STATE MANAGERS SERIES

BULLETIN FOR 

PROFESSIONALS

June 2010

Family 

Engagement

Family engagement is the foundation of good 

casework practice that promotes the safety, 

permanency, and well-being of children and 

families in the child welfare system. 

Family engagement is a family-centered and 

strengths-based approach to partnering with 

families in making decisions, setting goals, 

and achieving desired outcomes. It is founded 

on the principle of communicating openly and 

honestly with families in a way that supports 

disclosure of culture, family dynamics, and 

personal experiences in order to meet the 

individual needs of every family and every 

child. Engagement goes beyond simple 

What’s Inside:

• The Benefits of Family Engagement

Ways to Achieve Meaningful Family 

Engagement

• 

• Specific Strategies That Reflect 

Family Engagement

• State and Local Examples 

of Family Engagement 

Strategies

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

www.childwelfare.gov
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

2

involvement by “motivating and empowering 

families to recognize their own needs, 

strengths, and resources and to take an active 

role in working toward change” (Steib, 2004). 

Key to building a productive caseworkerfamily relationship, family engagement is 

the foundation from which change occurs. 

It is important throughout the life of a child 

welfare case—from screening and assessment; 

through case planning and decision-making; 

to service delivery, case reviews, and 

ultimately case closure. To build on a family’s 

resources and kinship connections, family 

engagement activities focus not only on 

the immediate family but also on the active 

involvement of both parents, extended family, 

and the family’s natural support systems. 

Beyond specific cases, engaging families 

as key stakeholders must extend to policy 

development, service design, and evaluation.

To help State child welfare managers improve 

family engagement across program areas, this 

brief offers information on:

• The benefits of family engagement 

• Ways to achieve meaningful family 

engagement 

• Specific strategies that reflect family 

engagement

• State and local examples of family 

engagement strategies

• Additional resources

For an indepth guide to the practice 

of family engagement, see Family 

Engagement: A Web-Based Practice Toolkit, 

developed by the National Resource Center 

for Permanency and Family Connections: 

www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/

fewpt/index.htm

The Benefits of Family 

Engagement

More and more evidence suggests that family 

engagement has many benefits, including:

• Enhancing the helping relationship. A 

family’s belief that all its members are 

respected and that their feelings and 

concerns are heard strengthens their 

relationship with their caseworker. This 

positive relationship, in turn, can increase 

the chances for successful intervention. 

• Promoting family “buy-in.” When families 

are part of the decision-making process and 

have a say in developing plans that affect 

them and their children, they are more 

likely to be invested in the plans and more 

likely to commit to achieving objectives 

and complying with treatment that meets 

their individual needs. A qualitative 

analysis of findings from the three topperforming metro sites in the 2007-2008 

Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) 

found that child and family involvement 

in case planning was correlated with (1) 

active engagement of noncustodial and 

incarcerated parents, (2) family-centered 

This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

3 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

and strength-based approaches (e.g., team 

meetings, mediation) effective in building 

working relationships, and (3) strong 

rapport developed between workers and 

parents (U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services [HHS], 2009).

• Expanding options. Inclusion of family 

members—including fathers and extended 

family—early in a case provides a greater 

opportunity to explore the use of relatives 

as a placement/permanency option for 

children. 

• Improving the quality and focus of visits.

The partnership developed between the 

family and social worker through family 

engagement strategies strengthens the 

assessment process and leads to more 

appropriate service provision.

• Increasing placement stability. The CFSRs 

found that States with high ratings for 

developing case plans jointly with parents 

and youth also had high percentages of 

children with permanency and stability in 

their living situations (HHS, 2004). Research 

on family group decision-making (FGDM) 

also points to improvements in creating 

stability and maintaining family continuity 

(Merkel-Holguin, Nixon, & Burford, 2003).

• Improving timeliness of permanency 

decisions. Research also suggests 

that parental involvement is linked to 

quicker reunification and other forms of 

permanency (Tam & Ho, 1996; MerkelHolguin, et al., 2003). 

• Building family decision-making skills.

By being involved in strength-based 

decision-making processes and having 

appropriate problem-solving approaches 

modeled, families are more comfortable 

communicating their own problem-solving 

strategies and exploring new strategies that 

may benefit themselves and their children.

• Enhancing the fit between family needs 

and services. Working collaboratively, 

caseworkers and families are better able 

to identify a family’s unique needs and 

develop relevant and culturally appropriate 

service plans that address underlying 

needs, build on family strengths, and draw 

from community supports. A better fit in 

services often leads to a more effective use 

of limited resources (Doolan, 2005). 

Ways to Achieve 

Meaningful Family 

Engagement

Many child welfare agencies struggle with 

engaging families on a daily basis. There are 

challenges inherent in working with families 

that have experienced or are at risk of abuse 

and neglect, and additional challenges are 

posed by high caseloads, resource limitations, 

and reliance on traditional practices. Changing 

how child welfare agencies interact with 

families is difficult work, but it can be done. 

