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

Issue brief

Family Reunification: 

What the 

Evidence Shows

What’s Inside:

The Child and Family Services Reviews and 

family reunification

Research on family reunification

Examples from the field

Program support for reunification

Questions for future research

•

•

•

•

•

June 2006

Research to Practice in 

Child Welfare

Issue briefs include a review and 

synthesis of recent published 

research and selected program 

examples that demonstrate 

evidence-based practices.

This issue brief was developed 

in partnership with the Child 

Welfare League of America, 

under subcontract to the National 

Clearinghouse on Child Abuse 

and Neglect Information, 

which is now Child Welfare 

Information Gateway.

The conclusions discussed here 

are solely the responsibility of the 

authors and do not represent the 

official views or policies of the 

funding agency.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

Family reunification in child welfare refers to 

the process of returning children in temporary 

out-of-home care to their families of origin. 

Reunification is both the most common goal 

for children in out-of-home care as well as 

the most common outcome. According to 

preliminary estimates from the Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS), reunification was the case plan goal 

for nearly half (45 percent) of all children in 

foster care on September 30, 2002. More than 

half (54 percent) of the children who exited 

foster care during fiscal year 2002 returned 

to a parent or principal caregiver (Children’s 

Bureau, 2004a).

Since the majority of children who leave 

foster care are reunified with their families, it 

is important to focus on practices that help 

achieve successful reunification. A broad 

review of the empirical literature in child 

welfare suggests common characteristics of 

interventions that are most helpful in reunifying families when child maltreatment has been 

identified. These include:

Family engagement. Engagement of families 

is critical to the change process (Dawson & 

Berry, 2002; Yatchmenoff, 2001).



	 It should be noted that the literature addresses some effective

reunification strategies at the agency level, rather than at the

level of caseworker interventions:

Research suggests that caseworkers who have social

work education and greater experience are better able to

facilitate permanency (Ahart, Bruer, Rutsch, & Zaro, 1992;

Albers, Reilly, & Rittner, 1993; Walton, Fraser, Pecora, &

Walton, 1993).

More flexible funding that allows agencies to provide

better community-based services to families can also lead

to greater rates of reunification (Wulczyn & Martin, 2001;

Wulczyn, Zeidman, & Svirsky, 1997). Waivers of constraints

on categorical funding and collaboration with community

agencies to form more efficient service networks have the

potential to affect reunification efforts positively by making

more formal and informal resources available to families.

•

•

Assessment and case planning. 

Individualized needs assessment and clear, 

mutually established goals are critical to case 

planning (DePanfilis, 1999; Macdonald, 2001).

Service delivery. Cognitive-behavioral, multisystemic, skills-focused services have been 

found to be most effective. (Corcoran, 2000; 

Macdonald, 2001).

The Child and Family 

Services Reviews and 

Family Reunification

Final Reports from the Federal Child and 

Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) present 

results and discussion for each State regarding its conformance with child safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. In the 

first full round of 52 reviews, 19 States met 

the national standard for reunification, which 

states, “76.2 percent of all children who were 

reunified went home in less than 12 months” 

(Children’s Bureau, 2004c).

No State was found to be in conformance with 

the first permanency outcome, “Children have 

permanency and stability in their living situations.” However, 12 States received a rating of 

Strength on the indicator related to achieve-

	 The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to enable

the Children’s Bureau to ensure that State child welfare agency

practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare requirements,

to determine what is actually happening to children and families

as they are engaged in State child welfare services, and to assist

States to enhance their capacity to help children and families

achieve positive outcomes. For more information about the

CFSR process, visit the Children’s Bureau website at www.acf.

hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/index.htm.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

ment of a child’s goal of reunification, guardianship, or placement with relatives.

A Children’s Bureau (2004c) summary and 

analysis of the 52 Final Reports found that the 

following factors had a significant association 

with a rating of Strength on this indicator:

The stability of foster care placement

Visiting with parents and siblings in foster 

care

The needs of and services for the child, 

parents, and foster parents

Child and family involvement in case 

planning

Worker visits with the child

Worker visits with the parents

Further review of the States’ Final Reports 

yields additional details about these and other 

factors’ relationships to the achievement of 

timely, stable family reunification. The factors 

related to family engagement, assessment and 

case planning, and service delivery, as well 

as a number of systemic issues, shed light on 

States’ successes and challenges in this area.

