Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS

800.394.3366 | Email: info@childwelfare.gov | https://www.childwelfare.gov

BULLETIN FOR 

PROFESSIONALS

September 2016

Family Engagement: 

Partnering With Families 

to Improve Child Welfare 

Outcomes

WHAT’S INSIDE

The benefits of family 

engagement 

Strategies for engaging 

families at the practice 

level

Engaging parents as 

peer mentors at the 

program level

Promoting family 

engagement at the 

systems level

Conclusion

Additional resources

Engaging families in the casework process 

promotes the safety, permanency, and wellbeing of children and families in the child 

welfare system and is central to successful 

practice. Effective family engagement 

occurs when child welfare practitioners 

actively collaborate and partner with family 

members throughout their involvement with 

the child welfare system, recognizing them 

as the experts on their respective situations 

and empowering them in the process.
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

2

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Family engagement is a family-centered and strengthsbased approach to making decisions, setting goals, and 

achieving desired outcomes for children and families. At 

its best, family engagement encourages and empowers 

families to be their own champions, working toward case 

goals that they have helped to develop based on their 

specific family strengths, resources, and needs. This 

partnership between caseworkers and families is founded 

on the principle of communicating openly and honestly in 

a way that supports disclosure of culture, family dynamics, 

and personal experiences to meet the individual needs of 

every family and child. Additionally, family engagement 

is recognized as essential to success across the human 

services and education fields and is now considered a 

core competency in educational programs accredited by 

the Council on Social Work Education (California State 

University, Institute for Community Collaborative Studies, 

2014). 

This bulletin for professionals provides an overview of 

the foundational elements of the family engagement 

approach, followed by strategies—including State 

and local examples—and promising practices for 

implementing this approach at the case level, peer level, 

and systems level.

The Benefits of Family Engagement

A family engagement approach to casework views families 

as the experts on their unique challenges and seeks to 

support them in developing solutions. This strengthsbased approach empowers and encourages families to 

partner with child welfare professionals to plan the best 

services and resources for the family to ensure child safety 

and, in turn, improve outcomes for children and families. 

Including families in decision-making and planning 

processes enhances the fit between family needs and 

services and makes it more likely the family will participate 

in services and complete the case plan (Bossard, Braxton, 

& Conway, 2014).

Family Empowerment

Recognizing the many benefits that come with 

family engagement, the Children’s Bureau 

Capacity Building Center for States, part of 

the broader Child Welfare Capacity Building 

Collaborative, is endorsing a framework of family 

empowerment at all levels of child welfare. The 

Center is working with States to assess their 

family empowerment models and their capacity 

to represent family interests at the practice, 

program, and policy levels.

For more information, visit the Capacity Building 

Collaborative Center for States website at https://

capacity.childwelfare.gov/states/focus-areas/

family-empowerment/.

Rather than a single tool, family engagement represents 

a mindset and approach that can reap extensive benefits, 

including: 

Family preservation. Involving family members early in 

the casework process may eliminate the need for a child 

to be placed outside of the home.

An enhanced helping relationship. A family’s belief that 

all its members are respected—and that its strengths, 

challenges, concerns, and cultural differences are 

recognized and accepted—strengthens the relationship 

with the caseworker. This creates a confidence in the 

process that increases the chances for a successful 

intervention.

Increased family buy-in. Families are more likely to 

commit to achieving case goals when they help to make 

decisions about a plan that will affect them and their 

children. 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

3

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Expanded options. The inclusion of kin and extended 

family members early in case planning increases the 

number of individuals willing to help with child care, 

transportation, etc., and expands placement and 

permanency options for children when in-home care is 

not feasible. The caseworker should defer to the family to 

identify potential helpful connections, recognizing that 

some people who play an important role may be “fictive 

kin”—those who may not be related, but who have an 

emotionally significant relationship with the family or 

child.

Improved quality and focus of caseworker visits. 

The partnership developed between the family and 

caseworker enhances the assessment process and the 

level of engagement, resulting in more constructive 

meetings and more positive outcomes (Gladstone et al., 

2012). 

Enhanced family decision-making skills. Involvement 

in a strengths-based decision-making process— 

where appropriate approaches to problem-solving are 

modeled—gives family members new strategies for 

communicating and problem-solving.

More targeted services. In a collaborative partnership, 

caseworkers and family members 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 (Pinsoneault & Fiermonte, 

2013). 

Challenges to Family Engagement

Child welfare practitioners face numerous challenges to 

engaging birth parents and extended family members on 

a regular basis, not the least of which is an unreceptive 

or nonresponsive family. Family members may be 

uneasy and mistrusting of the child welfare system for 

fear of losing their children permanently and choose 

not to engage with child welfare professionals. While 

caseworkers may often feel as though they are going 

down a one-way street with an unreceptive family, they 

should continue to pursue engagement as a best practice 

throughout the casework life cycle: intake, screening, 

planning, reviews, and closure. Training caseworkers in 

“reactance theory”—reframing client resistance as a 

normal and expected response to a lost or threatened 

personal freedom—may be helpful (Mirick, 2014).