Agencies can minimize the challenges 

and prepare for effective and sustainable 

engagement strategies by incorporating 

family engagement into the agency’s child 

welfare practice model and implementing 

key elements at the systems and casework 

practice levels. 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

4 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

Child Welfare Practice Models 

Many child welfare agencies are encouraging 

practice improvement and systems change 

through the use of practice models that 

emphasize family engagement as a 

cornerstone of achieving positive outcomes. 

The practice model, which builds from a 

clearly defined vision and set of core values, 

contains definitions, explanations, and 

expectations of how the agency will operate 

and how it will partner with families and 

other stakeholders in child welfare services 

(National Child Welfare Resource Center 

for Organizational Improvement & National 

Resource Center for Family-Centered 

Practice and Permanency Planning, 2008). 

States that have implemented a practice 

model over multiple years, such as Utah 

(www.dcfs.utah.gov/practice_model.htm) 

and Alabama (http://dhr.alabama.gov/

page.asp?pageid=245), have focused on 

practice as the core of their reform efforts. 

These States have organized their worker 

training to follow the process of working with 

families, beginning with engagement and 

building trusting relationships. Utah also has 

translated its practice framework into written 

staff performance expectations. One such 

expectation examines the worker’s ability to 

effectively use engagement skills that include 

active listening (Child Welfare Policy and 

Practice Group, 2008). Additionally, many 

States are developing practice models as 

an overarching strategy in their Program 

Improvement Plans as part of the CFSR.

Family engagement strategies are a 

foundation of the practice model and, 

together with other evidence-based practices 

(www.childwelfare.gov/management/service/

improving_practices) can produce important 

gains for children and families.

To learn more about practice models, see An 

Introduction to the Practice Model Framework: 

A Working Document Series from the 

National Child Welfare Resource Center for 

Organizational Improvement and the National 

Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice 

and Permanency Planning: http://muskie.

usm.maine.edu/helpkids/practicemodel/

PracticeModelWorkingPaperIntro.pdf

Key Systems Elements

Elements relating to child welfare systems and 

infrastructure have been identified through 

research and State experiences as important 

to achieving meaningful family engagement. 

Not every element will be feasible in every 

instance, and many elements will evolve over 

time. They include the following: 

• Agency leadership that demonstrates a 

strong commitment to family-centered 

practice and champions family engagement 

as a priority

• Organizational culture that models desired 

behaviors, actions, and communication 

among managers, supervisors, and frontline 

caseworkers

• Systems change initiatives and Program 

Improvement Plans with detailed strategies 

for achieving family and youth involvement

• Policies and standards that clearly define 

expectations, identify requirements, and 

reinforce family engagement in case 

practice

• Trained supervisors who explain agency 

policies that apply to family engagement, 

offer coaching to caseworkers, and provide 

support and feedback
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

5 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

• Manageable caseloads and workloads 

allowing caseworkers to attend to the 

time-consuming efforts of building rapport, 

engaging families, actively participating 

in team decision-making meetings, and 

maintaining frequent, meaningful contact 

with children and families

• Defined roles for planning and facilitation 

of team decision-making meetings

to ensure that the meetings are timely 

(with reasonable notice to all parties), 

well facilitated, focused on the family 

and children’s strengths and needs, goal 

directed, and inclusive of all team members 

• Skillful facilitation, which in some 

agencies is carried out by external 

facilitators or coordinators who guide 

engagement activities such as family 

group conferences and make sure that all 

points of view are heard

• Availability and accessibility of diverse 

services that can respond specifically to the 

family’s identified needs and conditions 

• Identification of service gaps and new 

ways to develop the community services 

that families need

• Training and coaching to build family 

engagement skills among child welfare 

caseworkers and supervisors, and to help 

birth families, foster families, caseworkers, 

administrators, and other helping 

professionals work together effectively

• Systematic documentation of caseworker/

family interaction and communication, and 

family involvement 

• Individualized performance review 

systems that reward staff for family 

engagement efforts and provide ongoing 

feedback regarding performance 

• Quality assurance and case review 

processes that monitor effective 

implementation of family engagement and 

measure its effects on safety, permanency, 

and well-being 

• External assistance in the form of training, 

consultation, and technical assistance from 

recognized family engagement experts

• Monitoring of family engagement activities 

and family progress against mutually 

agreed-upon goals

Key Casework Elements

Research underscores the crucial role 

caseworker interaction plays in engaging 

families, particularly through the development 

of a supportive and trusting relationship 

(Dawson & Berry, 2002; Yatchmenoff, 2005; 

Rooney, 1992; Wells & Fuller, 2000). Elements 

that foster such a relationship and support 

family engagement practices include:

• Clear, honest, and respectful 

communication with families, which helps 

set a foundation for building trust 

• Commitment to family-centered practice

and its underlying philosophy and values

• Sufficient frequency and length of contact

with families and their identified formal and 

informal supports

• A strengths-based approach that 

recognizes and reinforces families’ 

capabilities and not just their needs 

and problems

• Shared decision-making and participatory 

planning, which results in mutually agreed-
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