Family Engagement

The CFSRs indicated that a number of family 

engagement activities contribute to the 

success of family reunification efforts. Effective 

family engagement activities include involving 

birth families in planning and decision-making, 

encouraging foster parent support of the birth 

parents, and facilitating visits between children 

in foster care with their parents. States’ experiences in facilitating family engagement are 

summarized below:

	 This indicator was added in the second year of reviews and

was therefore applicable for only 35 States.

•

•

•

•

•

•

At least eight Final Reports (IA, KY, NH, 

OH, OK, OR, RI, WY) mention the use of 

some type of family team meetings (e.g., 

Family Group Conferencing, Family Group 

Decision Making) to facilitate reunification efforts. These strategies promote 

active involvement of both birth parents, 

extended family, and others to achieve permanency for children.

At least nine Final Reports (KY, LA, MN, 

NH, NM, OH, OR, PA, SC) state that foster 

parents’ support of contact between children and birth parents, and the foster 

parents’ direct support of birth parents 

(e.g., mentoring), facilitates achievement of 

reunification goals.

At least six States’ Final Reports (CA, KS, 

MI, NV, PA, SC) indicate that increasing the 

frequency of visits leading up to reunification helps to facilitate achievement of this 

goal and decreases re-entries to foster care.

Many States’ Final Reports also address problems in these areas that negatively impact the 

achievement of timely, stable reunifications:

One of the most common issues is a lack 

of parent involvement in case planning and 

decision-making, including a lack of caseworker communication with birth parents 

regarding expectations.

The lack of involvement of fathers poses a 

distinct challenge, and States’ Final Reports 

point to such possible causes as a lack of 

agency effort in identifying, locating, contacting, and attempting to involve fathers 

and paternal relatives. Sonenstein, Malm, 

and Billing (2002) report three reasons for 

lack of involvement of fathers, especially 

noncustodial fathers, in case planning: 

caseworker and systemic bias, mothers’ 

•

•

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

gatekeeping, and the characteristics of 

noncustodial fathers, such as high rates 

of incarceration.

The Final Reports often cite a lack of caseworker support for and assistance to birth 

parents in their efforts to achieve the goal 

of reunification.

At least 17 percent of the Final Reports 

also indicate that visits between children 

in foster care and their birth parents were 

not sufficient to promote the goal of reunification. Reasons cited include foster care 

placements far from the birth families’ 

homes and inadequate resources (such as 

transportation and supervision) to facilitate 

more frequent visits.

Assessment and Case Planning

Adequately assessing the strengths and needs 

of children and families, planning to build on 

those strengths and address specific needs, 

and finally, carrying out those plans are all critical activities to the achievement of a family’s 

reunification goals. A summary of States’ 

experiences in assessing the strengths and 

needs of families is below:

At least four Final Reports (KY, MI, NH, PR) 

specifically connect the implementation of 

initial assessments to the success of reunification efforts.

Twice that many States (MI, NH, NM, NV, 

PA, SC, VA, WA) report that risk or safety 

assessments conducted prior to reunification help ensure safe, timely reunification decisions and minimize both the 

risk of harm to children and re-entries to 

foster care.

•

•

•

•

However, challenges related to assessment 

and case planning are more commonly noted 

in the Final Reports than are successes:

At least 30 States were found to have had 

problems conducting adequate assessments to determine the needs of children, 

parents, and foster parents (Children’s 

Bureau, 2004c).

A number of Final Reports also indicate that 

case plans often are “boiler plate” and do 

not address the individual needs of families, and that case plans often lack clear 

objectives.

A few Final Reports specifically mention 

that the lack of risk and safety assessments 

prior to reunification increases the risk of 

harm to children and subsequent re-entries 

to foster care.

Many Final Reports cite child and parent 

problems that impede reunification efforts 

and contribute to foster care re-entries. 

Parental substance abuse is the problem 

most often cited; other problems include 

child behavior problems, parental mental 

health concerns, and parents’ lack of cooperation with service plans. 

Service Delivery

Targeted services that meet the individualized needs of children and families are key to 

achieving family reunification and ensuring 

children’s safety. Issues reported by States 

related to the delivery of appropriate services 

include the following:

At least 10 Final Reports (AZ, HI, IL, ND, 

NJ, OK, PR, RI, SC, WI) mention the availability and coordination of specific services 

as factors important to the achievement of 

reunification. These include in-home ser-

•

•

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

vices, concrete services such as housing 

and food, mental health and substance 

abuse services, culturally competent services, comprehensive wraparound services, 

and coordination or collocation of service 

providers.

