Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS

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

WHAT’S INSIDE

Benefits of supporting 

reunification and 

preventing reentry

National statistics

Factors that affect 

reunification and reentry

Systemwide strategies 

that support 

reunification and 

prevent reentry

Practices that support 

reunification and 

prevent reentry

State and local 

strategies 

Conclusion

References

BULLETIN FOR 

PROFESSIONALS

October 2017

Supporting Successful 

Reunifications 

If a child has been removed from the care of his or 

her parents, safe and timely family reunification1 is the preferred 

permanency option for most children.2

 Safe and stable reunification 

does not begin or end with the return of children to the care of 

their parents. Caseworkers should give careful consideration to 

assessing families’ capacity for keeping children safe and their 

readiness to reunify as well as to planning for postreunification 

services and contingencies in the event of future safety concerns. 

Child welfare agencies may find it challenging to help families 

achieve timely reunification while at the same time preventing 

children from reentering foster care. Agencies that focus their 

efforts on only one aspect of the challenge (reducing time to 

reunification versus reducing reentries to foster care) may find 

themselves succeeding in one area and losing ground in the 

other. Addressing both issues is difficult, but it can be done. This 

bulletin offers information to help child welfare agency managers 

by providing strategies for achieving reunification and preventing 

reentry and includes examples of promising practices being 

implemented by states and localities.

1 The physical return of a child to parents or caretakers may occur before the return of 

legal custody. During this period, the child welfare agency continues to supervise the 

family for some period of time, often referred to as a “trial home visit.” Reunification is 

considered achieved when both care and custody are returned to parents or guardians and 

the child is discharged from the child welfare system.

2 The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 requires that states make reasonable efforts 

to preserve or reunify families, but it also outlines several conditions (e.g., the parent 

committed the murder of another of his or her children, the parent submitted the child 

to aggravated circumstances as defined by state law) under which states do not have to 

make such efforts. For additional information about reasonable efforts, refer to Reasonable 

Efforts to Preserve or Reunify Families and Achieve Permanency for Children at https://

www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/laws-policies/statutes/reunify/.
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Benefits of Supporting Reunification 

and Preventing Reentry

Achieving timely reunification while preventing reentry into 

foster care has benefits at multiple levels. Children do best 

when raised in a stable family setting, which can support 

positive effects on their cognitive, behavioral, and health 

outcomes (Craigie, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2010). When 

fewer children reenter foster care, it indicates that families 

have made adjustments that improve family functioning 

and keep children safe in the long term. Additionally, 

state and local agencies can realize cost benefits by safely 

reducing the number of children in out-of-home care. In 

2014, federal, state, and local government agencies spent 

$13.5 billion for out-of-home care, which accounts for nearly 

half of all of their child welfare expenditures (Annie E. 

Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, & Child Trends, 

2016). By increasing the rate of successful reunifications, 

states and localities can reinvest funds otherwise targeted 

for out-of-home care to other areas of the child welfare 

system, such as prevention or in-home services.

National Statistics

The Children’s Bureau within the Administration for 

Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) collects state and 

national data on reunification and reentry. Based on data 

from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting 

System, reunification is the most common goal for children 

in out-of-home care (55 percent in 2015) as well as the most 

common outcome for children leaving care (51 percent in 

2015) (HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, 2016). According to 

Child Welfare Outcomes 2010–2014: Report to Congress, 

the national median percentage of children achieving 

reunification in 2014 within 12 months of entry into care 

was 69.2 percent, and 7.5 percent of all children who 

entered care in 2014 were reentering within 12 months of 

a prior foster care episode (HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, 

2017). For additional details, including comparisons over 

time and state-specific data, refer to chapter 4 of the 

report at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/

cwo10_14.pdf#page=49. To view additional statistics from 

the Children’s Bureau, visit https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/

research-data-technology/statistics-research. 