6 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

upon goals and plans reflecting both the 

caseworker’s professional training and the 

family’s knowledge of their own situation

• Broad-based involvement by both parents, 

extended family members, informal 

networks, and community representatives 

who create a web of support that promotes 

safety, increases permanency options, and 

provides links to needed services

• Understanding of the role of 

confidentiality and how to involve 

partners in case planning in a manner 

which is respectful of the family, but 

which also enables partners to plan 

realistically to protect the child and work 

toward permanency 

• Recognition of foster and adoptive 

parents as resources not only for the 

children in their care, but for the entire 

birth family 

• Individualized service plans that go 

beyond traditional preset service packages 

(e.g., parenting classes and counseling) 

and respond to both parents’ identified 

needs, specific circumstances, and 

available supports

• Concrete services that meet immediate 

needs for food, housing, child care, 

transportation, and other costs, and help 

communicate to families a sincere desire 

to help

• Praise and recognition of parents who are 

making life changes that result in safe and 

permanent living situations for their children 

(including reunification, adoption, kinship 

placement, or guardianship)

Specific Strategies 

That Reflect Family 

Engagement

Family engagement strategies build on 

the foundation of agency commitment and 

caseworker skills. State agencies have adopted 

various strategies for engaging families at 

case, peer, and systems levels, frequently 

adapting existing models to meet their own 

needs. Family engagement strategies include 

but are not limited to:

• Frequent and substantive caseworker 

visits. Workers must have frequent and 

meaningful contact with families in order 

to engage them in the work that needs 

to be done to protect children, promote 

permanency, and ensure child well-being. 

States where caseworkers have regular 

and well-focused visits with the child and 

parent have demonstrated improved 

permanency and well-being outcomes in 

the CFSRs. Frequent visits with parents also 

are positively associated with better clientworker relationships; better outcomes in 

discipline and emotional care of children; 

timely establishment of permanency goals; 

timely filing for termination of parental 

rights; and reunification, guardianship, or 

permanent placement with relatives (Lee & 

Ayón, 2004; HHS, 2004).

• Family group decision-making (FGDM)

(www.americanhumane.org/protectingchildren/programs/family-group-decisionmaking) is an effective and increasingly 

popular case-level strategy for engagement 

in the United States and around the world. 

FGDM is an umbrella term for various 

processes in which families are brought 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

7 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

together with agency personnel and other 

interested parties to make decisions about 

and develop plans for the care of their 

children and needed services. FGDM 

strategies differ in meeting format, the 

stage during case meetings when they are 

held, the extent of family preparation, the 

extent of family privacy time, and other 

characteristics. The models are known by a 

variety of names and include:

o Family group conferences

o Family team conferences

o Family team meetings

o Family unity meetings

• Motivational interviewing 

(http://motivationalinterview.org) is a 

directive counseling method for enhancing 

intrinsic motivation and promoting behavior 

change by helping families explore and 

resolve ambivalence. This technique, which 

relies heavily on listening reflectively and 

asking directive questions, has shown 

positive results in working with child welfare 

populations with substance abuse issues 

(California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse 

for Child Welfare).

• Collaborative strategies emphasize 

working in partnership with families in a 

strength-based way to support achievement 

of case goals and objectives. Examples 

include Collaborative Helping (http://

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0AZV/

is_200903/ai_n32319390/) (Madsen, 

2009), the Signs of Safety approach(www.

signsofsafety.net/signsofsafety) (Turnell 

& Edwards, 1999), and solution-focused 

practice (Berg & De Jong, 2004; Antle, 

Barbee, Christensen, & Martin, 2008). 

• An active and meaningful role for families

can be achieved by involving them in case 

planning and checking in with them during 

visits about their understanding of and 

progress toward the plan. Involvement of 

the family in case planning is correlated 

with greater engagement of noncustodial 

and incarcerated parents, family-centered/

strength-based approaches, and stronger 

rapport between workers and families 

(HHS, 2009). 

• Father involvement (www.abanet.org/

child/fathers/) recognizes the importance 

of fathers to the healthy development of 

children. Agencies are increasingly reaching 

out to fathers and working to enhance their 

positive involvement with their children. 

Fatherhood programs vary greatly. Some 

are outreach efforts to include fathers in 

assessment and case planning processes; 

others help fathers address stressors or 

behaviors that affect their ability to support 

their children.

• Family search and engagement (www.

hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_

services/family-search.html) encourages 

broad-based participation in family 

decision-making to leverage kinship 

connections and increase placement/

permanency options.

• Mediation, adopted by many agencies and 

courts, allows agency representatives and 

families to work with a neutral facilitator to 

arrive at a mutually acceptable plan.