Many more Final Reports cite problems with 

service delivery, including a lack of specific 

services, a lack of transportation to services, 

long waiting lists, and inconsistent service 

accessibility in all jurisdictions, with rural 

areas having the most difficulties. Problems 

with housing and substance abuse, mental 

health, and culturally competent services 

were most often cited as specifically impeding efforts to reunify families.

Many States cite post-reunification services as 

particularly critical. For example:

At least half of the Final Reports (AL, AR, 

CA, CO, CT, GA, ID, IN, LA, MD, MI, MS, 

MT, NC, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NV, PA, RI, SC, 

TN, TX, VA, WI) specifically cite the provision of post-reunification services as a key 

to reducing the risk of harm to children, 

repeat maltreatment, and re-entries to 

foster care. A number of these reports 

discuss the length of time post-reunification services are provided (ranging from 3 

months to as long as needed). Reports indicate that continued monitoring of families 

supports their participation in such services.

Specific post-reunification services that 

contribute to positive outcomes include inhome services, mental health or counseling 

services, substance abuse services, parenting support, child care, concrete services 

such as housing and financial assistance, 

and transportation.

•

•

•

Many Final Reports specifically tie poor 

post-reunification services to an increased 

risk of harm to children after reunification, 

repeat maltreatment, and higher numbers 

of re-entries to foster care. Common problems include service disruptions, the lack of 

availability of services in all areas, services 

not available at the intensity or duration 

that families need them, and the high costs 

of needed services.

Systemic Issues

The CFSR Final Reports mention a number of 

systemic issues that contribute both positively 

and negatively to the achievement of timely, 

stable reunifications. These include issues 

related to funding, courts, and staffing.

Funding. Positive contributions of various 

funding strategies are cited in at least seven 

Final Reports as supporting reunification 

efforts. These strategies include increased 

funding for reunification (IL), dedicated reunification funds (MI), flexibility in the use of funds 

(LA, UT), blended funding streams (PA, TX), 

and financial incentives for contractors (NY).

Courts. Positive contributions related to the 

courts are mentioned in three Final Reports. 

Louisiana reports on the success of cooperation between the courts and child welfare 

agencies.West Virginia reports that court 

tracking of permanency timeframes facilitates reunifications. Virginia reports that court 

monitoring of families after reunification helps 

ensure child safety. Court-related issues noted 

as impeding reunification efforts include continuances and crowded court dockets delaying reunification, judges extending the timeframe for reunification beyond the Adoption 

and Safe Families Act (ASFA) guidelines, and 

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

courts ordering reunifications in cases where 

agency staff do not feel the family is ready.

Staffing. Staffing problems that reportedly 

impede reunification efforts include high rates 

of staff turnover, inexperienced staff, and high 

caseloads. These problems may result in insufficient worker visits both with foster children 

and birth parents, insufficient monitoring and 

support of parents’ service participation and 

progress toward goal achievement, and longer 

timeframes to achieve reunification goals as 

each new worker starts over. 

Finally, policies regarding timeliness to reunification are cited as a concern in many State 

Final Reports. A few States report that while 

the time taken to reunification is longer than 

allowed for in the national standard, this 

caution results in fewer re-entries to foster 

care. Correspondingly, other States are concerned that shorter times to reunifications are 

resulting in higher re-entries because families 

are sometimes reunited before risk and safety 

issues are fully resolved. Almost half of the 

Final Reports state that the goal of reunification is often kept too long even when it seems 

unlikely that it will be achieved (e.g., when the 

parents have made little or no progress on 

service plan tasks).

 Research on Family 

Reunification

It is clear from a review of the State CFSR 

Final Reports that numerous factors interact 

and play important roles in a State’s ability 

to reunify children in foster care with their 

birth families. Family engagement, assessment, case planning, and service delivery are 

key. Systemic supports related to funding for 

services, support from the courts, and stable, 

competent staff also appear to impact, directly 

and indirectly, the achievement of reunification goals. A review of the relevant literature 

sheds additional light upon State CFSR findings regarding the factors in achieving timely, 

stable reunifications.

Family Engagement Is Fundamental 

to Successful Reunification

Much of the literature addresses three dimensions of family engagement:

The relationship between the caseworker 

and the family

Parent-child visitation

The involvement of foster parents

The relationship between the caseworker 

and the family. Both the frequency and the 

nature of the caseworker’s contact with the 

family are important. Family reunification 

appears to be facilitated by more frequent 

caseworker contact (Farmer, 1996; Littell & 

Schuerman, 1995; Children’s Bureau, 2004b). 