Other factors that may impede engagement include 

issues related to poverty, single parenting, substance 

use and mental health, individual caseworker bias, lack 

of cultural competence, and agency culture (UC Davis 

Human Services Northern California Training Academy, 

2009). Some of these family stressors—particularly 

substance use, mental health, and cultural barriers—often 

benefit from intentional collaboration across service 

sectors, such as behavioral health and the education 

system. 

To encourage family engagement across disciplines, 

the Children’s Bureau launched the Family Engagement 

Inventory (FEI) in December 2014 as a means of infusing 

family voice and strengthening families in the many 

systems that serve children: child welfare, juvenile 

justice, behavioral health, early childhood education, 

and education. The FEI is designed to provide updated 

information to those who work directly with children 

and families and those who manage programs and 

make policy. Professionals can use the FEI to compare 

approaches across the five fields, access key information 

and links to relevant websites, and find practical 

examples, among other things (http://www.childwelfare.

gov/fei/).

An example of school-parent family engagement work is 

the Dual Capacity Building Framework for Family-School 

Partnerships, a Department of Education initiative to 

boost the capacity of school staff and families to work 

together on behalf of student achievement (http://www2.

ed.gov/documents/family-community/partnershipframeworks.pdf).
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

4

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Additional family engagement strategies to address these 

needs in the education and mental health sectors include:

 Intentional efforts by schools to create welcoming 

and culturally competent parent and caregiver 

communities with opportunities for family involvement 

(see National Center for Family and Community 

Connections with Schools at http://www.sedl.org/

connections/ and U.S. Department of Education Family 

and Community Engagement at http://www.ed.gov/

family-and-community-engagement/)

 Family network organizations familiar with local 

community needs, cultural diversity, and economics 

(e.g., Strengthening Families Program at www.

strengtheningfamiliesprogram.org) 

 Parent and family education programs to improve 

family functioning, prevent behavioral issues, and 

promote mental health (e.g., National Federation of 

Families for Children’s Mental Health at www.ffcmh.

org, Bridge to Hope at , and 

Mental Health America at 

http://bridge2hope.org/

www.mentalhealthamerica.

net)

 Out-of-school-time (OST) programs to support 

children and youth before and after school and during 

summer vacations to boost educational outcomes in 

disadvantaged communities (see Engaging Families 

in Out of School Time Programs Toolkit: Tools to 

Strengthen After School and Youth Programs by 

Increasing Family Involvement at http://www.bostnet.

org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Handout-BEngaging-Families-Toolkit.pdf)

Strategies for Engaging Families at the 

Practice Level

Comprehensive family engagement improves outcomes 

and is a best practice throughout the life of a child welfare 

case. There are numerous steps caseworkers can take to 

partner with families.

The Basics of Practice-Level Engagement

Quality family engagement starts at the practice level. 

Effective, collaborative case planning relies on the 

caseworker’s transparent efforts to continuously engage 

family members and others as appropriate, including:

 Gathering and assessing information in order to 

visualize the family system 

 Identifying behaviors and conditions that need to 

change 

 Matching strengths and needs with solutions and 

services 

 Reviewing, tracking, and acknowledging progress 

regularly 

 Determining readiness for key case transition points, 

such as reunification 

 Marshaling supports for relapse prevention as needed 

 Preparing for case closure 

In addition, when a child enters out-of-home care, a 

vital step in establishing communication and building a 

relationship with the family is the “icebreaker meeting” 

between birth and foster families that ideally should 

take place within the first week of removal. These 

meetings allow for valuable information sharing about 

a child’s needs, strengths, and preferences, helping to 

minimize the trauma a child may experience as a result 

of placement. For more information, see Resources 

for Planning Icebreaker Meetings Between Birth and 

Foster Parents, a 2012 guide issued by the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, at http://www.aecf.org/resources/

icebreaker-meetings/.
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

5

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Following are multiple approaches caseworkers can use 

to promote family engagement in daily practice:

Using Supportive Behaviors

 Providing cultural competency for special populations, 

e.g., Latino families (Rivera-Rodriguez, 2014)

 Balancing discussions of problems with the 

identification of strengths and resources 

 Listening to and addressing issues that concern the 

family

 Helping families meet concrete needs, e.g., housing, 

food, utilities, child care

 Setting goals that are mutually agreed upon and may 

be generated primarily by the family and stated in their 

language 

 Focusing on improving family members’ skills rather 

than providing insights 

 Providing family members with choices whenever 

possible 

 Obtaining commitment from the family that they will 

engage in mutually identified tasks 

 Sharing openly with family members about what to 

expect with regard to timelines, and, when applicable, 

court issues

 Conducting frequent and substantive caseworker visits 

with the parents, caregivers, and children 

 Using effective and agency approved Internet, social 

media, and smart phone technologies to engage 

families (Edwards-Gaura, Whitaker & Self-Brown, 2014; 