• Parent Partner Programs engage parents 

who were once involved with the child 

welfare system to serve as mentors to 

currently involved parents, providing 

support, advocacy, and help navigating the 

system. Parent Partner Programs also use 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

8 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

the birth parent experience to influence 

changes in policy and protocol, encourage 

shared decision-making, strengthen 

individualized plans, and educate the 

community. 

• Foster family-birth family meetings

encourage birth families and foster families 

to share information, help model parenting 

skills, and support participation of foster 

families in placement conferences that 

contribute to reunification efforts. 

• Parent and youth involvement in agency 

councils and boards is a proactive way for 

State and county agencies to gather and 

use parent and youth input in program and 

policy development, service design, and 

program evaluation.

State and Local Examples 

of Family Engagement 

Strategies

State and local agencies throughout the 

country are at various stages of implementing 

and strengthening family engagement efforts. 

Following are selected examples of family 

engagement initiatives. The examples are 

presented for information purposes only; 

inclusion does not indicate an endorsement by 

Child Welfare Information Gateway or the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, 

Children’s Bureau.

• California: Parent Partners Program 

• Iowa: Family engagement tools and 

programs

• Maine: Practice model 

• Massachusetts: Father engagement

• Minnesota: Court-initiated family case 

planning conferences

• New Mexico: Foster and birth parent 

icebreaker meetings

• North Carolina: Multiple response system

• Texas: Family group conferencing

• Virginia: Birth, foster, and adoptive family

relationships 

Contra Costa County, California: Parent 

Partners Program 

In Contra Costa County, parents who have 

experienced child removal, child welfare 

services, and reunification are trained as 

parent advocates to mentor and support 

other parents new to the child welfare system. 

Parent Partners help other parents navigate 

the child welfare system and access services 

with the goal of moving families toward 

reunification. 

The Parent Partners Program was 

implemented as part of Contra Costa County’s 

Child Welfare Systems of Care grant (www.

childwelfare.gov/management/reform/soc/

communicate/initiative). The County hired 

two full-time Parent Partners as contract staff 

and additional part-time Partners on an hourly 

contract basis. When feasible, Parent Partners 

were trained alongside child welfare staff.

While each partnership varies with the 

circumstances of the families involved, Parent 

Partners generally:

• Share their own stories and experiences 

and offer encouragement and hope
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

9 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

• Provide information on the child welfare 

system in everyday language and help 

parents understand their rights and 

responsibilities

• Coach families on how to act appropriately 

in court and at meetings

• Connect parents with formal and informal 

community resources and services

• Attend court hearings and team decision 

meetings, as requested by parents

• Provide ongoing emotional support, often 

during nights, weekends, and holidays

Research on the Parent Partners Program 

suggests that the parents’ common 

experiences help inspire trust and hope, 

which in turn promotes engagement and may 

facilitate the change process (Anthony, Berrick, 

Cohen, & Wilder, 2008; Cohen & Canan, 

2006). Findings from a process study reflected 

positive responses about the benefits of the 

program from parents, Parent Partners, and 

social workers. Moreover, preliminary results 

of an outcome study revealed that 

reunification may be more likely for children 

whose parents were served by Parent Partners 

(Anthony, et al.).

For more information, contact 

Danna Fabella at 925.335.1583, or 

Linda Canan at 925.335.7100.

Iowa: Family Engagement Tools and 

Programs

The State of Iowa champions engagement 

as the “primary door through which we help 

families change” (Munson & Freundlich, 

2008). Iowa strives to engage the family in 

case planning, case management, and case 

closure processes. The State’s commitment to 

family engagement efforts is reflected in and 

enabled by:

• The State’s child welfare practice model.

(www.dhs.state.ia.us/docs/IOWA_CW_

Model_of_Practice.pdf) One of its four 

guiding principles states: “We listen to 

and address the needs of our customers 

in a respectful and responsive manner 

that builds upon their strengths.” Specific 

standards of frontline practice specify: “The 

child and the child’s parents are actively 

engaged and involved in case planning 

activities.” 

• Regularly held family team meetings.

These are used to assist the family network 

in building a common understanding 

of what is pertinent to the case and in 

developing a plan that will protect the child 

and help the family change.

• A published set of practice standards 

(www.dhs.state.ia.us/cppc/docs/

DHSfamilyteamstandards05.doc) for family 

team decision-making. The standards 

present values and beliefs that support 

family teams and are intended to guide 

daily practice; they also include indicators 

of effectiveness.

• An online toolkit (www.dhs.state.ia.us/

cppc/family_team) that offers resources, 

checklists, and handouts for planning, 

preparing for, and following up after family 

team meetings.

• An evaluation handbook (www.dhs.state.

ia.us/policyanalysis/PolicyManualPages/

Manual_Documents/Forms/Comm283.

pdf) for family team decision-making 

that provides policies, guidance, and 

assessment support.
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

10 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

• A Parent Partner Program (www.dhs.

state.ia.us/cppc/Parent_Partner_Program) 

that trains, coaches, and supports parents 

who have been safely reunified with their 

children to serve as mentors for parents 

currently involved with child protective 

services. In addition to working one-onone with other families, Parent Partners 

are involved with policy, program, and 

curriculum development in collaboration 

with child welfare staff. As a result, the 

experiences and insights of Parent Partners 

have been integrated into birth parent 

orientation and support groups, foster and 

adoptive parent recruitment and training, 

new child welfare worker orientation, local 

and statewide steering committees and 

conferences, and community partnership 

participation.