The Children’s Bureau reviews state performance in the areas 

of reunification and reentry through the Child and Family 

Services Reviews (CFSRs). Item 8 of the CFSR measures 

whether a state “has achieved the permanency goals of 

reunification, guardianship, or permanent placement with 

relatives in a timely manner or, if the goals had not been 

achieved, whether the agency had made, or was in the 

process of making, diligent efforts to achieve the goal” 

(HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, 2011). In the second round of 

the CFSRs, only three states (5.8 percent) had this item rated 

as a strength (HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, 2011).3

 For a state 

to receive a strength rating, 90 percent of all reviewed cases 

must be rated as a strength. CFSR item 5 measures whether 

a child’s entry into foster care during the period of review 

occurred within 12 months of exit from a previous foster care 

episode. In the second round, 40 states (76.9 percent) had 

this item rated as a strength (HHS, ACF, Children’s Bureau, 

2011). For additional details, refer to Federal Child and Family 

Services Reviews Aggregate Report: Round 2: Fiscal Years 

2007–2010 at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/

fcfsr_report.pdf. 

Factors That Affect Reunification and 

Reentry

Many factors influence the likelihood of whether children 

will reunify with their families or remain in their care after 

reunification. Although some studies have contradictory 

findings, research has shown that certain child, family, and 

case characteristics can affect child outcomes. When the 

following factors are present, children in care are less likely 

to reunify with their families (Akin, 2011; Carnochan, Lee, & 

Austin, 2013):

 Being placed in kinship care 

 Spending longer time in care or experiencing more 

placements

 Being African-American 

 Having health, mental health, or behavioral problems 

(child) 

 Coming from a single-parent family 

 Receiving an initial placement in a group home or 

emergency shelter 

3 As of the writing of this bulletin, round 2 was the most recently completed 

round of the CFSRs. As of June 5, 2017, only 22 round 3 final reports were available.
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

When the following factors are present, children are more 

likely to reenter care after reunification (Shaw & Webster, 

2011; Lee, Jonson-Reid, & Drake, 2012; Goering & Shaw, 

2017):

 Being African-American 

 Having health, mental health, or behavioral problems 

(child) 

 Having a parent with mental health problems, low 

education, or substance use issues

 Living in poverty 

 Having a shorter stay in care

 Experiencing a higher number of placements

Children may be less likely to reenter care if their families 

received in-home services during or after foster care, if 

they spent a longer time in care before reunifying, or if 

they had previously been placed with relatives (Shaw & 

Webster, 2011; Lee, Jonson-Reid, & Drake, 2012; Goering 

& Shaw, 2017). Service receipt, along with the support 

and case management associated with them, may help 

families adjust after reunification, and longer stays in care 

may provide families with more time to achieve their case 

goals. Relative care placements tend to be more stable 

and continue for a longer duration prior to reunification 

compared with nonrelative settings, both of which serve 

as supportive factors for the reunification.

Systemwide Strategies That Support 

Reunification and Prevent Reentry

Agencies can pave the way for timely, safe, and stable 

reunification by incorporating the following systemwide 

approaches:

 Collaborating with the courts in working toward timely, 

stable reunification 

 Collaborating with related agencies, community 

providers and members, and families involved with 

child welfare 

 Implementing policies and standards that clearly 

define expectations, identify requirements, and 

reinforce casework practices that support reunification 

and prevent reentry

 Ensuring agency leaders support staff in achieving 

safety and stability

 Maintaining manageable caseloads and workloads that 

allow caseworkers time to engage families 

 Ensuring the availability and accessibility of diverse 

out-of-home and postreunification services that can 

respond to families’ identified needs and conditions 

(see the following section for additional information)

 Implementing data systems that monitor systemwide 

and case-level data on timeliness of reunification and 

reentry into foster care 

 Engaging external assistance in the form of training, 

consultation, and technical assistance from recognized 

experts 

Concurrent Planning

Concurrent planning is the practice of seeking 

multiple options for permanency at the same 

time rather than consecutively in order to reduce 

children’s time without a permanent family. 

