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

703.385.7565 or 800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

www.childwelfare.gov

Child Neglect 

Demonstration 

Projects

Synthesis of lessons learned

July 2004
This synthesis was made possible by the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth 

and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services. The conclusions discussed here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not 

represent the official views or policies of the funding agency. Publication does not in any way 

constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Suggested 

citation: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Child neglect demonstration 

projects: Synthesis of lessons learned. Washington, DC: Child Welfare Information Gateway.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

More children suffer from neglect in the 

United States than any other form of maltreatment. Investigators determined approximately 

61 percent of children who were victims of 

maltreatment in 2002 experienced neglect.

Research has shown neglected children are at 

risk for a number of behavioral, social, academic, and medical problems. The profile and 

risk factors for neglected children and their 

families are likely to vary significantly across 

types of neglect (e.g., physical, supervisory, 

emotional, educational). Because neglect is 

often an act of omission, it is difficult to identify, prevent, and treat.

In 1996 and 1997, the Children’s Bureau 

funded 10 demonstration projects to address 

the prevention, intervention, and treatment 

needs of neglected children and their families. 

These projects implemented and evaluated 

a wide variety of service strategies with large 

numbers of children and families. Programs 

varied considerably in terms of theoretical 

model (psychosocial or ecological), target 

population, location (in-home or out-of-home), 

duration, and intensity. Specific project and 

contact information is provided in the appendix for readers interested in learning more 

about individual projects. 

Despite their many differences, grantees experienced a number of similar challenges. The 

strategies they used to overcome them may 

help future programs avoid these common 

	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Child 

maltreatment 2002. Washington, DC: Government Printing

Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1987).

Study of national incidence and prevalence of child abuse and 

neglect. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Acts 

of omission: An overview of child neglect. Washington, DC:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. [Online.] Available: www.

childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/acts/index.cfm.

pitfalls. In addition, the shared lessons these 

grantees learned about staffing, service 

delivery, and collaboration with community 

partners can inform future efforts and improve 

outcomes for families at risk for neglect and 

for neglected children. 

Overview of Services

and Outcomes

Because there is no standard definition of 

neglect, each grantee established its own 

eligibility criteria for inclusion in the program.

Families were referred by child protective 

services (CPS) and medical or social service 

organizations, or were self-referred. In many 

cases, families were referred after neglect had 

been substantiated by CPS. In most instances, 

participation was voluntary. Most of the families lived in high-risk urban settings and were 

considered to be at very high risk for neglect. 

The projects provided a great variety of services, and referred children and families to 

many other resources or services in the community. The direct services most commonly 

provided (followed by the number of programs that provided each service) were:

Parent education (9)

Home visits (9)

Referrals or links to community resources (8)

Parent support (8)

Zuravin, S. J. (1999). Child neglect: A review of definitions

and measurement research. In Dubowitz, H. (Ed.), Neglected 

children: Research, practice and policy. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

	 For specific service types provided by each program, see

Appendix B.

•

•

•

•
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects www.childwelfare.gov

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

Mental health services (6)

Concrete assistance (6)

Crisis intervention (6)

The projects reported accomplishing all or 

most of their objectives, and all reported positive outcomes for children and families. In the 

case of six programs, these findings are supported by evaluation designs that included a 

comparison group, pre/post use of standardized instruments, and statistical analysis of 

data. Outcomes reported by one or more of 

these six programs included:

Reductions in:

Child behavior problems.

Parent/caregiver depressive symptoms, 

drug use, life stress, parenting stress, perception of child behavior problems, emotional problems, and social isolation.

Foster care placement and CPS reports.

Improvements in:

Child health, developmental adaptation, 

and well-being.

Parenting skills, including parent/caregiver 

stimulation of children, physical care of 

children, psychological care of children, 

parental teaching, caregiver skills to meet 

children’s psycho-emotional needs, appropriate discipline, social support, knowledge 

of child development, and positive behavior management.