• Parent and youth involvement on 

advisory councils that is tracked annually 

(www.dhs.state.ia.us/cppc/service_reviews). 

Online surveys and toolkits support the 

recruitment and retention of advisory 

council representatives (www.dhs.state.

ia.us/cppc/networking).

For more information, visit the Iowa 

Department of Human Services website: 

www.dhs.state.ia.us/cppc/family_team

Maine: Practice Model

Maine’s Bureau of Child and Family Services 

(BCFS) began developing a new vision in 

2001, including a detailed strategic plan for 

the Bureau. This ongoing reform initiative 

incorporates goals and strategies that address 

many of the findings of the State’s 2003 CFSR 

and support greater family engagement. One 

of the stated goals of Maine’s strategic plan 

was to “broaden family involvement from 

report to best outcome for child and family.”

More recently, the BCFS expanded its initial 

statement of beliefs and values into a practice 

model. This practice model was developed 

with the thoughtful input of caseworkers, 

supervisors, and managers at all levels 

of Child and Family Services from every 

district. In addition, BCFS asked for input 

from approximately 20 stakeholders, most of 

whom had helped to develop the Program 

Improvement Plan after the first Federal CFSR. 

The practice model is stated in plain language 

intended to be accessible to parents, foster 

parents, community providers, teachers, 

students, new employees, and any other 

members of the community. Bureau staff 

are responsible for giving these statements 

life, through practice at all levels of the 

organization. All policies and trainings are 

also under review to ensure adherence to the 

practice model. 

The key principles of the model include:

• Child safety, first and foremost.

• Parents have the right and responsibility to 

raise their own children. 

• Children are entitled to live in a safe and 

nurturing family. 

• All children deserve a permanent family. 

• How we do our work is as important as the

work we do. 

Each of these principles is supported by 

statements that emphasize family involvement 

and a strength-based approach.
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

11 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

The practice model philosophy and principles 

are provided on Maine’s website at 

www.maine.gov/dhhs/ocfs/cw/practicemodel.

shtml

Massachusetts: Father Engagement

Recognizing the significance of a father’s 

involvement to the well-being of his children, 

the Massachusetts Department of Children 

and Families is working to counteract the 

tendencies of social workers to overlook 

fathers in child protection practices. To create 

a culture of father engagement, the agency:

• Conducted a policy and regulation review

to clarify that caseworkers are required 

to work with both parents, including 

parents out of the home, in all phases of 

case practice. 

• Established Fatherhood Education 

Leadership Teams in seven area offices 

throughout the State. The teams meet 

once a month and are composed of social 

workers, supervisors, area directors, and 

representatives of community agencies 

that work with fathers. The teams identify 

gaps in practice, develop procedures for 

improving practice, train caseworkers in 

engaging fathers, and collect data on 

father engagement in different phases of 

case practice. 

• Developed a systematic framework for 

engaging fathers. The framework calls for 

routine engagement of fathers in all phases 

of case practice, beginning with a diligent 

search for fathers early in the case. It also 

includes methods for measuring progress.

• Established a differential engagement

approach that calls for working with fathers 

in different ways, depending on their 

strengths and risk profiles.

• Implemented staff training on working 

with men, enhancing caseworker skills 

in respectful, culturally informed, and 

strength-based approaches to developing 

positive relationships with fathers, including 

those who are initially avoidant, angry, 

or hostile.

• Developed tools and resources to 

support implementation and help 

caseworkers integrate practice changes. 

For caseworkers, there are tip sheets on 

topics such as co-parenting issues when 

parents are not together, the basics of 

respectful father engagement, what to 

say when the father has been physically 

abusive to the mother, and helping fathers 

re-engage when they have been out of the 

home a long time. For fathers there are tip 

sheets on a variety of topics, such as being 

a good role model, playing with children, 

disciplining appropriately, and caring for 

crying babies. 

For more information, contact Fernando 

Mederos at fernando.mederos@state.ma.us

Olmsted County, Minnesota: Court-Initiated 

Family Case Planning Conferences

Family engagement is a key feature of 

Olmsted County’s Parallel Protection Process 

(P3). Begun in 2002 as part of a Children’s 

Justice Initiative, P3 offers an alternative 

justice intervention for juvenile court cases 

involving children at high risk of child 

maltreatment. P3 has been highlighted as a 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

12 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

promising approach on the Children’s Bureau 

website: 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/

promise/states.htm#MN 

For up to four cases a month in which a 

petition is contested, the court can order a 

family case planning conference (FCPC). The 

FCPC has two primary goals:

• Negotiate a settlement on the admission 

or denial of the Child in Need of Protective 

Services petition

• Develop the immediate next steps in the 

child protection or agency case plan

Judges order all parties to the case planning 

conference, which is a facilitated process 

that includes the family, extended family, 

community supports, social workers, 

supervisors, court attorneys, family attorneys, 

guardians ad litem, and other relevant parties. 