However, parents are sometimes mistrustful of 

child welfare professionals and thus unwilling 

to share information or establish a relationship with agency representatives. In a study 

examining engagement in a sample of 63 

families receiving child protective services, 

the interpersonal relationship with the caseworker was determined to be the strongest 

predictor of the family’s self-report of engagement (Regional Research Institute for Human 

Services, 1998).

The above studies, as well as engagement 

research in related fields, suggest that the 

following caseworker behaviors are important 

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

in mitigating families’ fears and building the 

rapport necessary for effective helping:

Establishing open, honest communication 

with parents (Yatchmenoff, 2001)

Requesting family participation and feedback in the planning process (Regional 

Research Institute for Human Services, 

1998; Rooney, 1992)

Providing instruction and reinforcement in 

the performance and completion of mutually agreed upon activities (Rooney, 1992)

Parent-child visitation. Research supports 

the significance of parent-child visitation as 

a predictor of family reunification. A study 

of reunification in a sample of 922 children 

aged 12 and younger found that children who 

were visited by their mothers were 10 times 

more likely to be reunited (Davis, Landsverk, 

Newton, & Ganger, 1996). 

Effective visitation practice goes far beyond 

attention to the logistics of scheduling and 

transportation; it provides an opportunity to 

build parental skills and improve parent-child 

interaction. Studies suggest that visitation 

should have a therapeutic focus. Thus, it is 

important that anyone supervising visits has 

clinical knowledge and skills (Haight, Sokolec, 

Budde, & Poertner, 2001).

The involvement of foster parents. Foster 

parents may facilitate family reunification 

through both the mentoring of the birth 

parents and the support of their visitation. 

The development of a positive relationship 

between the foster and birth parents may 

allow children to avoid the stress of divided 

loyalties and position foster parents to play a 

supportive role after reunification. However, 

when selecting foster parents to work with 

birth parents, agencies should consider their 

•

•

•

experience, maturity, communication skills, 

their ability to handle these multiple roles, and 

the possible need for additional training (Lewis 

& Callaghan, 1993; Sanchirico & Jablonka, 

2000).

Accurate, Individual Assessment 

and Case Planning Are Crucial 

for Successful Reunifications

Child maltreatment is a complex phenomenon with a number of underlying causes. 

Accurate differential assessment is therefore 

essential. Differential assessment involves 

developing an individualized, family-centered 

understanding of a child and family’s circumstances, environment, and potential in order 

to identify each family’s unique needs, determine the extent of the risk to the child, and 

to construct an appropriate intervention plan 

(National Resource Center for Foster Care 

and Permanency Planning, 2003; Macdonald, 

2001; National Research Council, 1993).

Research has demonstrated that adequate 

assessment often does not occur in child 

welfare, and this failing may be linked to 

the instability of reunification. In a review of 

62 failed reunifications, Peg McCartt Hess 

and her colleagues found that “poor assessment or decision-making by the caseworker 

or service provider” was a factor in 42 cases 

(Hess, Folaron, & Jefferson, 1992).

The use of standardized tools to aid assessment is an emerging area of child welfare 

research that offers some promise of improving practice in this area (Corcoran, 1997; 

McMurtry & Rose, 1998). The North Carolina 

Family Assessment Scales for Reunification 

(NCFAS-R), developed by Ray Kirk, Ph.D., at 

the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 

is the only validated instrument designed spe-
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

cifically for use in reunification. The NCFAS-R, 

an adaptation of the original North Carolina 

Family Assessment Scale used in family preservation, has proven to be an effective tool 

in assessing readiness for reunification and 

parent and child ambivalence (Kirk, 2001).

Services Should Be Practical and 

Comprehensive, Addressing 

All Aspects of Family Life

Services should be designed to promote an 

environment in which a child can be safely 

returned, and to help maintain that environment after reunification. A number of studies 

have supported the use of interventions that 

have a behavioral, skill-building focus and 

that address family functioning in multiple 

domains, including home, school, and community (Corcoran, 2000; Macdonald, 2001). 

Cognitive-behavioral models have been 

demonstrated to reduce physical punishment 

and parental aggression in less time than 

alternative approaches (Kolko, 1996, cited 

in Corcoran, 2000). The most effective treatment involves all members of the family and 

addresses not only parenting skills, but also 

parent-child interaction and a range of parental life competencies such as communication, 

problem solving, and anger control (Corcoran, 

2000; Dore & Lee, 1999).