Family housing, healthcare, support, and 

resources. 

	 For specific outcomes reported by each program, see

Appendix B.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

For more information about the projects’ 

service populations, services, service duration, staffing, evaluation models, and reported 

outcomes, see Appendix B.

Common Challenges/

Successful Strategies

Despite the many differences in program 

design, services, and target population, grantees experienced a number of common challenges associated with addressing families’ 

needs, engaging families, employing qualified 

staff, and sustaining the programs themselves. 

Details of these challenges and the strategies 

programs used or recommended to overcome 

them follow.

Addressing Families’ Needs

The causes of child neglect are multiple 

and complex. Families at risk for neglect 

face serious challenges. Most live in poverty 

with few resources available to them. Many 

neglectful families experience frequent crises, 

such as eviction, job loss, domestic and neighborhood violence, physical and mental illness, 

substance abuse, and involvement with the 

child welfare and legal systems. Children who 

are neglected often experience negative longterm consequences, including developmental 

and neurological deficits; poor health; and 

social, emotional, and academic problems. At 

the same time, each family is unique. Neglect 

may be chronic or a single occurrence, severe 

or mild. Personal and environmental factors 

Gaudin, J. M. (1993). Child neglect: A guide for intervention. 

(The User Manual Series). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse

and Neglect.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

vary widely and affect the types of services 

and supports each family needs. Strategies to 

address these serious challenges included the 

following:

Assess needs. Conduct a thorough initial 

assessment of the child, parent/caregiver, 

family, and community/environment to 

determine strengths and needs. One 

program conducted screenings and assessments during parent support groups when 

children were in child care. Reassess and 

review often, and then revise service plans 

as needs change. Some programs found 

an interval of every 10 to 12 weeks to be 

effective.

Address crises. If the need is urgent, make 

initial telephone contact within 24 hours of 

referral in order to prevent or reduce the 

severity of a crisis. Some programs provided a 24-hour help/advice line to afford 

stabilization during crises, which often occur 

after regular business hours.

Customize services and be flexible. 

Develop individual service plans that 

combine prevention, intervention, and 

treatment as needed. Grantees suggested 

flexibility as to time, place (including homeand center-based services), content, length, 

and intensity of services, always based on 

each family’s needs. In parenting education 

and support groups, be flexible with the 

curriculum. Address the most urgent needs 

first (e.g., domestic violence, postpartum 

depression, welfare-to-work issues), while 

presenting information and developing 

skills as opportunities arise. 

Focus on poverty issues. Some programs 

provided education, job training, employment, child care, and transportation to 

interviews to help families work their way 

•

•

•

•

out of poverty. Others suggested working 

with community members to advocate for 

systemic change to address financial issues 

that lead some families to be at greater risk 

for neglect.

Offer or refer to a broad array of services. Offer multiple core components (e.g., 

assessment, emergency services, case management, parenting education, and support 

groups). Make referrals to and provide 

assistance accessing other resources and 

supports in the community (e.g., cash assistance and other concrete resources, mental 

health and substance abuse treatment, 

transportation, and child and respite care). 

One program effectively addressed potentially overwhelming problems by having 

the core (parent education) program integrated physically and programmatically in a 

medical center with strong links to government agencies and the foster care system. 

Another program used an automated and 

continually updated resource directory to 

ensure high-quality referrals. Use of case 

management and documentation was 

recommended to keep all disciplines and 

multiple providers working with each family 

aware of the same information.

Address children’s needs. One program 

reported good results using a center-based 

preschool (10 months, 5 full days per week) 

and psychosocial model combined with 

bimonthly home visits and multiple family 

groups. Another program found children 

did better when parents received professional behavior management training and 

the children and their families received 

intensive psychotherapeutic services.