The conference begins with introductions and 

the family’s presentation of their family system. 

Next, everyone participates in information 

sharing on the incidents that brought the 

family to the attention of social services, risk 

to the child or children, complicating factors 

(i.e., conditions or behaviors that contribute to 

difficulty for the family), family strengths and 

protective factors, and ideas to build safety. 

Efforts are made to develop a balanced view. 

The next step is a deliberate match between 

the legal language in the filed petition and 

the information shared at the meeting. 

Negotiations aim to determine one or more 

areas of agreement among the family with 

their attorneys, social services, and the county 

attorney. Once a settlement agreement is 

reached, the full group then discusses the 

immediate next steps (i.e., case plan) to 

address the family’s needs in the context of 

the identified risk.

In the first 2 years, more than 90 percent of 

the P3 conferences resulted in settlement 

agreements that were accepted by the 

court. Initial findings from participant surveys 

reported positive responses among families, 

social workers, and attorneys involved in the 

process. Early indicators suggest that the 

program:

• Encourages less adversarial and more 

meaningful involvement of families in a 

court-ordered process

• Reduces court processing time and hastens 

family access to supports through “front 

loading” of services

• Leads to individualized case plans for 

children based on family needs and risks

• Safeguards children from repeated 

maltreatment

• Contributes to child permanency (Lohrbach 

& Sawyer, 2004)

For more information:

• Read Creating a Constructive Practice: 

Family and Professional Partnership in HighRisk Child Protection Case Conferences: 

www.co.olmsted.mn.us/upload_dir/cs/

creatingaconstructivepractice.pdf

• Contact Rob Sawyer, Director, Olmstead 

County Child & Family Services, at sawyer.

orb@co.olmsted.mn.us 

New Mexico: Foster Parent and Birth Parent 

Icebreaker Meetings

Among New Mexico’s family engagement 

efforts is an innovative child welfare practice of 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

13 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

using “icebreaker” meetings to bring together 

foster parents and birth parents. The meetings 

promote information sharing about a foster 

child and are intended to encourage easier 

adjustments for the children in care, as well as 

for the parents.

Across the State, the icebreaker meetings are 

held soon after a child’s placement, ideally 

within 2 days. Discussions are focused on the 

child. Birth parents share information that 

will assist the foster parent in caring for the 

child, for example, their likes and dislikes, 

bedtime routines, and favorite pastimes. 

The foster parents, in turn, offer information 

about the child’s new environment and daily 

activities in the foster home. The meetings 

are facilitated, generally by a trained former 

foster or adoptive parent, who ensures that 

the discussions remain focused on the child’s 

needs. In some cases, there may be additional 

facilitated meetings and contacts.

In addition to making it easier for the child 

to adjust, the meetings help the foster and 

birth parents recognize their common concern 

for the child. As a result, the foundation for a 

respectful relationship can be formed.

For more information, contact Maryellen 

Bearzi at maryellen.bearzi@state.nm.us 

North Carolina: Multiple Response System

North Carolina’s Multiple Response System 

(MRS) is an effort to reform the entire 

continuum of child welfare throughout the 

State, from intake through placement and 

permanency services. The reform is based on 

the application of family-centered principles of 

partnership through seven strategies:

• Collaboration between Work First 

(Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) 

and child welfare supports can prevent the 

involvement of child protective services 

(CPS) and helps prevent recidivism by 

providing financial, employment, and 

community services to families.

• A strengths-based structured intake focuses 

on family strengths as well as needs. 

• A choice of two responses to reports 

of child abuse, neglect, or dependency 

protects the immediate safety of children in 

the most severe cases while engaging some 

families in services that could enable them 

to better parent their children. 

• Coordination between law enforcement and 

CPS ensures that those who harm children 

are held accountable while minimizing the 

number of interviews children experience, 

thereby reducing retraumatization. 

• A redesign of in-home family services 

allows caseworkers to engage families 

in the planning process and provide the 

most intensive services to families with the 

greatest needs.

• Child and family team meetings during 

in-home services acknowledge the birth 

family to be experts on their own situation 

and encourage the support and buy-in 

of both parents, extended family, and 

community in the planning and assessment 

process. 

• Shared parenting meetings during the first 

7 days of out-of-home placement keep 

the birth family actively involved in their 

role as parents and cultivate a nurturing 

relationship between the birth parents and 

foster parents.
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

14 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

A report to North Carolina’s General Assembly 

in June 2006 found that families in counties 

implementing the MRS reform were receiving 

needed services more quickly. There was no 

evidence that children’s safety was negatively 

affected by the reforms (Center for Child and 

Family Policy, 2006). 