Florida’s Center for Child Welfare, 2013; Cahalane & 

Fusco, 2011)

 Recognizing and praising progress 

There are additional practices that will help make case 

planning meetings more fluid and productive and 

encourage the development of a partnership between 

child welfare staff and families, such as:

 Inviting participation from those identified by the 

family as being part of its support system, including 

extended family members or individuals external to 

the family, such as friends, teachers, and clergy

 Clarifying expectations, roles, responsibilities, and 

goals

 Communicating regularly with family members to 

minimize the possibility of unanticipated issues being 

raised during a meeting

 Considering family members’ other obligations, such 

as employment, when scheduling meetings

 Assisting family members with practical issues that 

may prevent them from attending meetings, such as 

child care and transportation

 Providing a welcoming physical environment for 

the meeting (e.g., enough space for all members or 

accessibility for individuals with disabilities)

 Incorporating the child in the meeting through an 

alternative means if s/he is unable to participate or be 

present (e.g., use of photographs or artwork) (Healy, 

Darlington & Yellowless, 2011; Dawson & Berry, 2001)

Instituting Family Teaming Models

The hallmark of family engagement practice is involving 

a broad team of interested family members in a child’s 

or a family’s case plan. When it comes to putting 

together a family team, child welfare practitioners 

have several options, including family group decisionmaking, family team conferencing, permanency 

teaming, and team decision-making meetings. For 

a detailed description of how these four particular 

approaches to family teaming models compare and 

contrast, visit http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/

FourApproachestoFamilyTeamMeetings.pdf.

Family teaming is based on the belief that family members 

should be key players on a strengths-based, solutionfocused team that values the family’s voice and focuses 

on the child’s safety, permanency, and well-being (Annie 

E. Casey Foundation, 2013). These approaches bring 

together a team of family members, extended relations, 

and others who are significant to the family to discuss the 

issues, consider alternative solutions, make decisions, 

and develop a plan. Such approaches can strengthen 

family relationships, prevent unnecessary placement and 

placement disruption, and help caseworkers identify and 

nurture a system of family supports. Caseworkers often 

engage fathers and paternal family members separately, 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

6

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

but making them part of the family team early on might 

be more effective in terms of expanding the number of 

engaged family members and improving outcomes.

Family-group decision-making (FGDM) allows the family 

to assume a primary role when children come to the 

attention of the child welfare system and considers 

“the family” as a broad social construct that includes 

not only the birth family, but next-of-kin and extended 

relations, friendships, and communities—all of whom can 

contribute to the long-term well-being of children. FGDM 

brings family members who might otherwise be at odds 

with the system to the table. The collaborative decisionmaking process that ensues is designed to enhance the 

trust of both family members and child welfare agency 

staff, increasing the chances for more long-term positive 

outcomes (McMurphy, Barnes, & Merkel-Holguin, 2012). 

A 3-year project funded by a Children’s Bureau Family 

Connection grant—No Place Like Home—looked at the 

effectiveness of FGDM in helping to prevent children 

receiving in-home services from entering or reentering 

foster care. The project centered on three child welfare 

agencies with well-established FGDM programs: Larimer 

County Department of Human Services, Colorado; South 

Dakota Department of Social Services, Rapid City; and 

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 

Dallas and Tarrant Counties; with the support of the 

Kempe Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child 

Abuse and Neglect and Casey Family Programs. 

The results showcase the importance of fidelity to the 

evaluation model and how caseworker attitudes and 

family buy-in can influence outcomes (e.g., was there a 

professional orientation toward child safety versus family 

preservation?). Ultimately, the report notes that the very 

complex methodology had several important limitations 

and may require a longer-term look.

The December 2015 No Place Like Home Final Progress 

Report is available at https://library.childwelfare.gov/cwig/

ws/library/docs/gateway/Blob/103415.

pdf?w=+NATIVE%28%27recno%3D103415%27%29&upp=0&rpp=10&r=1&m=1.

The family team meeting strategy has been effectively 

employed with recipients of Federal supportive housing 

grants at demonstration sites in Cedar Rapids, IA; San 

Francisco, CA; and in the State of Connecticut. These 

sites are part of the Partnerships to Demonstrate 

the Effectiveness of Supportive Housing for Families 

in the Child Welfare System project (funded by the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families), a 

demonstration project to test whether supportive housing 

can end homelessness and foster care placement among 

families with complex challenges, such as substance use 

and mental health issues. The family teaming strategy is 

part of the strengths-based, trauma-informed approach to 

addressing family service needs at these demonstration 

sites (Child Welfare and Supportive Housing Resource 

Center, 2015).