Offer services for older youth. Neglected 

older children and youth may carry a lot of 

•

•

•
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects www.childwelfare.gov

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

anger and “act out” in response to feelings of abandonment, loss of control, and 

identity confusion. Provide youth with positive cultural exposure such as chaperoned 

travel; recreational, educational, and mentoring activities; workshops on life-planning; 

and individual counseling. Working with 

the whole family to improve communication and understanding was found to be 

especially helpful for older youth who had 

been neglected. 

Provide intensive, long-term services. 

Assign small caseloads to facilitate intense 

interventions. Intensive services for 6 

months to 1 year (longer if necessary) were 

found to be more effective in engaging 

families and effecting change at individual 

and family levels. The lack of a specific 

time limit on services was found to reduce 

pressure on workers and families and allow 

families to pace themselves, working on 

issues as they arose, as time and energy 

permitted, with time out for crises. 

Deliver aftercare services. Follow-up 

services provided after the intensive service 

component were found to help monitor 

progress, maintain improved child and 

family well-being, and support implementation of a long-term plan to develop 

self-reliance.

Engaging Families

Most of the programs struggled to recruit, 

enroll, and retain participants. Programs 

reported that many families had transient 

living arrangements, reported frequent scheduling conflicts, and were difficult to contact 

(e.g., no telephones). Many families had a 

For service duration reported by each program, see

Appendix B.

•

•

long history of unsuccessful involvement with 

service agencies, usually lasting too short a 

time for meaningful change to occur. Thus, it 

was found to be necessary to build intensive, 

ongoing recruitment and retention activities 

into the program. Strategies for engaging 

families included the following:

Do not rely solely on CPS for referrals. 

Reports of child neglect are least likely to 

meet the threshold for CPS investigation 

or intervention, so relying solely on CPS for 

referrals could result in failure to meet the 

needs of many families. Programs sought 

additional referrals from the medical provider community, a help/advice line, other 

clients, and through positive local media 

coverage of the program and its participants. Voluntary participation is often a key 

to success, so establish a system in which 

there are no adverse consequences for refusing services.

Invest in intensive, strategic outreach to 

new referrals. Engage families at times and 

in places that are most convenient for them. 

One program experienced a high degree of 

success with a strategy to initiate two home 

visits, two school visits, one intervention 

meeting, and three phone contacts during 

the first month. 

Develop relationships with families. 

Focus on developing relationships with the 

family during initial intake, assessment, and 

screening. Many families prefer to start out 

individually rather than as part of a group. 

One program had success by having home 

visitors connect with families prenatally. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Acts 

of omission: An overview of child neglect. Washington, DC:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. [Online.] Available: www.

childwelfare.gov/pubs/focus/acts/index.cfm.

•

•

•
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

Maintain long-term partnerships with families (e.g., semi-annual family gatherings for 

all former and current families). Work with 

the whole family, including intensive efforts 

to engage fathers. Grantees also found 

certain staffing strategies had an impact on 

family engagement; these are described 

below, in “Hiring and Retaining Qualified 

Staff” and “Lessons Learned.”

Start with concrete services. Program 

design needs to provide early access to 

concrete services, such as financial benefits 

assistance, housing assistance, food banks, 

and transportation. Most clients are more 

likely to follow up on referrals for life-sustaining services than on services requiring 

them to engage in a change process. 

Be culturally competent. Employ service 

providers who “look like” the families they 

serve and who have knowledge of the 

community. In several programs where 

most of the families served were African 

American, direct service staff, mentors, and 

advisory board members were also African 

American. A program serving a largely 

Latino population hired two bilingual staff. 

A relationship-focused treatment model 

used by another program proved to be 

culturally appropriate and successful for the 

African American families it served.

Meet in a safe place. In one high-risk 

urban area, group meetings were held 

in the police athletic league community 

center. A safe place with classroom and 

playgroup areas, the center also provided educational and social resources 

for participants.

Offer transportation. Most programs 

found that providing transportation is 

essential for participation in group events. 

•

•

•

•

An alternative to providing transportation is 

to hold meetings in locations accessible by 

public transportation.