Often, this means that reunification is sought as 

the primary goal, but the caseworker will also 

simultaneously seek out other options, such as 

adoption or guardianship. Additional research on 

concurrent planning is still necessary to better 

determine its effects on outcomes, including 

reunification and reentry (Child Welfare Information 

Gateway, 2012). For additional information 

about concurrent planning, refer to Concurrent 

Planning: What the Evidence Shows at https://www.

childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/concurrentevidence/ or the Child Welfare Information Gateway 

webpage on the topic at https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/permanency/planning/concurrent/.
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Practices That Support Reunification 

and Prevent Reentry

Efforts to promote successful reunification can begin as 

soon as the decision is made to place a child in out-ofhome care and continue throughout the out-of-home 

placement and any subsequent reunification. This section 

describes specific practices agencies can employ to 

support reunification and prevent reentry while children 

are in out-of-home care and after they have been 

returned to their families. The practices are organized 

into casework frameworks and practices, parent support 

systems, and legal system involvement. These categories 

are not mutually exclusive, and some practices may have 

implications in multiple areas. Information Gateway 

resources regarding these topics are found at the end of 

this section.

Casework Frameworks and Practices

The following are examples of frameworks and practices 

caseworkers can use in their work with families seeking 

reunification or who have been reunified with children 

formerly in out-of-home care.

 Family group decision-making (FGDM) is an umbrella 

term for various processes (e.g., family team meetings, 

team decision-making) in which families are brought 

together with agency personnel and other interested 

parties to be an active participant in identifying 

underlying issues and make decisions about and 

develop plans for the care of their children and for 

needed services. This helps avoid having the case plan 

be solely prescribed by others without the family’s 

input and engagement. Engaging families in decisions 

about where children should be placed to ensure their 

safety while working toward reunification can help 

increase families’ buy-in and follow through with the 

case plan. Among other positive outcomes, FGDM 

has been shown to increase rates of reunification and 

reduce reentry (Sheets et al., 2009). 

 Intensive reunification services are short term, 

intensive, family centered, and are intended to reunite 

families whose children would otherwise likely remain 

in out-of-home care for more than 6 months (National 

Family Preservation Network, 2003). In a study of 

families experiencing the removal of a child for the 

first time, those receiving intensive and standard 

services reunified at similar rates, but families receiving 

intensive services reunified more quickly, had fewer 

placement moves while in care, and had lower rates 

of rereferral for maltreatment (Pine, Spath, Werrbach, 

Jenson, & Kerman, 2009). Two examples of intensive 

reunification services models are those from the 

Institute for Family Development’s Homebuilders 

program (http://www.institutefamily.org/programs_

IFPS.asp) and the National Family Preservation 

Network (http://www.nfpn.org/reunification.html). 

 Solution-Based Casework (http://www.

solutionbasedcasework.com/) provides a strengthsbased framework for caseworkers to partner with 

families to find solutions to difficult, everyday 

situations facing the family. Families receiving 

Solution-Based Casework services have been found to 

experience reduced recidivism rates compared with 

families receiving standard services (Antle, Barbee, 

Christensen, & Sullivan, 2009). 

 Comprehensive family assessments have been 

linked to various positive outcomes for children 

and families, including increased reunification and 

reductions in maltreatment recurrence (Smithgall, 

DeCoursey, Yang, & Haseltine, 2012). Two standardized 

tools that show promise for improving reunification 

are the North Carolina Family Assessment Scales for 

Reunification (http://www.nfpn.org/assessment-tools) 

and the Structured Decision-Making Reunification 

Reassessment (http://www.nccdglobal.org/assessment/

structured-decision-making-sdm-model).

 Postreunification services can help support families 

who have been reunited. Both parents and children 

may require services to help prevent reentry. Prior 

to reunification, child welfare agencies can identify 

families’ and children’s expected needs after 

reunification and match them with appropriate services 

in the community. In at least one study, children in 

families receiving postreunification services were less 

likely to reenter care than children whose families did 

not receive those services (Lee, Jonson-Reid, & Drake, 

2012). 
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

 Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a promising 

technique to reduce the recurrence of maltreatment. 

The curriculum focuses on relationship enhancement 

as well as how parents discipline their children. The 

parent and child are treated together, and their 

interactions are observed by the therapist. Families 

involved with child welfare who receive PCIT are 

less likely to have future reports of maltreatment 

(Chaffin, Funderburk, Bard, Valle, & Gurwitch, 2011). 

