $194 million in SSBG funds in 2004 for child protective services. These funds include some TANF dollars transferred into SSBG. We highlight this because SSBG, which is under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, is threatened with a potential reduction of $500 million in the President's proposed FY 2007 budget, a thirty- percent reduction in funding that would be devastating to CPS and many other child welfare services. State CPS systems also draw from the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), but funding under the state grants part of that program is limited to $27 million and has never reached its full authorized funding level.

A CPS system that functions well is one that has a fully staffed and competent workforce. When understaffed and overworked, this system of child protection will fail. CWLA cannot emphasize enough the need for a national child welfare workforce strategy that puts well trained and educated workers in place, keeps caseloads at manageable levels, and provides competent supervision and ongoing training.

It is also important to note that CPS is only one part of the child welfare system and it cannot be viewed in isolation. If the efforts at reunification of a family fail, or the adoption fails, or services are not available for families and children who come into contact with the system, then we may find these very same children entering the system again. Children with a prior history of maltreatment are more likely to experience a recurrence of maltreatment than those who were not prior victims.[ii]

The Need for Services

CWLA's vision for an optimal child welfare system encompasses a continuum of services ranging from prevention of abuse and neglect to permanency and stability for children who experience out of home care. Key ingredients of this system are a family-centered approach, an ample, stable, and highly professional workforce, the availability and targeted application of services to prevent child abuse and neglect, maintaining families when maltreatment has occurred and child safety can be reasonably assured, and achieving permanency and stability for children who must experience foster care. These components are consistent with current research and with federal expectations associated with the Child and Family Service Review process.

Family Centered Approach

Research in child maltreatment, juvenile justice, children's mental health, and parent education supports the effectiveness of interventions that involve the entire family over those targeting the individual parent or child alone.[iii]  A family-centered approach engages families in addressing the problems that affect the care of their children. Such engagement has been linked positively to compliance with and completion of case plans. [iv]

Stable Professional Workforce

Effective child welfare services are based on accurate differential assessments and require knowledge of human behavior, the factors underlying child maltreatment, and the way in which both risks and protective factors interact to produce an overall picture of a family’s needs. Thus, it is not surprising that child welfare workforce research suggests the need for staff that have formal social work education, [v] especially that obtained through specialized child welfare programs such as those developed through Title IV-E-supported agency-university partnerships.[vi] Studies further point to the importance of consistent mentoring by competent supervisors,[vii] and to a supportive and flexible organizational environment. All of these factors have been linked to reduced staff turnover, which recent research suggests is critically important both to minimize costs associated with frequent hiring and training[viii] and to improve outcomes for children and families. Greater amount of caseworker contact with children and parents has also been associated with better outcomes.[ix] These findings make it imperative that agencies maintain staff in sufficient numbers to provide manageable workloads that do not require caseworkers to sacrifice the provision of direct services in order to complete administrative tasks and documentation.

Prevention of Abuse and Neglect

Studies have demonstrated the effectiveness or promise of several approaches to prevention of child maltreatment.  Models such as Nurse Family Partnerships and Healthy Families have produced evidence that they positively impact a variety of outcomes for children and families, including prevention of abuse and neglect. Likewise, high quality pre-kindergarten programs like the Chicago Child Parent Centers and Head Start that include parental involvement and supports have also demonstrated effectiveness.[x] Independent studies have found that the financial savings achieved by the most effective of these approaches far exceeds their costs.[xi] Rigorous cost-benefit analyses conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy showed cost savings for several pre-kindergarten and home visitation programs as well as for Parent-Child Interaction Therapy, a center-based intervention that provides direct coaching to parents as they interact with their young children.[xii] 

Several interventions that target older children and their families have also been demonstrated to have benefits in lessening children's problematic behavior and improving family functioning.  Family-based therapeutic models such as Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy have been rigorously tested in sites across the country and, despite some variation in findings, there is substantial evidence of their benefits to youth and their families.[xiii]