Make child care available during group 

meetings. Offer child care in an adequate 

play space that is safe and comfortable 

for children and infants. Due to difficulties 

related to reliability of volunteer child care 

providers, one program recommended 

recruiting paid child care staff.

Provide incentives for group meetings. 

Incentives are often concrete, such as meals 

at every session and subsidies for public 

transportation. Incentives also may be 

social. One program held Friday evening 

meetings that included a social component. 

Recruitment was never difficult, and there 

was almost always a waiting list. Program 

graduation ceremonies were found to be 

important opportunities to reward participants, validate their efforts, and reinforce 

their gains.

Vary the content of group sessions. 

Utilize client leadership and input, interactive group sessions, role-playing activities, 

videos, games, outside speakers, rap sessions on pressing issues, and discussions.

Hiring and Retaining Qualified Staff

Hiring and retaining qualified staff was an 

ongoing challenge for most of the projects. 

Reasons included low salaries, the stress of 

helping families who were dealing with complicated and serious problems, and safety 

issues. Unfortunately, programs found that 

high staff turnover often led to lower-quality 

service, families leaving the program prematurely, and burnout of remaining staff. 

Strategies for retaining staff included: 

•

•

•
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects www.childwelfare.gov

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

Start with good people. Many programs 

cited personal qualities of the staff they 

hired (using descriptions such as highly 

qualified, creative, resourceful, persistent, 

warm, nonjudgmental, and caring) as critical to their success. Additional attributes 

of direct service staff found to be desirable 

included maturity, professionalism, commitment, the ability to connect, living in the 

community, having personal experience 

with the system, and child care experience 

(e.g., veteran parents). 

Offer realistic job previews. Allow prospective hires to “shadow” an experienced 

staff person during a home visit.

Adjust caseloads. One program created a 

system to weight various levels of service. 

They then adjusted workers’ caseloads 

according to service intensity, rather than 

assigning a set number of cases. 

Make sure staff feel supported. In one 

program, staff felt more supported when 

the program office was moved from an offsite location to the organization’s headquarters. Another program supported staff by 

holding weekly individual supervision meetings between direct staff and the director 

to address complex problems. Other similar 

strategies included weekly clinical staff 

meetings, review of taped therapy sessions, 

and bimonthly case presentations.

Address staff safety concerns. One 

program in a particularly high-risk area 

addressed home visitors’ safety concerns by 

scheduling daytime visits only, contracting 

with a car service with a driver who waited 

outside, providing cell phones, and sending 

two staff into the home together.

•

•

•

•

•

Share program evaluation results with 

staff. One program reported staff benefited 

from and felt motivated by the evaluation 

feedback. This may have balanced the 

feeling that the evaluation was sometimes 

getting in the way of providing services.

Make promotions to encourage tenure. 

One way programs improved retention was 

by rewarding staff competence and success 

with promotions in level or title. 

Engage families with the entire program. 

When families feel a connection to the 

entire program, not just their regular 

contact person, staffing changes are not 

as disruptive.

Conduct exit interviews. Both positive 

and negative responses were found to 

be instructive.

Sustaining Funding

Securing sustainable funding to continue 

those services that have been found effective 

after the demonstration grant ends is a perennial and critical challenge. Strategies included 

the following:

Start with a larger-than-required cash 

match. One program found securing this 

initial investment from the agency and 

community built early commitment and 

made the transition to non-Federal funding 

less daunting.

Demonstrate effectiveness. One program 

developed ongoing financial support from 

the Department of Social Services (DSS) 

when the program demonstrated it was 

reducing DSS intake workload. Another 

program worked early on to produce 

convincing service- and cost-effectiveness 

data. As a result, DSS provided a liaison 

•

•

•

•

•

•
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

worker and awarded a contract to expand 

the program. They also secured a 3-year 

contract from the State to continue the 

program and had applications to several 

local foundations pending at the time of 

their final report. 