The literature reports on the effectiveness of 

several types of services:

Concrete services. The provision of concrete 

services such as food, transportation, and 

assistance with housing and utilities has been 

demonstrated to be an important aspect of 

family reunification services. A study reviewing effective family-centered service models 

(Wells & Fuller, 2000) identified concrete 

services as critical elements of practice. The 

most effective programs studied not only 

provided services to meet concrete needs, 

but offered families instruction in accessing 

community resources so that they could do 

so independently in the future. In a study of 

1,014 families participating in a family reunification program in Illinois, the 50 percent of 

families who experienced reunification demonstrated high utilization of concrete services 

such as financial assistance and transportation 

(Rzepnicki, Schuerman, & Johnson, 1997).

Substance abuse treatment. The well-documented incidence of parental substance abuse 

as a factor in the placement of children into 

foster care (Smokowski & Wodarski, 1996) 

supports the critical importance of readily 

available resources for the assessment and 

treatment of addiction. A few agencies have 

established alliances with drug treatment 

centers or brought addiction professionals into the agency to ensure more effective 

assessment of drug-related needs, treatment 

planning, and monitoring of progress. Others 

have undertaken more intensive training of 

staff in addictions and the process of recovery 

(Maluccio & Ainsworth, 2003; Hohman & Butt, 

2001). Research has shown promising results 

with three types of service delivery:

Intensive case management. Ryan et al. 

(2003) reported significant results when 

substance-involved families received 

intensive case management that included 

“recovery coaches” to facilitate assessments, conduct service planning, and eliminate barriers to accessing substance abuse 

treatment.

Tailoring programs for women with 

children. The provision of treatment services specifically developed to meet the 

needs of women with children appears to 

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

hold promise for retaining women in treatment and decreasing subsequent drug use 

(Clark, 2001).

Strong social support. Because social 

support appears to be an important factor 

in the successful treatment of addiction, 

assessment and intervention should involve 

the entire family, especially spouses or 

partners, and include consistent, ongoing 

support from caseworkers and treatment 

providers (Gregoire & Schultz, 2001).

Home-based services. Many home-based 

service models originally developed to 

prevent out-of-home placement have shown 

some success in effecting family reunification. In one experimental study, families in the 

treatment group received intensive casework 

services, parenting and life skills education, 

family-focused treatment, and help in accessing community resources. The treatment 

group had a reunification rate three times that 

of the control group and remained intact at 

a far higher rate 7 years later (Lewis, Walton, 

& Fraser, 1995; Walton, 1998). It is important 

to note, however, that while some short-term 

intensive models have demonstrated success 

in achieving family reunification, not all such 

programs appear to reduce the risk of reentry into foster care substantially (Littell & 

Schuerman, 1995; Wulczyn, 2004). Many families who have experienced placement of one 

or more children in foster care require longer 

term intervention and support (Gaudin, 1993).

Post-reunification services. Data from the 

Multistate Foster Care Data Archive indicate 

that about 25 percent of all children who go 

home will return to care at some point, often 

within 1 year (Wulczyn, 2004). Reunification, 

although a positive milestone for the family, 

is also a time of readjustment, and a family 

•

already under stress can have difficulty maintaining safety and stability. The difficulty is 

compounded when children or parents have 

numerous or more complex personal needs, 

or when environmental factors, such as 

extreme poverty and a lack of social supports, 

are present (Festinger, 1996; Terling, 1999). 

Research suggests that follow-up services 

that enhance parenting skills, provide social 

support, connect families to basic resources, 

and address children’s behavioral and emotional needs must be provided if re-entry into 

foster care is to be prevented. Post-reunification services are especially important when 

parental drug or alcohol use is a concern 

(Festinger, 1996; Terling, 1999).

Examples From the Field

The following program examples illustrate 

key characteristics of interventions found to 

be associated with the achievement of timely, 

stable reunifications. 

Michigan: Time-Limited, 

Intensive Services Promote 

Family Reunification

In 1992, Michigan created and pilot tested the 

Family Reunification Program for families with 

children in out-of-home care. The program 

was intended to reduce the number of children in out-of-home care and to reduce the 

cost to the agency. The program provided 

several services to each family in treatment, 

including:

Assessment

Case management

Transportation services

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

24-hour service availability

Flexible funds

In-home services

Two staff (one master’s level, one bachelor’s 

level) for each family

Families were required to participate in assessment, family or individual therapy, and workshops on parenting. Services were offered for 

either 4 or 8 months. 

An evaluation of the program showed that the 

families who participated in treatment programs were more likely to remain reunified than 

those in the control group. In addition, treatment was more cost-effective in the long run.