The project report makes the following observations:

 Families must be present, prepared, and supported

 Successful meetings depend on adherence to 

protocols and attention to training and coaching

 Efforts to identify and engage supports must be 

continuous and aimed at expanding the team

 Regular meetings are important for team 

accountability, but interim follow-up is essential

More information about this Federal initiative is available 

at http://www.csh.org/csh-solutions/serving-vulnerablepopulations/families/child-welfare-and-supportivehousing-resource-center/partnerships-to-demonstratethe-effectiveness-of-supportive-housing-for-families-withchild-welfare-involvement/. 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

7

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Incorporating Family Finding

Family finding includes casting a wide net to identify and 

search for family members and other important people 

in the lives of children in foster care, making them aware 

that children have entered care, and then engaging 

family members in the case decision-making process, 

including the development and fulfillment of case plans. 

Although family finding was initially viewed as a tool to 

enhance permanency for youth aging out of foster care, 

the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing 

Adoptions Act of 2008 requires State agencies to identify 

and locate family members within 30 days of removing a 

child from his or her home. The goal of family finding is to 

provide numerous safeguards for child and family wellbeing by identifying a lifetime family support network and 

maintaining existing family relationships. This can help to 

empower the family in emotional and legal permanency 

decisions and provide children with multiple adult 

resource connections once they leave foster care 

(Wentz & Beck, 2012).

Family finding can be challenging, particularly when 

caseworkers have limited resources or when family 

members are resistant to agency or court involvement 

or are at odds with certain family members. Engaging 

family members may also require financial assistance 

and additional childcare, therapeutic, or administrative 

supports to care for children (Jordan & Williams, 2014). 

Family finding is linked to a greater number of family 

supports for children in out-of-home care and a higher 

likelihood that a child will have at least one consistent 

relationship with an emotionally supportive adult. It has 

also been shown to yield more adoptive placements with 

a relative than traditional child welfare services, resulting 

in greater permanency options (Landsman, Boel-Studt, & 

Malone, 2014).

“You gave me back my family that I 

lost and haven’t been a part of for a 

while. Thank you.”

——Family—member—participant,—Hawaii—DHS—grant—

project

The Family Connection Discretionary Grants project in 

Hawaii demonstrated that when family finding exercises 

were launched early in casework, children were less likely 

to be removed from the home, and that if they were 

removed, they were in care for a shorter period of time. It 

also showed that within 12 months of such an intervention, 

more children were reunified and fewer children remained 

in out-of-home nonrelative foster care than those who 

did not receive such services. Further, more family 

connections were identified (Hawaii Department of 

Human Services, 2012).

The Hawaii grant was administered by EPIC 'Ohana, Inc., a 

family-focused nonprofit agency that "strives to create an 

atmosphere of respect by providing participants a place 

to be heard and an opportunity to feel like a part of the 

solution." 'Ohana-directed family conferences allowed 

for family-directed meetings and included a discussion 

of goals, family values, and strengths; an airing of shared 

concerns and legal issues; identification of available 

family, community, and professional supports; and private 

family time (EPIC 'Ohana, Inc. & Hawaii Department of 

Human Services, 2014). 

The 3-year grant concluded in 2012, but resulted in a 

safety net in Hawaii that ensures all children new to care 

are automatically identified and receive family finding 

and 'Ohana conferencing services. For more information 

on EPIC 'Ohana, Inc., visit its website at http://www.

epicohana.info/. 

Encouraging Father Involvement

The role of fathers is a key piece of the broader family 

finding effort, and efforts to locate and engage 

nonresident fathers are often the first step in the process. 

Potentially important relationships and permanency 

options are overlooked when fathers and paternal 

relatives are underrepresented. The findings from Round 

2 of the Federal Child and Family Services Reviews 

(CFSRs) shows that of the reviewed cases, fathers were 

engaged in less than half—only 47 percent—compared 

to reported mother engagement, which was at 71 percent 

(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 

2011). The Children’s Bureau conducts the CFSRs, which 

are periodic reviews of State child welfare systems.
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

8

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

A recent study of child welfare workers funded by the 

Annie E. Casey Foundation points to major barriers 

to father engagement and also offers suggestions for 

how child welfare professionals can encourage their 

involvement (Coakley, Kelley, & Bartlett, 2014):

Barriers to Engagement

 Ongoing relationship difficulties with the mother

 Substance use problems

 Lack of a valid address or working phone number for 

contact purposes

 Distrust of agency and/or caseworker

Steps to Engagement

 Use diligent efforts to identify, find, communicate with, 

and engage fathers

 Offer fathers the same services and supports that 

mothers receive, and treat them equally

 Address father-specific needs (community services, 

father support groups, counseling, housing and 

employment services, etc.)

 Ensure a constructive caseworker-father relationship

For additional information, see:

National Fatherhood Initiative website at http://www.

fatherhood.org.

A Guide for Father Involvement in Systems of Care, 

featuring strategies for systems and families, especially 

those who are involved in systems of care, to help 

fathers become more involved. Available at http://www.

tapartnership.org/docs/Father%20Involvement%20

Guide_June%202013.pdf. 