Incorporate new program components 

into ongoing services. It may be easier 

to sustain a modification to an existing 

program than to fund a new stand-alone 

program. In one project, an experimental 

condition (12 months of aftercare) became 

the program standard, replacing the previous 3-month limit. 

Know your community resources and 

make yourself marketable. One program 

sustained its neglect services by approaching county agencies that administer State 

drug, alcohol, crime, and delinquency funds 

and securing purchase-of-service contracts 

with them.

Lessons Learned

In addition to strategies that address the specific challenges described above, several characteristics were seen by many of the programs 

to be crucial to their overall success. Their 

recommendations are summarized below.

Use a Family Empowerment

Approach

Several programs reported outcomes were 

better when families were empowered to 

be active participants rather than passive 

service recipients. Grantees suggested using 

a strengths-based, family-centered approach 

to guide participants toward self-reliance. One 

•

•

program used the Personal Goal Achievement 

Measure as a successful strategy for encouraging families to set their own goals and focusing the intervention on what is important to 

each individual parent or family.10 Staff then 

helped families identify a list of steps needed 

to accomplish each goal and sought to 

provide opportunities for success in areas that 

mattered most to each family.

Focus on the Relationship

Between Staff and Caregivers

Caregivers respond most effectively to staff 

persons they believe are committed to their 

well-being. Staff must have the ability to 

establish trusting therapeutic relationships, 

so it is important to hire the right people and 

provide the support they need to do their jobs 

well. Many grantees cited the ability to vary 

staff caseloads according to families’ needs. 

Others found maintaining open lines of communication among all service providers and 

family members to be important. 

Offer Staff Ongoing Training

Programs recommended additional staff training on subjects such as child welfare reform’s 

impact on case management, behavioral 

health availability, case management across 

agencies, best practices in meeting child care 

needs, maternal depression, parenting stress, 

community resources, and general principles 

for good practice (e.g., community outreach, 

empowerment approaches, strengths perspective, cultural competence, developmental 

appropriateness, outcome-driven service 

plans).

10 This tool was developed by the Parent Empowerment

Program, Montefiore Medical Center, 3314 Steuben Avenue,

Bronx, NY 10467.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects www.childwelfare.gov

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

Use Multidisciplinary Teams

in Working with Families

Many programs found support to families 

could be provided most effectively by multidisciplinary teams.11 These teams were composed of various combinations of professionals, paraprofessionals, and volunteers. (How 

programs defined “professional staff” and 

assigned roles varied widely.) In one program, 

parenting skills were taught by professional 

staff. Another program used master’s-level 

social workers and certified preschool teachers. Having professional staff with experience 

dealing with serious mental health issues and 

multiproblem neglectful families was found 

to be beneficial. In one program, staff nurses 

who were highly committed and possessed 

clinical experience in many areas made home 

visits. In addition to professional support, peer 

support and positive role models were often 

provided by teams of mentors or through 

group mentoring. One program recommended using extended family members or 

friends as mentors rather than recent program 

graduates. Recent graduates often experienced problems too overwhelming to allow 

them the flexibility they needed to take care 

of others.

Build Collaboration with Other

Community Partners

Grantees agreed neglect is too complex for 

any one organization or agency to address 

successfully on its own; collaboration with a 

broad range of key community resources and 

partners at every level was seen as critical. 

Productive partnerships with other service 

providers, medical centers, and CPS were 

11 For specific staffing information for each program, see

Appendix B.

often reported. One program found building 

a partnership with the Department of Health, 

which also had a home visiting program, 

strengthened both programs. Another found 

developing partnerships with kinship-serving 

agencies and obtaining additional funding 

helped them target appropriate services to 

relative caregivers. Collaboration with CPS 

was seen as beneficial, but since many families 

distrust child welfare agencies, partnerships 

with other community-based organizations 

provided additional referral sources and supported a multitrack response system.