Fewer children in out-of-home care. Twelve 

months after exiting the program, 73 percent 

of the 813 children in the treatment group had 

been returned home and remained safely with 

their families; 69 percent of children in the 

comparison group had been returned home. 

No significant difference was found in reunification rates between families who participated 

in the 4-month (78 percent) and 8-month 

programs (72 percent). At 24 months following reunification, 81 percent of the treated 

families remained reunified, compared to only 

60 percent of the comparison group families. 

Furthermore, the research indicated that children in the treatment group who did re-enter 

out-of-home care tended to spend less time 

out of the home.

Cost-effectiveness. The agency calculated 

that it saved more than $5,000 per family for 

those participating in the Family Reunification 

Program (more than half of the cost for a child 

in the control group). The average cost per 

child was $3,830 to return a child in the treatment group home, including 6 months of ser-

•

•

•

•

vices and 12 months of follow-up. The cost for 

the same 18-month period was approximately 

$9,113 per child in the comparison group, due 

to more frequent contacts and more re-entries 

into care after reunification.

In follow-up interviews, families rated the following program features most strongly: the 

use of two-worker teams; the services offered 

in the family home; the 24-hour service availability; the use of a problem-solving focus 

in service delivery; the instruction in discipline techniques; and concrete services (e.g., 

transportation).

Today, the Family Reunification Program 

has expanded into 26 counties throughout 

Michigan, serving 85 percent of all foster children in the State.

For additional information, contact:

Deborah M. Hodge-Morgan, 

Program Manager or 

Shelly Wood, 

Departmental Analyst

Michigan Family Independence Agency

235 S. Grand, Suite 415

Lansing, MI 48909

517.373.0054 or 517.373.3372

hodge-morgand@michigan.gov

woods@michigan.gov

Rhode Island: Project Connect 

Improves Reunification Rates for 

Substance Abuse-Affected Families

Established in 1992 by Children’s Friend & 

Service in Providence, RI, Project Connect is 

a community-based program for substance 

abuse-affected families who are at imminent risk 

or who have already had a child removed from 

their care. Project Connect offers home-based 

substance abuse and family counseling, as well 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

as parent education, nursing services, parenting groups, domestic violence groups, sobriety 

support, and links to services such as affordable 

housing, substance abuse treatment, and health 

care. Project Connect staff assess families using 

a tool they developed specifically for documenting and tracking the levels of risk to children in 

substance abuse-affected families. Each family is 

assigned to a team that includes a master’s level 

clinician, pediatric nurses, and parent educators. 

In addition to providing services directly to families, Project Connect also created a committee 

of members from public and private agencies for 

improving communication and service coordination between child protection, substance abuse, 

and health care providers. 

An evaluation of the program’s first 10 years 

indicates that nearly all of the babies born to 

parents involved with Project Connect were born 

drug-free. Parents who completed the program 

showed significant gains in their ability to use 

positive discipline techniques and to develop 

more age-appropriate expectations for their children. They also were less likely to be identified 

for repeat maltreatment after services ended 

(11%), compared to families that did not complete the program (25%). In addition, children 

whose families participated in Project Connect 

were reunified more often and more quickly than 

were children in a comparison group of families 

whose cases were open to DCYF.

An evaluation of the 2003 program documented a number of positive outcomes. 

Parents showed marked improvement in 

meeting reunification goals and the ability to 

address the health needs of their children. 

Progress also was made in dealing with substance abuse issues, parenting behaviors, and 

meeting concrete needs. Parents who completed both the program and pre- and posttests of the Risk Inventory (n=29) showed low 

or reduced risks related to a range of negative 

outcomes, including relapse into substance 

abuse and further child abuse and neglect.

Researchers also noted that all but 2 of the 16 

children assessed were functioning at or above 

the appropriate developmental stage. During 

2003, 14 of the 30 families with children in 

placement experienced reunification.

The program attributes its success to a 

number of factors:

The service coordinating committee, which 

developed statewide policies that are 

responsive to families, reduced barriers to 

services, and developed opportunities for 

cross-training of service providers

Increased outreach and engagement efforts 

by staff

An increased focus on permanency planning for children

For more information, contact:

Lenette Azzi-Lessing, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Children’s Friend and Service

153 Summer St.

Providence, RI 02903

401.276.4300

lalessing@cfsri.org

Program Support for 

Reunification

In addition to offering insight into factors and 

services that are linked to reunification and 

stability, the literature and the program examples discussed above suggest several guiding 

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

principles for practice in this critical area of 

permanency planning:

Families must be included and engaged in 

the planning and selection of services and 

the assessment of progress. Positive change 

is best driven by mutually established goals 

and open, honest communication between 

families and helping professionals.