Caseworkers can refer families to PCIT providers in 

their communities.

 Children’s regular visits with parents and siblings. 

Frequent and regular parent-child visits help children, 

youth, and parents maintain continuity of their 

relationships, improve relationships, and help them 

prepare to reunite. Visits can provide parents with 

opportunities to learn and practice parenting skills 

as well as give caseworkers opportunities to observe 

and assess family progress. Children and youth who 

have regular visits with their families are more likely 

to reunify (Chambers, Brocato, Fatemi, & Rodriguez, 

2016). 

Parent Support Systems

Strengthening parents’ support systems can be a key 

strategy for supporting reunification or avoiding reentry. 

Caseworkers can seek opportunities to incorporate 

additional supports, such as the following, into families’ 

case plans: 

 Foster parent-birth parent partnerships show 

promise in increasing reunification (Casey Family 

Programs, 2011). When foster parents support or 

mentor birth parents, they can enhance the ability of 

birth parents to stay informed about their children’s 

development while they are in out-of-home care, 

improve parenting skills, increase placement stability, 

and lead to more timely reunifications. Partnership 

strategies being employed in states include icebreaker 

meetings and visit coaching. For additional information 

about icebreaker meetings, refer to the Annie E. Casey 

Foundation’s Icebreaker Meetings: A Tool for Building 

Relationships Between Birth and Foster Parents at 

http://www.aecf.org/resources/icebreaker-meetings/.

 Education and training programs for birth parents 

can enhance the parent-child relationship and 

teach both specific parenting and general problemsolving skills. They also can increase the likelihood 

of reunification (Franks et al., 2013). Even training for 

foster parents may be able to improve reunification 

rates. Children whose foster parents received the 

KEEP (Keeping Foster and Kin Parents Supported and 

Trained) training were more likely to be reunified than 

those whose foster parents did not receive the training 

(Chamberlain, Price, Reid, & Landsverk, 2008). This may 

be due to a reduction in children’s behavior problems, 

which may make reunification more likely. 

 Parent mentor programs utilize parents who were 

once involved with the child welfare system to assist 

currently involved parents. The mentors provide birth 

parents with support, advocacy, and help navigating 

the child welfare system. Research shows that 

these programs can increase reunification rates for 

participating families (Enano, Freisthler, Perez-Johnson, 

& Lovato-Hermann, 2017). Two-parent mentoring 

programs that have shown promise in bolstering 

reunification include Parent Partners (Berrick, Cohen, & 

Anthony, 2011) and Parents in Partnership (Enano et al., 

2017). 

 The use of recovery coaches, who assist parents in 

successfully completing substance use treatment, has 

been shown to help families reunify with their children 

(Ryan, Victor, Moore, Mowbray, & Perron, 2016). 

Recovery coaches support families by conducting 

assessments, developing service plans, advocating 

for parents, conducting home visits, and working in 

partnership with the child welfare caseworker. 

 Social support can provide a safety net for parents 

before and after reunification. A strong support system 

can help families achieve reunification and maintain 

healthy family functioning (Lietz, Lacasse, & Cacciatore, 

2011). Helping parents strengthen their support 

networks and building community partnerships 

for child protection provide informal and formal 

opportunities for families to deal with stresses that 

could lead to maltreatment. 
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Services to Support Reunification

Families seeking to reunify often are experiencing multiple problems that need to be addressed prior to 

reunification. Families may be referred to voluntary services or be required by the courts to participate. Parents 

who fully use services are more likely to reunify than those who only partially participate or do not participate 

(D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014). However, the likelihood of reunification may vary based on the types of services or 

supports families receive. For example, one study found that families receiving financial assistance or housing 

services were more likely to reunify than those who received other types of services (Cheng & Li, 2012). 

Given that service receipt can affect reunification, it is important that agencies ensure families’ needs are correctly 

identified and addressed. In one study, more than one-third of parents seeking to reunify were ordered to 

receive services targeting problems they were not identified as having (D’Andrade & Chambers, 2012). This can 

overburden parents already dealing with complex issues and diminish their ability to improve family functioning, 

which could lead to extended time in care for children. 