Best Practice Guide for Engaging Fathers and NonResidential Parents, issued by the North Carolina 

Department of Social Services and available at http://web.

archive.org/web/20150129185453/http://www.ncdhhs.gov/

dss/best_practices_pilot/misc/Practice%20Guide%20

for%20Fatherhood%20Engagement.pdf.

Employing the Solution-Based Casework 

Approach

Solution-Based Casework (SBC) embraces family 

engagement with three theoretical foundations: family 

life cycle theory, relapse prevention/cognitive behavioral 

therapy theory, and solution-focused family therapy (Antle 

et al., 2008). SBC assumes full partnership with every 

family as its goal and considers a family’s unique lifestyle 

patterns to inform and promote the skills needed to 

prevent negative behaviors.

In SBC, family empowerment drives case planning and is 

focused on:

 Capitalizing on family strengths

 Setting goals that use a family’s specific language and 

culture to support family “ownership”

 Creating concrete goals specifically matched to the 

family’s needs

 Tracking progress with the family and celebrating 

successes along the way

SBC has proven to be an effective partnership that results 

in improved outcomes, including:

 Greater follow through from referrals to services

 Increase in number of families signing their case 

plans—an important indicator of involvement

 Higher likelihood that tasks and goals will be achieved 

 Fewer recidivism referral reports for repeat 

maltreatment 

For more information, visit 

http://www.solutionbasedcasework.com.

Using the Motivational Interview

The practice of motivational interviewing may be 

particularly useful in getting parents to recognize the 

potential benefits of participating in a home-based 

family support program. When skillfully employed, this 

technique helps an individual see the possibilities for—

and merit in—positive change and then encourages 

and supports them in this effort. The practice requires a 

caseworker to listen empathetically and build trust with 

the family before pushing for change. If the caseworker 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

9

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

neglects to do this, a parent may resist change and put 

children at further risk. Child welfare workers trained in 

motivational interviewing are more apt to develop an 

empathetic and less confrontational style, which has 

been shown to result in greater parental cooperation 

and follow-through (Iannos & Antcliff, 2013) and benefit 

casework practice overall.

For additional information, see http://cascw.umn.edu/

portfolio-items/motivational-interviewing-module/.

Developing Cultural Competence

Caseworkers should be trained in cultural competence 

so they are more culturally sensitive and responsive, 

particularly in areas with culturally diverse populations 

and when working with family members or youth who 

have identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, 

or questioning (LGBTQ). A deficit in understanding 

the cultural needs, values, and strengths of an at-risk 

population may undermine the quality of a family’s case 

plan and provided services (Rivera-Rodriguez, 2014). 

A lack of cultural sensitivity may lead to assumptions 

and misconceptions that can result in limited family 

engagement, frustrated efforts, and misguided resources.

For example, the number of Latino children in the child 

welfare system has grown substantially in the last 2 

decades, and there is a proportional need for culturally 

competent providers. Because the Latino community is 

very entrenched in its own social networks, accessing 

outside services can be challenging. Language barriers 

and immigration status may keep at-risk families beneath 

the radar. Developing parent mentors within the Latino 

community holds promise for helping this population to 

access services (Ayon, 2011).

The National Family Preservation Network offers training 

in cultural competence (http://nfpn.org/products/253-

cultural-competence.html). For additional resources on 

cultural competence, including guidelines on sensitivity 

and responsiveness when working with LGBTQ youth, see:

 The National Center for Cultural Competence website 

at http://nccc.georgetown.edu/

 A list of resources on cultural competence at http://

www.tapartnership.org/COP/CLC/default.php/

 “Self-Assessment Checklist for Personnel Providing 

Services and Supports to LGBTQ Youth and Their 

Families” at http://nccc.georgetown.edu/documents/

Final%20LGBTQ%20Checklist.pdf

Engaging Parents as Peer Mentors at 

the Program Level

Peer mentoring programs enlist individuals who were 

once involved with child welfare services to help parents 

currently involved with the system meet case plan goals 

and navigate the system. Parent and caregiver mentors 

assist current parents through mutual sharing, support, 

and advocacy and are becoming a common best practice 

in child welfare. Parent partner programs are founded 

on the premise that these “experienced” parents and 

caregivers are uniquely qualified to help by serving as 

empathetic peers, mentors, guides, and advocates.

Parent partner programs have proven to be beneficial 

to the mentors as well as the mentees. Mentors take 

on helping and leadership roles, feel enhanced selfworth and responsibility, build workplace skills, and 

are compensated for their efforts. While some parent 

partners might have records of substance use and 

criminal histories that limit employment options, serving 

as a parent partner might open new possibilities as they 

establish connections in their communities and attain 

new job skills (Leake, Longworth-Reed, Williams, & Potter, 

2012).

To be successful, parent partner programs need strong 

leadership that can work collaboratively with multiple 

agency and community partners, such as the multilayered 

management model that exists in Iowa (Midwest 

Child Welfare Implementation Center, 2014) and the 

involvement of local nonprofits and faith organizations. 