Maintaining Families

Many children can be safely maintained in their families through the timely application of interventions that correctly target the underlying causes of maltreatment. A number of studies support the benefits of interventions that have a behavioral, skill-building focus and that address family functioning in multiple domains including home, school, and community. Cognitive behavioral models have been demonstrated to reduce physical punishment and parental aggression in less time than alternative approaches. [xiv] The most effective treatment involves all members of the family and addresses not only parenting skills, but also parent-child interaction and a range of parental life competencies such as communication, problem solving, and anger control. Attention to immediate, concrete needs has also been identified as a key factor in supporting family engagement and positive outcomes.[xv]

Permanency and Stability

A wealth of research demonstrates the importance of children being nurtured in a stable family environment, confirming the need to move those who must enter foster care into permanent living situations as quickly as possible. Recent studies suggest that, when children must leave their families, well-supported kinship placements have the potential to provide more stable and normalizing environments than unrelated family care.[xvi] 

Most children who enter foster care are able to return to their families of origin, often within less than one year.[xvii] However, when that is not possible, alternatives such as adoption or subsidized guardianship can offer long term stability. [xviii] Cost analyses of child welfare services have linked kinship care and subsidized guardianship to cost savings. One study [xix] found the cost of effecting an adoption for children in foster care to range from $6,000 to $28,539, or an average of $19,141, suggesting that this permanency alternative has the potential to achieve a substantial savings over long term foster care.

While research supports the use of family care when deemed appropriate by a full assessment, group care is another placement option that may offer benefits for certain youth when used strategically, for a period of time indicated by ongoing assessment, and as part of a plan to maintain or rebuild family and community connections. However, family care, even in therapeutic foster care settings with multiple supportive services, tends to be substantially less expensive.

Aftercare and Transitional Services

Data indicate that about 25 percent of all children who exit out-of-home care will return at some point, often within one year.  The likelihood of re-entry is especially great when children or parents have more numerous or complex needs or when they are exposed to more extreme environmental stressors.[xx]  Although the likelihood of maltreatment recurrence and/or subsequent re-entry into foster care is undoubtedly related to decision-making and services offered prior to reunification, it strongly suggests a need for aftercare services. 

The limited research in family reunification aftercare, indicates that it is most successful when it is initially intensive and includes the availability of concrete services[xxi] and ongoing assessment of risk. The association of social isolation with failed reunification also suggests the importance of linking with extended family, extra-familial social networks, and informal resources. Tapering off of services should be based on the family's needs rather than on an arbitrary time frame.[xxii]

Services during and after the adoption process are also an important part of the service continuum. Although the rate of adoption dissolution is quite low overall, research indicates that some placements may have greater needs for follow-up services and supports. One study reported that, while less than 30% of all adoptive families used post-adoption services other than informational resources, most families adopting through a public agency used some type of counseling. This finding was attributed to the larger number of special needs of children placed with these families. As in other types of child welfare intervention, family-focused approaches appear to be the most helpful in supporting adoption stability. Research suggests that adoptive parents may also value participation in support groups, access to literature and seminars, and concrete services like respite care, subsidies, and health benefits.[xxiii] 

Services targeting youth who will exit foster care to independence are another important component of a continuum of care. Studies have identified four key elements: school completion, high-intensity supports over time, a work experience component, and the presence of a stable, caring adult[xxiv] as factors leading to successful transition of youth to work and independence. Youth have been shown to benefit from a plan based on systematic assessment, combined with focused skills development, involvement of caregivers as teachers, and re-establishing or maintaining connections to birth/extended family and community.[xxv]

CWLA POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION

The Reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families

Of most immediate importance for this Committee is the reauthorization of the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program (PSSF) beyond FY 2006. PSSF supports four vital services that address four different types of families in need: those in need of basic support services to strengthen the family and keep them whole, families being reunified, families we are trying to preserve, and adoptive families in need of support. As you review some of the key needs included in this testimony, the Subcommittee can see how the issues of prevention, aftercare, permanency and stability and maintaining families are all addressed by these categories.