It is also important that caseworkers accurately assess if families have improved functioning after service receipt. 

A parent’s participation in a service does not necessarily mean that changes in behavior or circumstances will 

occur. In some cases, a caseworker may view parents who complete services as having a higher commitment to 

reunification or as being more compliant with the case plan, which could affect the caseworker’s recommendation 

for reunification (D’Andrade & Nguyen, 2014). To address this, agencies can ensure caseworkers are trained on 

how to conduct accurate assessments of service needs and are aware of effective, evidence-based services and 

supports in the community.

Furthermore, service availability is a challenge for many families and agencies. During round 2 of the CFSRs, 

approximately half (51 percent) of states reported that services in the community were insufficient to meet the 

needs of families seeking to reunify (HHS, ACF, CB, 2011). Additionally, in a survey of state child welfare agencies, 

most states indicated that postpermanency services were more widely available for adoptive parents than for 

birth parents after reunification or legal guardians upon guardianship (ZERO TO THREE & Child Trends, 2013). 

The survey results also revealed that children who were adopted had greater access to services and supports 

than children who were reunified or received a guardianship placement. Child welfare agencies can work with 

community providers to ensure that appropriate services are available to children and families as well as build their 

own capacity to serve this population.
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Legal System Involvement

Families involved with the child welfare system frequently 

have contact with the juvenile and family court systems. 

These courts have great influence over the paths of child 

welfare cases, including whether children are reunified 

with their families or reenter care. The following practices 

can help improve reunification and reentry outcomes for 

families:

 Family drug courts are a voluntary alternative to the 

traditional dependency court system. These courts 

focus on families’ substance use and child welfare 

issues and seek to improve treatment and reunification 

outcomes. Children whose families participate in family 

drug courts spend less time in foster care and are 

more likely to reunify with their families (Lloyd, 2015). 

 Competent legal representation for parents is 

associated with the achievement of timely reunification 

(Courtney, Hook, & Orme, 2011). One promising 

approach to legal representation is Cornerstone 

Advocacy, which was developed by the Center for 

Family Representation (http://www.cfrny.org/). This 

approach helps guide attorneys in advocating for their 

clients in four areas: visiting, placement arrangements, 

services, and family conferences and meetings. 

Families whose attorneys used the Cornerstone 

Advocacy approach reunited more frequently and had 

fewer instances of reentry than those whose attorneys 

did not (Thornton & Gwin, 2012). For more information 

about parent representation, visit the webpage for the 

American Bar Association’s National Project to Improve 

Representation for Parents in the Child Welfare System 

at https://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/

what_we_do/projects/parentrepresentation.html.

Additional Resources

The following are Information Gateway resources that 

provide additional information about strategies and 

practices to support reunification and prevent reentry:

 Reunifying Families (includes visits, preventing 

reentry, assessments, and other topics): https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/reunification/

 Family Group Decision-Making: https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/famcentered/decisions/

○ Using Family Group Decision-Making to Build 

Protective Factors for Children and Families 

[Children’s Bureau-funded projects]:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/

funding/funding-sources/federal-funding/

cb-funding/cbreports/fgdm/

 Comprehensive Family Assessment: https://www.

childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/assessment/

family-assess/

○ Using Comprehensive Family Assessments to 

Improve Child Welfare Outcomes [Children’s 

Bureau-funded projects]:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/

funding/funding-sources/federal-funding/

cb-funding/cbreports/familyassessments/

 Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With At-Risk 

Families: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/f_

interactbulletin.pdf

 Working Together: Foster Families and 

Birth Parents: https://www.childwelfare.gov/

topics/outofhome/resources-foster-families/

working-together-foster-families-and-birth-parents/

 Substance Use Disorders, Child Welfare, & Family 

Dependency Drug Courts: https://www.childwelfare.

gov/topics/systemwide/courts/specialissues/drug/

 “Developing and Sustaining a Parent Partner Program” 

[podcast]:

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/

child-welfare-podcast-parent-partner

The National Resource Center for In-Home Services 

(https://uiowa.edu/nrcihs/) also has helpful information 

about practices that can support reunification and family 

stability.
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

State and Local Examples of Strategies 

That Support Reunification and 

Prevent Reentry

State and local agencies throughout the country are 

at various stages of implementing and strengthening 

efforts that support reunification and prevent reentry. 