Because some agencies are not accustomed to treating 

their former child welfare clients as paraprofessionals, 

supervisors may need to work to increase staff buy-in so 

that working collaboratively with parent partners becomes 

an established part of the process. The value of parent 

partners may also need to be better understood by 

providers in adjacent service areas, such as the judicial, 

mental health, and substance use arenas, many of whom 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

10

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

may never have worked with former child welfare system 

clients in paraprofessional roles (Leake, Longworth-Reed, 

Williams, & Potter, 2012). 

Parents Helping Parents [Contra Costa 

County, CA]

The Parents Helping Parents program in Contra Costa 

County, established over 11 years ago as part of a Systems 

of Care (SOC) grant, has a detailed professional 

development plan for each individual employed as a 

parent partner. Each parent partner has to become 

competent in understanding county government, agency 

protocol, confidentiality, required reporting, team 

decision-making, options available to parents, and how 

the court process works.

The program participates in foster parent orientations and 

training, which has been helpful in dispelling any 

preconceived ideas about who or what “parents” look like 

or act like, according to Judi Knittel, program supervisor. 

Contra Costa County has contracted with the local Child 

Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC) so that parent partners 

are CAPC employees and eligible for benefits (vacation/

sick time, health insurance, a retirement plan, etc.) that 

they were not able to access as contract employees. 

The Parents Helping Parents program initially engaged 

the parent at the detention hearing, but is now employing 

the model in a preventive capacity. Parent partners never 

officially close a case, so if parents encounter problems, 

even after their cases are closed, they are encouraged to 

call their parent partner for assistance. 

“....at the conclusion of the SOC grant, the data 

showed that having a parent partner increased 

reunification by about 50 percent and reduced 

recidivism by about 50 percent. The parent 

partner program has improved our outcomes 

in these two areas while helping parents to feel 

heard, respected, and included in case planning. 

It is a model that worked 10 years ago, and is still 

working today to achieve permanency for the 

children of Contra Costa County.”

—Judi Knittel, Family Engagement Unit 

supervisor, Contra Costa County

Both caseworkers and attorneys have found the parent 

partners to be very helpful in their work and particularly 

effective in explaining the court process to parents in a 

way that the attorneys cannot. Judges have also found 

the support afforded by parent partners to be useful and 

frequently encourage parents to sign up for the program 

(J. Knittel, personal communication, January 15, 2016).

An independent evaluation of the Contra Costa program 

showed that 62 percent of children whose parents were 

mentored by a parent partner reunified with their parents 

within 18 months of their removal, compared to 37 

percent for those who did not (HHS, 2010).

Promoting Family Engagement at the 

Systems Level

Systems-level family engagement occurs with the 

intentional inclusion of family members who were formerly 

involved with child welfare services as active participants 

in systems change activities: encouraging them to 

advocate for policy changes and serve on decisionmaking boards, inviting them to evaluate child welfare 

services and programs, employing them as practice 

advisors and consultants, and recruiting them to conduct 

trainings and participate in social marketing campaigns 

(HHS, 2010). 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

11

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Parent partner programs have been particularly 

instrumental in affecting systems-level change. In Iowa, 

for instance, birth parents who have been involved with 

the child welfare system sit on State child welfare boards, 

attend local meetings, and conduct trainings—and have 

a considerable impact on providers and child welfare 

agencies (S. Persons, personal communication, January 

20, 2016).

Partnering With Parents for Systems Change 

[Iowa]

The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has a 

sweeping initiative underway to institutionalize parent 

engagement strategies and inform policy, programs, and 

practices statewide. The project, Partnering with Parents 

for Systems Change, includes a major expansion of the 

State’s parent partner mentoring program. Because the 

initial phase of this program had demonstrated positive 

outcomes for children and families in its pilot areas, DHS 

proposed to expand its implementation from six sites 

covering 16 counties to 21 sites covering 68 counties and 

finally scaled up its plan to be offered in all 99 of Iowa’s 

counties by 2015. The contract was awarded to Children & 

Families of Iowa (CFI), an existing human services agency 

(Midwest Child Welfare Implementation Center, 2014).

According to the Children & Families of Iowa Parent 

Partner Annual Report for 2014–2015, the majority of 

families involved with the program are benefiting from 

the mentoring services, most notably in the areas of being 

able to “effectively speak up for myself and my family,” in 

feeling comfortable when interacting with DHS and other 

service providers, and in being able to listen to DHS and 

other service providers “and understand their concerns 

with my situation.”

The Iowa multilayered parent partner management model 

includes a State coordinator, a service area coordinator for 

each Iowa DHS service area, numerous local coordinators 

for each cluster site around the State, and multiple 

parent partner roles, including lead parent partner (CFI 

Annual Report, 2015). The target service population for 

this program includes parents whose children have been 

removed from their care and/or those who can only 

reside with their children under special court-directed 

circumstances. 