For more information, visit the North Carolina 

Division of Social Services website: 

www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/mrs 

Texas: Family Group Conferencing

Working toward a more family-centered 

approach to child welfare, the Texas 

Department of Family and Protective Services 

introduced a family group decision-making 

(FGDM) initiative. Texas’ approach, which 

incorporates family group conferencing, 

promotes group discussions among CPS, 

family members, relatives, friends, and others 

in the community and also provides private 

family time for case planning.

Texas’ implementation of FGDM has evolved 

and expanded over time. Attempting 

to address deficiencies identified in the 

State’s 2002 CFSR, Texas began to lay the 

groundwork for increased family engagement. 

Staff participated in information exchange 

during a meeting with other States using 

FGDM models, received technical assistance 

and support from Casey Family Programs, 

obtained legislative permission to redirect 

some foster care funds into support services 

for kinship care, and hired five district FGDM 

specialists and a State liaison. In 2003, FGDM 

specialists began using the new approach 

in five cities as a pilot program targeted 

primarily to families experiencing the removal 

of a child. In later years, family conferencing 

services were expanded throughout the State 

and additional family team meetings were 

introduced to engage families during the 

investigation stage of services. 

An evaluation of FGDM (www.dfps.state.tx.us/

Documents/about/pdf/2006-10-09_FGDM_

Evaluation.pdf) was conducted for the period 

March 2004 to July 2006, reflecting a total of 

3,625 conferences. Findings revealed that, 

compared to children receiving traditional 

services, children involved with FGDM:

• Were more likely to be placed with 

relatives immediately following a family 

group conference 

• Experienced shorter stays in care 

• Were more likely to return to their families 

• Were reported to be less anxious and 

better adjusted, particularly when placed 

with relatives 

In addition, parents were more satisfied with 

family group conferences than traditional 

services (Texas Department of Family and 

Protective Services, 2006). 

For more information:

• Visit the Texas Department of Family and 

Protective Services website: 

www.dfps.state.tx.us/child_protection/

about_child_protective_services/fgdm.asp

• Read Casey Family Program’s Focus on 

Foster Care: Family Group DecisionMaking: How the State of Texas Adopted 

a Family-Centered Approach to Child 

Welfare, available through the Information 

Gateway library: 

http://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/ws/

library/docs/gateway/SimpleSearchForm
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

15 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

Virginia: Birth, Foster, and Adoptive Family 

Relationships

Northern Virginia’s Bridging the Gap program 

is a self-driven collaboration of public and 

private child-placing agencies with a unified 

vision for child welfare practice. Bridging the 

Gap refers to the process of building and 

maintaining relationships and communication 

between birth and foster families involved in a 

youth’s life, with the goal of supporting family 

reunification or another permanency plan. The 

bridging process is sometimes extended to 

other families involved in the child’s life, such 

as extended birth family, relative caregivers, 

and adoptive parents.

Facilitated icebreaker meetings held within 

7 days of placement provide an opportunity 

for birth parents and foster parents to meet 

and share information about the child’s needs. 

Plans for ongoing communication and contact 

between the families are individualized, and 

may include opportunities for the foster family 

to support, help, teach, and/or participate 

with the birth family in a variety of ways. 

Although Bridging the Gap is not a new 

strategy, the cooperative effort in Northern 

Virginia seeks to standardize this process as 

part of foster care practice.

For more information, contact Claudia 

McDowell at Claudia.McDowell@fairfaxcounty.

gov

Additional Resources

National Resource Center for Permanency 

and Family Connections 

(formerly, the National Resource Center for 

Family-Centered Practice and Permanency 

Planning)

Provides training and technical assistance and 

information services to help States, with an 

emphasis on family-centered principles and 

practices.

www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp

National Child Welfare Resource Center for 

Organizational Improvement

Offers technical assistance, training, 

teleconferences, and publications to assist 

States with strategic planning, quality 

improvement, evaluating outcomes, 

facilitating stakeholder involvement, 

and improving training and workforce 

development.

http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids

National Center on Family Group Decision 

Making (FGDM)

Helps build community capacity to implement 

high-quality, effective FGDM processes by 

sharing resources, advancing family-driven 

practices, creating knowledge, and building 

links to improve the implementation and 

evaluation of family group decision-making, 

both in the United States and abroad.

www.americanhumane.org/protectingchildren/programs/family-group-decisionmaking/national-center

The National Center on Family Group 

Decision Making also offers A Compilation of 
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

16 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

State and Provincial Laws, Policies, Rules and 

Regulations on Family Group Decision Making 

and Other Family Engagement Approaches 

in Child Welfare Decision Making. The paper 

identifies and provides brief descriptions 

of relevant laws and policies for 16 States, 

the District of Columbia, and 3 Canadian 

provinces:

www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/

protecting-children/PC-fgdm-leg-chart.pdf 

References

Anthony, E. K., Berrick, J. D., Cohen, E., 

& Wilder, E. (2008). Partnering with 

parents. Promising approaches to improve 

reunification outcomes for children in foster 

care. Executive summary. Paper presented 

at the 17th National Conference on Child 

Abuse and Neglect, Atlanta, GA.

Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., Christensen, D.N., 

& Martin, M.H. (2008). Solution-based 

casework in child welfare: Preliminary 

evaluation research. Journal of Public 

Welfare 2(2), 

197-227.

Berg, I. K., & De Jong, P. (2004). Building 

solution-focused partnerships in children’s 

protective and family services. Protecting 

Children 19, 3-13.

California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for 

Child Welfare. Retrieved July 28, 2009, 

from www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org

Center for Child and Family Policy, Terry 

Sanford Institute, Duke University. (2006). 

Multiple Response System (MRS) evaluation 

report to the North Carolina Division of 

Social Services (NCDSS). Retrieved July 28, 

2009, from www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/mrs/

docs/mrs_eval_rpt_6_30_06_all_combined.

pdf

Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group. 

(2008). Adopting a child welfare practice 

framework. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from 

www.childwelfaregroup.org/documents/

CWGPracticeFramework.pdf

Cohen, E., & Canan, L. (2006). Closer to home: 

Parent mentors in child welfare. Child 

Welfare, 85, 867-884.

Dawson, K., & Berry, M. (2002). Engaging 

families in child welfare services: An 

evidence-based approach to best practice. 

Child Welfare, 81(2), 293-317.

Doolan, M. (2005). The family group 

conference: A mainstream approach in 

child welfare decision-making. Presentation 

retrieved February 20, 2009, from www.

americanhumane.org/assets/docs/

protecting-children/PC-fgdm-conf-fgc2004.

pdf

Lee, C. D., & Ayón, C. (2004). Is the clientworker relationship associated with better 

outcomes in mandated child abuse cases? 

Research on Social Work Practice, 14, 

351-357.

Lohrbach, S., & Sawyer, R. (2004). Creating 

a constructive practice: Family and 

professional partnership in high-risk child 

protection case conferences. Protecting 

Children Journal, 19(2), 26-35.

Madsen, W. C. (2009). Collaborative helping: 

A practice framework for family-centered 

services. Family Process 48, 103-116.
Family Engagement www.childwelfare.gov

17 This material may be freely reproduced and distributed. However, when doing so, please credit Child Welfare 

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_fam_engagement/

Merkel-Holguin, L., Nixon, P., & Burford, G. 

(2003). Learning with families: A synopsis 

of FGDM research and evaluation in 

child welfare. Protecting Children, 18(1-

2), 2-11. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from 

www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/

protecting-children/PC-pc-article-fgdmresearch.pdf

Munson, S., & Freundlich, M. (2008). Families 

gaining their seat at the table: Family 

engagement strategies in the first round 

of Child and Family Services Reviews 

and Program Improvement Plans (p. 

8). Retrieved February 24, 2009, from 

www.americanhumane.org/assets/docs/

protecting-children/PC-fgdm-CFSR-PIPreview.pdf 

National Child Welfare Resource Center 

for Organizational Improvement and the 

National Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice and Permanency 

Planning. (2008). An introduction to the 

practice model framework: A working 

document series. Retrieved February 

28, 2008, from http://muskie.usm.

maine.edu/helpkids/practicemodel/

PracticeModelWorkingPaperIntro.pdf

Rooney, R. H. (1992). Strategies for work with 

involuntary clients. NY: Columbia University 

Press.

Steib, S. (2004). Engaging families in child 

welfare practice. Children’s Voice. Retrieved 

March 5, 2009, from www.cwla.org/

programs/r2p/cvarticlesef0409.htm

Tam, T. S., & Ho, M. K. W. (1996). Factors 

influencing the prospect of children 

returning to their parents from out-of-home 

care. Child Welfare, 75(3), 253-268.

Texas Department of Family and Protective 

Services (October, 2006). Family group 

decision-making, final evaluation. Retrieved 

March 17, 2009, from www.dfps.state.tx.us/

Documents/about/pdf/2006-10-09_FGDM_

Evaluation.pdf

Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of 

safety: A solution and safety oriented 

approach to child protection. New York, NY: 

W.W. Norton & Company.

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Children’s Bureau. (2009). 

Results of the 2007 and 2008 Child and 

Family Services Reviews. Presentation 

retrieved November 4, 2009, from www.

acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/

results/agencies_courts.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS), Children’s Bureau. (2004). 

Findings from the initial Child and Family 

Service Reviews, 2001-2004. Presentation 

retrieved April 22, 2009, from www.acf.hhs.

gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/

sld001.htm

Wells, S., & Fuller, T. (2000). Elements of 

best practice in family centered services. 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 

School of Social Work. Retrieved February 

28, 2008, from www.cfrc.illinois.edu/pubs/

Pdf.files/fcsbest.pdf 

Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2005). Measuring client 

engagement in non-voluntary child 

protective services. Research on Social 

Work Practice, 15(2), 84-96.