The following are selected examples of such initiatives. 

(The examples are presented for information purposes 

only; inclusion does not indicate an endorsement by Child 

Welfare Information Gateway or the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.)

 Mockingbird Family Model: Washington State and 

other locations

 Fostering Relationships: Washoe County, Nevada

 Foster Parent Mentoring: Lafayette, Louisiana

Mockingbird Family Model: Washington State 

and Other Locations

The Mockingbird Family Model (MFM), which was 

developed by the Mockingbird Society in Washington 

State, is an innovative method of delivering out-of-home 

care. MFM is structured to provide an enhanced support 

network focused on foster parent retention and foster 

care delivery strategies that contribute to youth stability 

and connections to birth families while in out-of-home 

care. A group of 6–10 foster families (“satellites”) who 

live near an experienced foster care provider (the “hub”) 

are placed together to form an MFM “constellation.” The 

hub home helps coordinate supports for satellite families, 

including planned and crisis respite, mentorship, and 

training.

MFM hub homes may help support and strengthen birth 

family connections and reunification efforts through 

the supportive constellation community. Hub homes 

can host visits between children and their birth families 

as well as team decision-making meetings, which 

provides a more neutral and welcoming location than 

an office space. The hub home can also invite the birth 

families into the constellation to participate in trainings 

and other supports, which allows them to engage 

with their children’s foster families and learn the same 

skills. Additionally, foster care agencies can coordinate 

postreunification supports through the hub home. For 

example, if a birth family needs respite, the child can be 

cared for in the familiar setting of a hub home. 

The Mockingbird Society consults with out-of-home care 

placement agencies to help them implement the model. 

For more information, visit the Mockingbird Society 

website at http://www.mockingbirdsociety.org/index.php/

what-we-do/mockingbird-family-model. 

Fostering Relationships: Washoe County, 

Nevada

The Washoe County (Nevada) Department of Social 

Services (DSS) developed the Fostering Relationships 

program through its participation in the Quality 

Parenting Initiative (QPI). Fostering Relationships, which 

is an adaptation of the Attachment and Biobehavioral 

Catch-Up for Visitation (ABC-V) intervention, seeks to 

improve parent-child visits by establishing foster parents 

and a paraprofessional mentor as partners with the birth 

parents in the visitation process. Although ABC-V was 

designed for children ages 6 months through 6 years, 

Fostering Relationships is intended for children of all 

ages. 

DSS recognized that some visits may not be productive 

because the birth parents may feel rejected by their 

children or threatened by the relationship their children 

have established with the foster parents, or the birth 

parents may not yet have the skills to interact with 

their children appropriately. In Fostering Relationships, 

mentors work with both the birth parents and foster 

parents to prepare them for the visits, including teaching 

them about realistic expectations and following the child’s 

lead. Foster parents also receive instruction on Fostering 

Relationships during preservice and other trainings. 

During the initial visits, the mentor is in the room with 

both sets of parents and the child. Both the mentor and 

foster parents provide positive feedback and coaching 

about the birth parents’ interactions with the children. 

If the foster parent is comfortable and proficient, the 

mentor may not need to be present during later visits. 
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

One of the goals of Fostering Relationships is to improve 

reunification and reduce reentry. DSS is still collecting 

data about these outcomes, but, anecdotally, staff are 

reporting an increase in children returning home under 

an in-home safety plan and that families are moving 

to unsupervised and offsite visits more quickly. Other 

program goals include helping all parties—including the 

child—feel more comfortable during visits and improving 

the relationship between the birth and foster parents. 

For more information about QPI, visit http://www.qpi4kids.

org/ and http://www.ylc.org/our-work/action-litigation/

quality-foster-care/quality-parenting-initiative/. 