The parent program eligibility requirements include the 

following:

 Must have been reunited with children for at least 1 

year (training may begin after 6 months of reunification)

 Must have had at least 1 year to resolve issues 

surrounding termination of parental rights

 Must have a stable and healthy family situation with no 

current child welfare involvement

 Must have no founded child abuse report since 

assuming role of parent partner or parent partner in 

training

 Must have some flexibility to attend meetings and 

facilitate groups

 Must have been substance free for 1 year, if substance 

use was a protective concern

 Must participate in all required training

 Must agree to share personal child welfare experiences 

with other parents and child welfare staff

 Must agree to demonstrate appropriate behavior

The following will disqualify a potential parent partner 

from entering the program:

 Founded sexual abuse

 Listed on the sex abuse registry

 Convicted in the death of a child

Iowa parent partner duties:

 Engage families in case planning

 Maintain connections between parents and children 

during out-of-home care

 Share personal experiences to help parents in 

their efforts at reunification and provide hope and 

inspiration

 Assist with reunification goal and/or the development 

of appropriate alternative permanent plans

 Provide encouragement, outreach, and support

 Collaborate with parent partner team
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

12

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

Iowa parent partners are compensated for their time and 

travel and are asked for a minimum 1-year commitment to 

mentor at least two families. The program provides parent 

partners clinical support for issues that arise in the provision 

of services.

Visit the Iowa Parent Partner page at http://dhs.iowa.gov/

parent-partners.

Agency supervisors can incorporate family voice into 

policies and procedures by supporting the following best 

practices:

 Using family-centered language in policies and other 

agency documents 

 Creating a family-friendly environment in agency offices 

 Providing supervision, coaching, and training that 

encourages family engagement 

 Including family-friendly practice in position descriptions 

 Engaging families in decision-making processes and in 

designing policies and practices 

 Assessing whether child welfare information systems 

support a family-centered approach 

 Including family engagement measures in agency 

evaluation and performance measurement 

 Providing caseworkers with the necessary research tools 

and other resources to aid in finding and engaging family 

members

 Ensuring the availability of materials and service 

accessibility for diverse cultural populations

 Creating an organizational structure with 

○ Leadership dedicated to family engagement

○ Defined roles for planning and facilitating team 

decision-making meetings

○ Quality assurance and case review monitoring

○ External assistance as needed

○ Individualized performance review system

○ Systems change initiatives and program improvement 

plans

○ Identification of service gaps

 Including parents and youth on agency councils and 

boards

For more information about refining agency procedures, 

see the Child Welfare Information Gateway April 2015 

bulletin, Supervising for Quality Child Welfare Practice, 

available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/

effective_supervision.pdf.

Conclusion

There are many ways in which child welfare caseworkers 

and agencies can engage families, ranging from largescale policy changes to simple changes in daily practice. 

Fundamentally, though, it requires a paradigm shift in 

attitude where the family is treated as the expert on its 

unique situation and encouraged to draw on its specific 

strengths and resources to ensure more positive longterm outcomes. By reviewing the concepts presented 

in this issue brief, child welfare professionals can assess 

how well their own agencies engage families and initiate 

changes to improve their work in this area.

Additional Resources

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Provides resources on family-centered practice 

approaches, including information on engaging families in 

case planning.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/famcentered/

Engaging Families: Making Visits Matter—A Field 

Guide

Features detailed practice recommendations for family 

engagement, including steps for working with resistance.

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

CPM%20Field%20Guide.pdf

Family Engagement Inventory

Website offering information and strategies for infusing 

family “voice” and strengthening families in the many 

systems that serve children: child welfare, juvenile 

justice, behavioral health, early childhood education, and 

education.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/fei/
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

13

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

This publication is available online at https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f-fam-engagement/.

References

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2013). Strategies in child 

welfare: Four approaches to family team meetings. 

Retrieved from http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/

FourApproachestoFamilyTeamMeetings.pdf

Antle, B. F., Christensen, D., Barbee, A. P., & Martin, M. 

(2008). Solution-based casework: A paradigm shift to 

effective, strengths-based practice for child protection. 

Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, 197–227.

Ayon, C. (2011). Latino families and the public child welfare 

system: Examining the role of social support networks. 

Children and Youth Services Review, 33, 2061–2066.

Bossard, N., Braxton, A., & Conway, D. (2014). Meaningful 

family engagement. In G. Mallon & P. Hess (Eds.), Child 

welfare for the 21st century: A handbook of practices, 

policies, and programs (pp. 70–85). New York: 

Columbia University Press.

Cahalane, H., & Anderson, C. (2011). Family engagement 

strategies in child welfare practice. In H. Cahalane 

(Ed.), Contemporary issues in child welfare practice (pp. 

39–67). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.

California State University Monterey Bay, Institute for 

Community Collaborative Studies. (2014). Report 

# 1: Differential response and family engagement: 

Annotated bibliography. Retrieved from http://mcdss.

co.monterey.ca.us/reports/downloads/ICCS-DSSReport1-063014.pdf

Child Welfare & Supportive Housing Resource Center. 