CWLA believes these services and families should continue to be the target for PSSF in a reauthorization bill:

Family Support Services (FSS) were developed to respond to the concerns, interests, and needs of families within a community. Family Support Services are targeted to families with difficulties and concerns related to the proper functioning of the family and care of the children. The focus of the program is on prevention. The services address the need to improve the well-being of a child, family functioning, and the parent's ability to provide for the family, before they are in crisis. In order to reach families in need of assistance, family support programs work with outside community organizations such as schools and child welfare agencies. The aim is to provide temporary relief to families and to teach them how to better nurture their children. Involvement in these services is voluntary. Types of services include parent education, child care relief, and self-help groups.

Reunification is the first permanency option states consider for children entering care. Yet, in many ways, it is the most challenging option to achieve in a plan-based, permanent way. We know that forty-eight percent of, or 246,650, children in care on September 30, 2003 had a case plan goal of reunification with their parents or other principal caretaker. At the same time, 151,770 children, or 55 percent of those children who left care in 2003, were returned to their parent’s or caretaker's home.[xxvi]

Successful permanency through reunification requires many things, including skilled workers, readily available supportive and treatment resources, clear expectations and service plans, and excellent collaboration across involved agencies. Reunification also requires culturally appropriate support and treatment services for families and the critical need for after care or post-permanency services to ensure that safety and permanency are maintained following reunification.

Family Preservation Services (FPS) are comprehensive, short-term, intensive services for families delivered primarily in the home and designed to prevent the unnecessary out-of-home placement of children or to promote family reunification. The services are intended to protect a child in a home where allegations of child abuse or neglect have occurred, prevent subsequent abuse or neglect, prevent placement of a child, or reduce the stay for a child in out-of-home care. Families in need of family preservation services are usually referred by public welfare agencies. Services are provided within 24 hours of referral and the family's involvement is voluntary. These services respond to families on a 24-hour basis, including services such as family therapy, budgeting, nutrition, and parenting skills.

Adoption support is an important need as the number of adoptions have increased. There is still more work to be done. Services may include information and referral, case management services, support groups and a range of other services. Of the 523,085 children in foster care in 2003, approximately 119,000 were waiting to be adopted, with 68,000 of these children being free for adoption (parental rights had been terminated). Of the children waiting, 40% were black non-Hispanic, 37% were white non-Hispanic, 14% were Hispanic, and 4% were of undetermined ethnicity. In 2003, the median age of children waiting to be adopted was 8.7 years; 3% of the children waiting to be adopted were younger than 1 year; 32% were ages 1 to 5; 28% were ages 6 to 10; 30% were 11 to 15; and 6% were 16 to 18.

Use Of  $40 Million PSSF Increase

CWLA supports the extension of the $40 million in mandatory funding that was included in the Deficit Reduction Act and we want to work with the Subcommittee and members of Congress to see that PSSF is at a minimum fully funded at the level of  $505 million as adopted by this Subcommittee in 2001. We feel there a need for more. As indicated earlier in our testimony, forty percent of children substantiated as abused or neglected do not receive follow up services. We also feel it bears repeating that there is need for more reunification, adoption and other support services than PSSF attempts to address. To truly reach the goal of safe and stable families this country needs to go much further in its funding and priority of the entire child welfare system.

CWLA recognizes that the Subcommittee and members of Congress see the $40 million in mandatory funding as an opportunity to address some additional issues in the child welfare field. If that is the decision of the Congress we strongly urge you to make this the first step in a comprehensive strategy over the next few years to more fully address the needs of these children.

The draft legislation includes a workforce element tied to caseworker visits. CWLA supports regular and on-going visits to children in care. In the child welfare field visitation is not an isolated service or stand-alone intervention. Rather it is part of a larger case planning process.  To reach this visitation goal we need a comprehensive strategy to strengthen the child welfare workforce.