Offer a Combination of Out-ofHome and In-Home Services

Parent support groups were found to be 

effective tools for engaging families, providing peer support, educating parents, building 

and maintaining skills, and increasing selfesteem. Most programs found in-home services improved engagement, recruitment, and 

retention by avoiding the transportation, child 

care, and physical disability issues presented 

by out-of-home services. One program found 

engaging families affected by substance abuse 

or mental health issues through in-home family 

therapy led to fewer missed appointments for 

the family members’ out-of-home treatment 

services. Another program found making two 

home visits per week was better for highrisk families and produced better gains than 

weekly visits. 

Form an Advisory Committee

that Engages all Stakeholders

Advisory committees need to include local 

leaders, program participants, and members 

of key community organizations. These committee members can assist with planning to 

create a program that is sensitive to the target 
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

 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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

population and community, and ensure a 

strong collaborative network. 

Conclusion

Though the target populations and 

approaches to neglect vary from community to 

community, programs faced similar challenges 

in serving families, recruiting and retaining 

participants and staff, and finding resources 

to sustain services. In addressing these challenges, grantees felt certain strategies were 

key to their success. A family empowerment 

approach, with an emphasis on fostering positive relationships between staff and caregivers, 

was found to be key. Programs emphasized 

the need for care in hiring as well as ongoing 

training. Due to the complexity of the issues 

faced by the families served, programs recommended the use of multidisciplinary teams 

and collaboration with multiple community 

partners. Because both methods of service 

delivery were found to have unique strengths 

and drawbacks, a combination of out-of-home 

and in-home services was suggested. Finally, 

an advisory committee composed and representative of the community served was found 

to strengthen planning for effective programs. 

Organizations wishing to build or refine 

neglect programs may find these lessons 

learned helpful in their own efforts to address 

the needs of this complex population.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects 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/candemo/index.cfm.

Appendix A: Children’s Bureau Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

Family Intervention Program

Valley Youth House Committee, Inc.

531 Main Street, 2nd Floor

Bethlehem, PA 18018

Anne Adams

610.954.9561 extension 24

Family Network Project

Joan A. Male Family Support Center 

(formerly Parents Anonymous of Buffalo 

and Erie County)

60 Dingens Street

Buffalo, NY 14206

Joan A. Male

716.822.0919

Family Preservation Services for African 

American Families at Risk of Neglect

Portland State University

P.O. Box 751

Portland, OR 97207-0751

Kristine Nelson, D.S.W.

503.725.5012

Family Reclaim: A Community-based 

Collaborative to Strengthen Families with 

Substance Abuse and Neglect Issues

Family Support Services of the Bay Area

554 Grand Avenue

Oakland, CA 94610

Patricia Chambers, Ph.D.

415.861.4060 extension 3024

Family Support and Intervention for 

Neglected Preschool Children

University of Rochester

Mt. Hope Family Center 

187 Edinburgh Street

Rochester, NY 14608

Jody Todd Manly, Ph.D.

585.275.2991

Healthy Families D.C.

Mary’s Center for Maternal and Child Care, Inc.

2333 Ontario Road, NW

Washington, DC 20009

Joan Yengo

202.483.8196 extension 321

Helping Families Prevent Child Neglect

University of Maryland, Baltimore

School of Social Work

525 West Redwood Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Diane DePanfilis, Ph.D., M.S.W.

410.706.3609

Homefriends

Temple University

Center for Intergenerational Learning

1601 North Broad Street, USB206

Philadelphia, PA 19122

Adam Bruner, Ph.D.

215.204.3196
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

Neglected Children in Intergenerational 

Kinship Care

Georgia State University

College of Health and Human Sciences

University Plaza

Atlanta, GA 30303-3083

Susan J. Kelley, Ph.D.

404.651.3043

Parent Empowerment Program: Neglect 

Prevention Education for Pregnant and 

Parenting Teens

Montefiore Medical Center

Child Protection Center 

3314 Steuben Avenue

Bronx, NY 10467

Karel Amaranth

718.920.6429

To order copies of any of these projects’ final reports, contact Child Welfare Information Gateway 

at info@childwelfare.gov or 800.394.3366.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects 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/candemo/index.cfm.