Foster Parent Mentoring: Lafayette, 

Louisiana

The Louisiana Department of Children and Family 

Services (DCFS) (http://www.dcfs.la.gov/) has partnered 

with The Extra Mile (http://www.theextramileregioniv.

com/), a local nonprofit agency, to strengthen outcomes 

for children and families, including supports to promote 

reunification. A recent initiative of DCFS and The Extra 

Mile is a mentoring program for foster parents, which was 

spurred by discussions that occurred as part of Lafayette’s 

participation in QPI. This new program pairs a veteran 

foster parent with a foster parent who is receiving his or 

her first placement, has a challenging placement, has 

been recommended by his or her caseworker for a mentor 

relationship, or has self-selected to participate. 

One of the goals of the program is to help foster parents 

improve their relationships with birth parents and better 

understand how they can help birth parents. In many 

cases, birth parents and foster parents view themselves 

as being in an adversarial relationship where only one 

of them will ultimately receive custody of the child. The 

mentors help the foster parents recognize how they 

can partner with the birth parents to achieve the best 

outcomes for the child. The following are examples of 

discussions the mentors and mentees may have:

 Importance of children’s attachment to both their birth 

and foster families

 Loss and grief foster parents may experience if children 

in their care are reunified with their birth families

 Context regarding the birth family’s situation (e.g., 

previous trauma)

 Support the foster parents can provide the birth 

parents before and after reunification

 How the foster parents can be a part of the child’s life 

after reunification

Foster parents equipped with this information may be 

able to better help birth parents reunify with their children 

and maintain a safe and stable home after reunification.

Conclusion

In most child welfare cases, reunification is the preferred 

permanency option. When working with families, 

caseworkers must balance the desire to return children 

to their families with ensuring that birth families have 

sufficient ability and support to safely care for their 

children. To achieve this, caseworkers can seek out 

services in their communities that have been proven to 

support reunification and avert reentry or show promise 

to do so. If these practices are not available in your 

community, you can work with agency leadership to 

explore how they can be introduced.

References

Akin, B. A. (2011). Predictors of foster care exits 

to permanency: A competing risks analysis of 

reunification, guardianship, and adoption. Children 

and Youth Services Review, 33, 999–1011. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2011.01.008

Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, 

& Child Trends. (2016). Child welfare financing SFY 

2014: National overview. Retrieved from https://www.

childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016-

52ChildWelfareFinancingSFY2014Overview-1.pdf

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

D. J. (2009). The prevention of child maltreatment 

recidivism through the Solution-Based Casework 

model of child welfare practice. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 31, 1346–1351. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2009.06.008
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Berrick, J. D., Cohen, E., & Anthony, E. (2011). Partnering 

with parents: Promising approaches to improve 

reunification outcomes for children in foster care. 

Journal of Family Strengths, 11(1), Article 14. Retrieved 

from http://cssr.berkeley.edu/cwscmsreports/

LatinoPracticeAdvisory/PRACTICE_Cultural_Mediator_

Programs/Birth_Parent_Mentors/Berrick%202011.pdf

Carnochan, S., Lee, C., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Achieving 

timely reunification. Journal of Evidence-Based Social 

Work, 10, 179–195. doi: 10.1080/15433714.2013.788948

Casey Family Programs. (2011). Breakthrough Series 

Collaborative: Timely permanency through 

reunification. Retrieved from https://www.casey.org/

media/TimelyPermanency.pdf

Chaffin, M., Funderburk, B., Bard, D., Valle, L. A., & 

Gurwitch, R. (2011). A combined motivation and 

parent-child interaction therapy package reduces child 

welfare recidivism in a randomized dismantling field 

trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 

84–95. doi: 10.1037/a0021227

Chamberlain, P., Price, J., Reid, J., & Landsverk, J. (2008). 

Cascading implementation of a foster and kinship 

parent intervention. Child Welfare, 87, 27–48.

Chambers, R. M., Brocato, J., Fatemi, M., & Rodriguez, 

A. Y. (2016). An innovative child welfare pilot 

initiative: Results and outcomes. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 70, 143–151. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2016.09.004

Cheng, T. C., & Li, A. X. (2012). Maltreatment and families’ 

receipt of services: Associations with reunification, 

kinship care, and adoption. Families in Society: The 

Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 93, 189–195. 

doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.4215

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2012). Concurrent 

planning: What the evidence shows. Retrieved from 

https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue-briefs/

concurrent-evidence/

Courtney, M. E., Hook, J. L., & Orme, M. (2011). 