We would not want a system of care where too few workers with very high caseloads are simply meeting an outcome measure of numbers. Rather each state should be assisted in implementing a long term workforce strategy that sets goals around reduced workforce turnover, higher education levels, adequate caseloads, initial training and on-going training, adequate supervision and the proper partnerships with educational institutions and other partners in workforce development.

For each state this will be different so we would urge the Subcommittee to craft legislation around such a flexible allocation of funding and planning that will work with states to develop outcomes and provide related data that can demonstrate progress toward a comprehensive workforce strategy or goals. Again, this is a long-term strategy that requires federal, state and local partnerships. It should also be recognized that $40 million for fifty states may limit the kind of progress we all seek in advancing this goal. In addition, it will be difficult to determine how this designation of $40 million will supplement and not supplant current state efforts since it will overlap with Title IV-E Administrative funding used for these critical purposes but we do highlight that additional resources are needed.

Possible Improvements

Access For Tribal Communities

In your reauthorization, CWLA suggests that the Subcommittee include the recommendations being proposed by the National Indian Child Welfare Association, National Congress of American Indians and the Association of American Indian Affairs. Their joint proposal would set the reserved amounts of funding for tribal governments at 3 percent in both the mandatory and discretionary funding. A consortium of tribal governments could also apply for the funding and we endorse an authorization of a tribal court improvement program.

Better Data

As part of the application process, states submit information on how they intend to allocate their PSSF funding. This information should be collected and included in an annual report by HHS. We also urge the Subcommittee to include legislative language that would direct HHS to work with states to determine how to compile an annual report that would provide information on how funds are actually spent and would include information on families and children served. The annual reports by HHS on the Social Services Block Grant have only been issued since 1998, yet they have provided a stronger picture of why that funding is important to so many human service programs.

Mentoring of Children of Prisoners

We commend the Committee for including the reauthorization of the Mentoring Children of Prisoners program in this legislation. Mentoring for this population is an effective way to engage at-risk children and youth, provides connections to caring adults, and perhaps most importantly, builds relations among family members during and after incarceration. We know there are many areas in the country today where children of prisoners are not able to access this mentoring service due to lack of availability. Expansion is necessary and the Committee is to be commended for focusing on this. We urge the committee to carefully consider the following issues as this new initiative is implemented.

Currently there are 218 federally funded sites around the country where this mentoring is taking place, involving thousands of children. It would be tragic for these children to have their mentoring disrupted or ended prematurely. We urge the Committee to include provisions to allow these efforts to continue.

Researchers and mentoring experts have concluded that children facing multiple developmental risks benefit more from mentoring than other children; however, they require a higher quality of mentoring program and are more likely to be adversely affected by poor quality mentoring. We urge the Committee to examine carefully the expertise and background of all potential national entities specific to mentoring children of prisoners. New trainings, techniques and curricula, have recently been developed. Whatever entity is chosen will need to be fully knowledgeable of these tools and prepared to make them available.

IV-B Part 1 Child Welfare Services

CWLA appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts to better align the IV-B Part 1, Child Welfare Services program with that of PSSF. This can add clarity to the understanding of funding sources although it is unclear to what extent IV-B 1 funds are spent on adoption, foster care and child care on an annual basis. In practical terms, since federal Title IV-E funds cover half or less than half of the children in foster care, it is also unclear that this change in statute will result in any increase in funding for services covered under IV-B part 1 or PSSF. Inevitably states must pick up the cost of foster care for children ineligible for IV-E by relying on other federal funds, state funds, local funds or a combination of all three.

CWLA also appreciates the Subcommittee’s efforts at updating the state plan requirements. In addition we suggest the requirement to include a description of efforts to address the overrepresentation of children of color in the child welfare system. These children represent African American/Black, Latino/Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or two or more races.

Conclusion

CWLA appreciates the opportunity to offer our testimony and comments to the Subcommittee in regard to this reauthorization of Promoting Safe and Stable Families. As this legislation moves forward we look forward to a continued dialogue with the Subcommittee and Members of Congress. We also hope that this reauthorization serves as a building block for future efforts that will create a comprehensive reform that results in reduced numbers of children being abused and neglected and safer and permanent families for those children who do come into contact with the child welfare system.