Maintaining family relationships while 

children are in care is a critical component 

of any successful reunification practice. 

Frequent family visitation is linked to both 

the likelihood of reunification and postreunification stability.

Successful reunification must be systematically considered and planned for from the 

earliest possible point. Such planning must 

rest on comprehensive assessment that 

focuses not only on the issues precipitating 

placement, but also on family history, relationships, the parents’ health and emotional 

functioning, and the community environment.

Reunification preparation and post-reunification supports must be based on the 

needs of the children and family rather 

than on arbitrary timeframes. Reunification 

should be viewed as a process that includes 

maintaining family relationships while 

children are in care, careful planning, and 

the provision of post-reunification supports. 

Families are best supported when all available resources, both formal and informal, 

are brought to bear on their behalf (Warsh, 

Maluccio, & Pine, 1994).

Some of these guiding principles can be implemented by caseworkers; all of them, plus the 

systemic changes such as flexible funding, can 

be implemented at the agency level or higher.

•

•

•

•

Questions for Future Research

Much remains to be learned about the decision-making processes and service approaches 

that best promote family reunification, postreunification stability, and the well-being of 

children. Some important questions include:

What are the most critical considerations in 

decisions about reunification?

How do individual variables interact to influence the success of reunification efforts?

What is the impact of service type, intensity, 

and duration on specific family needs?

What qualifications of child welfare staff 

are most strongly associated with effective 

reunification practice?

What practices most effectively address 

the role of children’s bonding with their 

substitute caregivers in successful family 

reunification?

How can substance abuse services best be 

structured to support parents and children 

during and following reunification?

Further research into these and other questions regarding family reunification practice 

will provide guidance to the field and promote 

timely, safe reunification of children in out-ofhome care with their families of origin.

•

•

•

•

•

•
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

References

Adoption and Safe Families Act, 105 U.S.C.§89 (1997). Retrieved April 2005 from http://

frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=publ89.

pdf&directory=/diskc/wais/data/105_cong_public_laws

Ahart, A., Bruer, R., Rutsch, C., & Zaro, S. (1992). Final report: intensive foster care reunification 

programs (Contract No. HHS-100-91-0016). Calverton, MD: Macro International.

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

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

Children’s Bureau. (2004a). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2002 estimates as of August 2004 

(9). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children 

& Families. Retrieved April 2005 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/

report9.htm

Children’s Bureau. (2004b). Findings from the initial Child and Family Service Reviews, 2001 to 

2004. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for 

Children & Families. Retrieved April 2005 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results/

statefindings/statefindings.ppt

Children’s Bureau. (2004c). General findings from the Federal Child and Family Services Review. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children & 

Families. Retrieved April 2005 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwrp/results/statefindings/

genfindings04/index.htm

Clark, H. W. (2001). Residential substance abuse treatment for pregnant and post-partum women 

and their children. Child Welfare, 80, 179-198.

Corcoran, J. (2000). Family interventions with child physical abuse and neglect: A critical review. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 22(7): 563-591.

Corcoran, K. (1997). Use of rapid assessment instruments as outcome measures. In E. L. Mullen & 

J. L. Magnabosco (Eds.), Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues 

and methods. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Davis, I. P., Landsverk, J., Newton, R., & Ganger, W. (1996). Parental visiting and foster care 

reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 363–382.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

Dawson, K. & Berry, M. (2002). Engaging families in child welfare services: An evidence-based 

approach to best practice. Child Welfare, 81(2): 293-317.

DePanfilis, D. (1999). Intervening with families when children are neglected. In H. Dubowitz (Ed.),

Neglected children: Research, practice, and policy (pp. 211-236). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications, Inc.

Dore, M. M., & Lee, J. M. (1999). The role of parent training with abusive and neglectful parents. 

Family Relations, 48, 313-325.

Farmer, E. (1996). Family reunification with high risk children: Lessons from research. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 403-424.

Festinger, T. (1996). Going home and returning to foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 

18(4), 383-4022.

Gaudin, J. (1993). Effective interventions with neglectful families. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 

20(1), 66-89.

Gregoire, K. A., & Schultz, D. J. (2001). Substance abusing child welfare parents: Treatment and 

placement outcomes. Child Welfare, 80(4), 433-452.

Haight, W. L., Sokolec, J., Budde, S., & Poertner, J. (2001). Conducting parent-child visits. UrbanaChampaign, IL: University of Illinois, Children’s Research Center.