Appendix B: Project Information

Project Name Population Served12 Service Types13 Duration Staffing Reported Outcomes

Family 

Intervention 

Program

• At least one parent with a 

substance abuse or mental 

health problem

• 96% of families have history 

of abuse or neglect

• 74% of households have an 

adult with a history of past 

arrest

• Assessment

• Concrete assistance

• Crisis intervention

• Health care

• Home visits

• Mental health 

services

• Outreach

• Parent education

• Referral

• Respite services

• Substance abuse 

treatment

• Transportation

Up to 18 

months

• Professionals

• Attempted peer 

mentoring program 

did not turn out to be 

feasible

• Substance abuse impact reduced in 50% 

of families where it was a problem

• Decrease in caregiver emotional 

problems

• Increase in parenting skills for 65% of 

parents

• Improved health of children

• Decreased behavior problems of children

• Some reduction in social isolation of 

caregivers

Family Network 

Project

• Poor, female, socially 

isolated 

• Chronically neglecting 

families 

• 60% Caucasian

• Assessment

• Concrete assistance

• Crisis intervention 

• Day care

• Home visits 

(biweekly)

• Parent education 

and support

• Referral

• Respite

As needed • Project director 

(MSW), social work/

educator (BSW), 

parent aides (HS 

graduate to BSW) 

• Supported by 

student interns and 

volunteers 

• Families maintained adequate housing

• Families achieved adequate health care

• Caregivers developed skills to meet 

children’s psycho-emotional needs

• Caregivers showed improvement in using 

appropriate discipline

Family 

Preservation 

Services 

• African American or mixed 

race

• 2/3 of primary caregivers 

unemployed and never 

married 

• Drugs/alcohol abuse issues

• Modified Family 

Enhancement 

Program

• Advocacy

• Aftercare

• Concrete assistance

• Crisis intervention

• Day care

• Home visits 

• Mental health 

services

• Parent education 

and support

• Referral

Intensive 

services for 4 

to 8 weeks, 

aftercare 

for up to 12 

months

• Project Director 

(MSW), professional 

outreach and 

aftercare coordinators 

(BA) 

• Extended family and 

friends help support 

caregivers

• Most staff were 

African American 

residents of the 

community served

• Decrease in founded neglect reports and 

out-of-home placement

• Child well-being increased from intake to 

the end of the intensive phase of services

• Increases in family support and family 

resources

Family Reclaim • Multi-stressed families with 

substance abuse issues

• 68% African American, 5% 

Latino

• Concrete assistance

• Crisis intervention

• Mental health 

services

• Parent education 

• Referral

• Respite

• Transportation

As needed • Program director, 

social workers/family 

advocates, youth 

mentor

• Improvement in child well-being scores

• Improvement in family functioning for a 

significant number of families

• 97.5% of children at risk for removal were 

able to remain with their families

• Improvement in children’s academic 

performance and school attendance

• Cost effective

12 All families were at high risk for neglect. Most were poor and lived in high-risk inner-city areas.

13 Concrete assistance includes financial benefits assistance, housing assistance, legal assistance, transportation, food bank, and assistance meeting basic needs. Parent education

includes adaptive functioning, communication skills, negotiation skills, educational support, employment/job readiness training, and money management/budgeting skills.
Child Neglect Demonstration Projects

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/candemo/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

Project Name Population Served12 Service Types13 Duration Staffing Reported Outcomes

Family Support 

and Intervention 

for Neglected 

Preschool 

Children

• Families identified as 

neglectful

• 59% African American

• Frequent issues with 

substance abuse, mental 

health, and domestic 

violence

• Assessment

• Day care 

(therapeutic 

preschool)

• Home visits 

(bimonthly)

• Mental health 

services

• Parent education 

and support

• Transportation

10 months 

(longer as 

needed)

• Consistently 

professional, highly 

qualified (MSW) staff

• Experience in 

dealing with serious 

mental health issues 

and multiproblem 

neglectful families

• 99% of children achieved at least one 

developmental goal

• 94% of families made progress on 

treatment goals

• Improved parenting skills and increased 

social support for caregivers

• Increased knowledge of child 

development and positive behavior 

management

• Children’s developmental adaptation 

exceeded that of control group

Healthy Families 

D.C. 