[i]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families, Child Maltreatment 2004, Washington D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.

[ii]Ibid.

[iii] Bethea, L. (1999). Primary prevention of child abuse.  American Family Physician, 59(6). Available online at: http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1577.html.

Kumpfer, K. (April 1999).  Strengthening America’s families: Exemplary parenting and family strategies for delinquency prevention. University of Utah. OJJDP. U.S. Department of Justice.  Available online at: http://www.strengtheningfamilies.org/ 

[iv] Dore, M. M. & Alexander, L. B. (1996). Preserving families at risk of abuse and neglect: The role of the helping alliance. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 20(4), 350-364.

[v]Albers, E., Reilly, T., & Rittner, B. (1993). Children in foster care: Possible factors affecting permanency planning.

Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 10(4), 329-341.

Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Inc. (1987).  The Maryland social work services job analysis and personnel qualifications study.  MD:Author.

Dhooper, S., Royse, D. & Wolfe, L. (1990).  Does social work education make a difference? Social Work, 35(1), 57-61.

Ellett, A. J. (2000).  Human caring, self-efficacy beliefs, and professional, organizational culture correlates of employee retention in child welfare.  Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA.

Lieberman, A., Hornby, H., & Russell, M. (1988). Analyzing the educational backgrounds and work experiences of child welfare personnel: a national study. Social Work, 33(6), 485-489.

[vi]Huebner, R. (2003).  Public Child Welfare Certification Program outcomes evaluation. Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children, Frankfort, KY.

 Dickinson, N. & Perry, R. (2002).  Factors influencing the retention of specially educationed public child welfare workers.  Journal of Health & Social Policy, 15(3/4), 89-104. 

[vii]Ibid.

Rycraft, J. (1994).  The party isn’t over: The agency role in the retention of public child welfare caseworkers. Social Work, 39(1), 75-80. 

[viii] Graef, M. & Hill, E.L. (2000). Costing child protective services turnover. Child Welfare, 79(5), 517-533.

United States Children’s Bureau (2003). Relationship between caseworker visits with children and other indicator ratings in 2002 cases.  Available online at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/results/sld037.htm

Potter, C.C.& Klein-Rothchild, S. (2002).  Getting home on time: Predicting timely permanence for young children. Child Welfare, 81(2), 123-150.

Flower, C., McDonald, J. & Sumski, M. (2005). Review of turnover in Milwaukee County:  Private agency child welfare ongoing case management staff. Available online at:  http://www.uky.edu/SocialWork/cswe/documents/turnoverstudy.pdf   

[ix] Barth, R.P., Courtney, M., & Berry, M. (1994).  Timing is everything: An analysis of the time to adoption and legalization. Social Work Research, 18(3), 139-148

[x] Alexander, R., Baca, L., Fox, J., Frantz, M. & Huffman, L., et al. (2003).  New hope for preventing child abuse and neglect:  Proven solutions to save lives and prevent future crime.  Washington, DC:  Fight Crime, Invest in Kids.  Available online at http://www.fightcrime.org/

[xi] Ibid.

[xii]Aos, S., Lieb, R., Mayfield, J., Miller, M., Pernucci, A. (2004).  Benefits and costs of prevention and early intervention programs for youth. Olympia:  Washington State Institute for Public Policy.  Available online at http://www.wsipp.wa.gov.

[xiii] Ibid.

[xiv] Corcoran, J. (2000).  Family interventions with child physical abuse and neglect: A critical review.  Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 563-591.  

[xv] Corcoran, J. (2000).  Family interventions with child physical abuse and neglect: A critical review.  Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 563-591.

Berry, M.(1994) Keeping Families together. In S. Bruchey (ed) Children in Poverty: Studies of the effects of single parenthood, the feminization of poverty, and homelessness. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Dawson, K. & Berry, M. (2002).  Engaging families in child welfare services: An evidence-based approach to practice. Child Welfare, 81(2), 293-317.