(2015). Ensuring family voice while navigating multiple 

systems: The family team meeting strategy in 

supportive housing. Retrieved from http://www.cssp.

org/reform/child-welfare/cwshrc/Notes-from-FieldFTM.pdf

Coakley, T., Kelley, A., & Bartlett, R. (2014). Exploring child 

welfare workers’ attitudes and practice with fathers. 

Journal of Family Strengths, 14(1), 1–17. Retrieved from 

http://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu./jfs/vol14/iss1/11

Dawson, K., & Berry, M. (2002). Engaging families in child 

welfare services: An evidence-based approach to best 

practice. Child Welfare, 81, 293–317.

Edwards-Guara, A., Whitaker, D., & Self-Brown, S. 

(2014). Can social networking be used to promote 

engagement in child maltreatment prevention 

programs? Two pilot studies. Western Journal of 

Emergency Medicine, 15(5), 575–581. doi: 10.5811/

westjem.2014.4.21413

EPIC ‘Ohana, & Hawaii Department of Human Services. 

(2013). Maintaining connections: The values behind 

family engagement practices within the child welfare 

system. Retrieved from http://epicohana.org/resources/

maintainingconnectionsmanual.pdf

Florida’s Center for Child Welfare. (2013). Florida safety 

methodology eLearning modules. Retrieved from 

http://centerforchildwelfare.fmhi.usf.edu/Training/

fsdmm.shtml 

Gladstone, J., Dumbrill, G., Leslie, B., Koster, A., Young, 

M., & Ismalia, A. (2014). Understanding worker-parent 

engagement in child protection casework. Children 

and Youth Services Review, 44, 56–64. Retrieved 

from www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

S0190740914002126

Hawaii Department of Human Services. (2012). Family 

connections Hawaii final report. Retrieved from http://

familyfinding.org/uploaded_files/fck/files/Family%20

Connections%20Hawaii%20Final%20Report%2012-31-

2012.pdf

Healy, K., Darlington, Y., & Yellowlees, J. (2011). Family 

participation in child protection practice: An 

observational study of family group meetings. Child 

and Family Social Work, 17(1), 1–12.

Iannos, M., & Antcliff, G. (2013). The application of 

motivational interviewing techniques for engaging 

“resistant families.” Retrieved from https://aifs.gov.au/

cfca/publications/application-motivationalinterviewing-techniques 
Family Engagement: Partnering With Families to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes https://www.childwelfare.gov

JBS International. (2011). Child and Family Services 

Reviews aggregate report: Round 2: Fiscal years 

2007–2010. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/

sites/default/files/cb/fcfsr_report.pdf

Jordan, E., & Williams, S. (2014). Voices from the field: 

Stakeholder perspectives on family finding. Child 

Trends Research Brief, 2. Retrieved from http://www.

childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Familyfinding-voices-from-the-field.pdf

Landsman, M., Boel-Studt, S., & Malone, K. (2014). Results 

from a family finding experiment. Children and Youth 

Services Review, 36, 62–69.

Leake, R., Longworth-Reed, L., Williams, N., & Potter, 

C. (2012). Exploring the benefits of a parent partner 

mentoring program in child welfare. Journal of 

Family Strengths, 12(1), 1–15. Retrieved from http://

digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol12/iss1/6

McMurphy, S., Barnes, G., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2012). 

What works in family group decision-making. In P. 

Curtis’ and G. Alexander’s (Eds.), What works in child 

welfare (pp. 117–138). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.

Midwest Child Welfare Implementation Center. (2014). 

Iowa’s Partnering With Parents for Systems Change—

Final implementation project report. Lincoln, NE: 

University of Nebraska Press

Mirick, R. (2014). The relationship between reactance and 

engagement in a child welfare sample. Child & Family 

Social Work, 19, 333–342.

Pinsoneault, L., & Fiermonte, C. (2013). Realizing 

permanency, well-being through authentic 

engagement. Retrieved from http://www.alliance1.

org/pubs/realizing-permanency-well-being-throughauthentic-engagement

Rivera-Rodriguez, H. (2014). Engaging Latino Families. 

In G. Mallon & P. Hess (Eds.), Child welfare for the 

21st century: A handbook of practices, policies, and 

programs (pp.86–93). New York: Columbia University 

Press.

University of California, Davis, Northern California 

Training Academy. (2009). The importance of family 

engagement in child welfare services. Retrieved from 

http://academy.extensiondlc.net/file.php/1/resources/

LR-FamilyEngagement.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. (2010). Family involvement in the Improving 

Child Welfare Outcomes Through Systems of Care 

initiative. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/

pubPDFs/FamilyInvolvement_Report.pdf

Wentz, R., & Beck, K. (2012). Unlocking reasonable efforts: 

Kinship is key. Clearinghouse Review Journal of Poverty 

Law and Policy, 46, 99–112.

Suggested Citation: 

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2016). Family 

engagement: Partnering with families to improve child 

welfare outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

Administration for Children and Families 

Administration on Children, Youth and Families 

Children’s Bureau