• First-time parents identified 

as overburdened

• 88% single mothers

• 66% Hispanic, 29% African 

American 

• 61% Spanish speaking with 

limited English 

• 57% teens

• Healthy Families 

model 

• Assessment 

• Home visits (weekly)

• Parent support

• Referral

Long term 

(up to 3–5 

years)

• Chosen for their 

ability to connect 

with families and 

their educational 

background

• Live in the community 

being served

• Culturally competent

• Extensive training

Met objectives with regard to:

• Healthy birth weights

• Immunizations and well-care visits

• Developmental screenings

• Progress toward self-sufficiency goals

• No cases of child abuse or neglect

Helping Families 

Prevent Child 

Neglect

• Presence of concern for at 

least one subtype of neglect 

and presence of at least two 

other risk criteria

• Not involved with CPS, 

willing to participate

• 95% single parents

• 85% African American

• Advocacy

• Assessment

• Concrete assistance

• Crisis intervention

• Home visits (weekly)

• Outreach

• Parent education 

and support

• Service planning 

3 or 9 

months

• Social work interns

• Mostly African 

American

• Reduced caregiver depressive symptoms, 

drug use, life stress, parenting stress

• Increased appropriate parenting 

attitudes, satisfaction with parenting, 

perceived social support

• Fewer CPS reports on participants 

following than prior to intervention

• Enhanced physical and psychological care 

of children

• Decreased caregiver perceptions of child 

behavior problems

Homefriends • Children with at least one 

special need

• Living in inadequate 

housing 

• Caregivers recovering from 

substance abuse

• 90% African American

• 90% unemployed

• 83% single parents

• Modified Family 

Friends program

• Home visits (weekly)

• Parent education 

and support

• Referral 

• Respite

10 months

(average)

• Senior volunteers 

from the child’s 

neighborhood

• All direct service 

staff and nearly all 

mentors were African 

American

• No families in intervention group had 

child placed in foster care

• Some improvement found in parental 

teaching and stimulation of children

• Parents experienced an improvement 

in their feelings and perceptions of 

themselves as parents

Neglected 

Children in Intergenerational 

Kinship Care

• Grandparents who are 

primary caregivers (98% 

female) and lack the 

financial/ supportive 

resources to parent

• History of abuse or neglect 

by birth parents

• 96% African American 

families

• Concrete assistance

• Health care

• Home visits 

(monthly)

• Mental health 

services

• Parent education 

and support

• Referral

• Service planning

• Transportation

12 months • Full-time professional 

social workers and 

part-time registered 

nurses

• Staff and advisory 

board composed 

primarily of African 

Americans

• Decreased child behavior problems

• Reduced risk for child neglect

• Improved caregiver health

• Caregiver empowerment

• Increase in caregiver social support

• Decrease in caregiver stress

Parent 

Empowerment 

Program

• Socially isolated, resourcepoor teen mothers (average 

age 20 years)

• Pregnant or parenting

• 97% single parents

• 60% Latino, 30% African 

American

• After care

• Assessment

• Crisis intervention

• Day care

• Home visits

• Parent education 

and support

• Referral

6 months, 

with after 

care

• Program coordinator 

(MSW) and case 

manager (BSW)

• Culturally competent 

clinicians (bilingual 

staff for Spanishspeaking clients)

• Slight increase in child well-being scores

• Slight increase in knowledge of infant 

development

• Slight downward trend in child abuse 

potential

• Significant percentage of family-identified 

goals partially achieved or achieved