[xvi]Webster, D., Barth, R.P. & Needell, B. (2000).  Placement stability for children in out-of home care.  Child Welfare, 79(5), 614-631.   

[xvii] Wulczyn, F. (2004).  Family Reunification.  The Future of Children, 14(1),  95-113.

[xviii] Mandel, M., Harrington, D. & Orlin, M. (2001).  The effect of subsidized guardianship on exits from kinship care: Results from Maryland’s guardianship assistance demonstration project.  Unpublished paper presented at the annual conference of the

Association for Public Policy and Management, Washington, DC.

Testa, M. (2004). When children cannot return home: Adoption and guardianship. The Future of Children, 14(1), 115-130.

[xix]Barth, R. (2002). Institutions vs. foster homes: The empirical basis for the Second Century of Debate.  Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina School of Social Work, Jordan Institute for Families.  Available online at http://www.childrensrights.org/Policy/policy_resources_EX_fostercare_institutions.htm     

[xx] Wulczyn, F. (2004).  Family Reunification. The Future of Children, 14(1), 95-113.

Festinger, T. (1994).  Returning to care: Discharge and reentry in foster care. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. Terling, T. (1999).  The efficacy of family reunification practices: Reentry rates and correlates of reentry for abused and neglected children reunited with their families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1359-1370.

[xxi]Maluccio, A. (2000).  What works in family reunification.  In M. Kluger, G. Alexander, & P.A. Curtis, What Works in Child Welfare (pp. 163-171).  Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Walton, E., Fraser, M., Pecora, P. & Walton, W. (1993).  In-home family-focused reunification:  An experimental study.  Child Welfare, 72(5), 473-48.

Wulczyn, F., Zeidman, D. &Svirsky, A., (1997).  Homebuilders:  A family reunification demonstration project.  In J.D. Berrick, R.P. Barth, & N. Gilbert, Child Welfare Research Review, Vol. II. New York: Columbia University Press.    

[xxii] Terling, T. (1999).  The efficacy of family reunification practices: Reentry rates and correlates of reentry for abused and neglected children reunited with their families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1359-1370.

Kirk, R. (2001). Tailoring intensive family preservation services for family reunification cases. Phase 2: Field testing and validation of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for Reunification. Project report to the National Family Preservation Network and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 

[xxiii] Barth, R., & Miller, J. (2000). Building effective post-adoption services: What is the empirical foundation?  Family Relations, 49, 447-455.

Barth, R., Gibbs, D., and Siebenaler, K. (2001). Assessing the field of post-adoption services: Family needs, program models,& evaluation issues.  Chapel Hill, NC: Research Triangle Institute and the University of North Carolina School of Social Work.

Berry, M. (1994).  Keeping families together.  In S. Bruchey (ed.) Children of poverty: Studies of the effects of single parenthood, the feminization of poverty, and homelessness. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.

Brooks, D., Allen, J., & Barth, R. (2002).  Adoption services use, helpfulness, and need: A comparison of public and private agency and independent adoptive families. Children & Youth Services Review, 24, 213-218.   

[xxiv] Baker, A., Olson, D. & Mincer, C. (2000).  The WAY to work: An independent living/ aftercare program for high-risk youth. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Dale, N. (2000).  What works in employment programs for youth in out-of-home care. In M.P. Kluger, G. Alexander & P.A. Curtis (Eds). What works in child welfare (187-193).  Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.  

[xxv]Courtney, M.C. and Piliavin, I. 1998. Foster Youth Transitions to Adulthood: Outcomes 12 to 18 Months After Leaving Out-of-Home Care. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Nollan, K.A. (2000).  What works in independent living preparation for youth in out-of home care. In M.P. Kluger, G. Alexander & P. A. Curtis (Eds.) What works in child welfare (195-204).  Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America    

[xxvi] Ibid.