Hess, P. M., Folaron, G., & Jefferson, A. B. (1992). Effectiveness of family reunification services: An 

innovative evaluation model. Social Work, 37(4), 304-311.

Hohman, M. M., & Butt, R. L. (2001). How soon is too soon? Addiction recovery and family 

reunification. Child Welfare, 80(1), 53-67.

Kirk, R. (2001). Tailoring intensive family preservation services for family reunification cases. Phase 

2: Field testing and validation of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for Reunification. 

Project report to the National Family Preservation Network and the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation.

Lewis, R. E., & Callaghan, S. A. (1993). The peer parent project: Compensating foster parents to 

facilitate reunification of children with their biological parents. Community Alternatives, 5(1), 

43-65.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

www.childwelfare.gov

Lewis, R. E., Walton, E., & Fraser, M. W. (1995). Examining family reunification services: A process 

analysis ofa successful experiment. Research on Social Work Practice, 5(3), 259-282.

Littell, J. H., & Schuerman, J. R. (1995). A synthesis of research on family preservation and family 

reunification programs. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

Macdonald, G. (2001). Effective interventions for child abuse and neglect: An evidence-based 

approach to planning and evaluating interventions (pp. 228-284). Chichester, England: John 

Wiley & Sons.

Maluccio, A. N., & Ainsworth, F. (2003). Drug use by parents: A challenge for family reunification 

practice. Children & Youth Services Review, 25(7), 511-533.

McMurtry, S. L., & Rose, S. J. (1998). Applying standardized assessment instruments in ongoing 

child welfare services. Milwaukee, WI: University of Wisconsin.

National Research Council (1993). Understanding child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: 

National Academies Press.

National Resource Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning. (2003). NRCFCPP concurrent 

planning curriculum: Concurrent planning for timely permanency. New York: National Resource 

Center for Foster Care and Permanency Planning/Hunter College School of Social Work.

Regional Research Institute for Human Services (1998). Strengths/needs based services evaluation. 

Portland, OR: Portland State University, Graduate School of Social Work.

Rooney, R. H. (1992). Strategies for working with involuntary clients. New York: Columbia University 

Press.

Ryan, J., Marsh, J., Testa, M., & Louderman, R. (2003). Integrating substance abuse treatment 

and child welfare services: Findings from the Illinois AODA waiver demonstration. Urbana, IL: 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Rzepnicki, T. L., Schuerman, J. R., & Johnson, P. (1997). Facing uncertainty: reuniting high-risk 

families. In J. D. Berrick, R. P. Barth, & N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review, Vol. 2. 

New York: Columbia University Press.

Sanchirico, A., & Jablonka, K. (2000). Keeping foster children connected to their biological parents: 

The impact of foster parent training and support. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 17(3), 

185-203.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows 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/issue_briefs/family_reunification/index.cfm.

Smokowski, P. R., & Wodarski, J. S. (1996). The effectiveness of child welfare services for poor, 

neglected children: A review of the empirical evidence. Research on Social Work Practice, 6(4), 

504-523.

Sonenstein, F., Malm, K., & Billing, A. (2002). Study of fathers’ involvement in permanency planning 

and child welfare casework. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Retrieved January 2006 from http://aspe.hhs.

gov/hsp/CW-dads02/

Terling, T. (1999). The efficacy of family reunification practices: Re-entry rates and correlates of 

re-entry for abused and neglected children reunited with their families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 

23(12), 1359-1370.

Walton, E. (1998). In-home family focused reunification: A six-year follow-up of a successful 

reunification experiment. Social Work Research, 22(4), 205-214.

Walton, E., Fraser, M. W., Pecora, P., & Walton, W. K. (1993). In-home family-focused reunification: 

An experimental study. Child Welfare, 72(5), 473–487.

Warsh, R., Maluccio, A. N., & Pine, B. A. (1994). Teaching family reunification: A sourcebook. 

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Wells, S. J., & Fuller, T. (2000). Elements of best practice in family centered services. Urbana, IL: 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Wulczyn, F. (2004). Family reunification. The Future of Children, 14(1), 95-113.

Wulczyn, F., & Martin, N. (2001). Linking permanency and finance in child welfare: ACS Safe 

and Timely Adoptions and Reunifications (STAR) Program. Paper presented at the National 

Association of Welfare Research and Statistics, Baltimore, MD, August, 2001.

Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2001). Measuring client engagement in non-voluntary child protective services.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Portland State University, Portland, OR.