Evaluation of the impact of enhanced parental legal 

representation on the timing of permanency outcomes 

for children in foster care. Retrieved from http://

partnersforourchildren.org/sites/default/files/2011._

evaluation..._impact_of_enhanced_parental_legal_

representation....discussion_paper.pdf

Craigie, T., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2010). Family 

structure, family stability and outcomes of five-yearold children. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1, 

43–61. doi: 10.1332/204674312X633153

D’Andrade, A. C., & Chambers, R. M. (2012). Parental 

problems, case plan requirements, and service 

targeting in child welfare reunification. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 34, 2131–2138. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2012.07.008

D’Andrade, A. C., & Nguyen, H. (2014). The relationship 

between use of specific services, parental problems, 

and reunification with children placed in foster 

care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 8, 51–69. doi: 

10.1080/15548732.2013.824399

Enano, S., Freisthler, B., Perez-Johnson, D., & 

Lovato-Hermann, K. (2017). Evaluating Parents in 

Partnership: A preliminary study of a child welfare 

intervention designed to increase reunification. 

Journal of Social Service Research, 43, 236–245. doi: 

10.1080/01488376.2016.1253634

Franks, S. B., Mata, F. C., Wofford, E., Briggs, A. M., 

LeBlanc, L. A., Carr, J. E., & Lazarte, A. A. (2013). The 

effects of behavioral parent training on placement 

outcomes of biological families in a state child welfare 

system. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 377–382. 

doi: 10.1177/1049731513492006

Goering, E. S., & Shaw, T. V. (2017). Foster care reentry: 

A survival analysis assessing differences across 

permanency type. Child Abuse & Neglect, 68, 36–43. 

doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.03.005
Supporting Successful Reunifications 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/supporting-reunification/.

Lloyd, M. H. (2015). Family drug courts: Conceptual 

frameworks, empirical evidence, and implications 

for social work. Families in Society: The Journal 

of Contemporary Social Services, 96, 49–57. doi: 

10.1606/1044-3894.2015.96.7

Lee, S., Jonson-Reid, M., & Drake, B. (2012). Foster 

care re-entry: Exploring the role of foster care 

characteristics, in-home child welfare services 

and cross-sector services. Children and Youth 

Services Review, 34, 1825–1833. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2012.05.007

Lietz, C. A., Lacasse, J. R., & Cacciatore, J. (2011). 

Social support in family reunification: A qualitative 

study. Journal of Family Social Work, 14, 3–20. doi: 

10.1080/10522158.2011.531454

National Family Preservation Network. (2003). Intensive 

family reunification services protocol. Retrieved 

from http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/

downloads/teleconferences/IFRS-Protocol.pdf

Pine, B. A., Spath, R., Werrbach, G. B., Jenson, C. E., 

& Kerman, B. (2009). A better path to permanency 

for children in out-of-home care. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 31, 1135–1143. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2009.07.006

Ryan, J. P., Victor, B. G., Moore, A., Mowbray, O., & Perron, 

B. E. (2016). Recovery coaches and the stability of 

reunification for substance abusing families in child 

welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 

357–363. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.10.002

Shaw, T. V., & Webster, D. (2011). A matter of time: The 

importance of tracking reentry into foster care beyond 

one year after reunification. Journal of Public Child 

Welfare, 5, 501–520. doi: 10.1080/15548732.2011.617262

Sheets, J., Wittenstrom, K., Fong, R., James, J., Tecci, M., 

Baumann, D., & Rodriguez, C. (2009). Evidence-based 

practice in family group decision-making for Anglo, 

African American and Hispanic families. Children and 

Youth Services Review, 31, 1187–1191. doi: 10.1016/j.

childyouth.2009.08.003

Smithgall, C., DeCoursey, J., Yang, D., & Haseltine, L. 

(2012). Parents’ pasts and families’ futures: Using family 

assessments to inform perspectives on reasonable 

efforts and reunification. Retrieved from http://www.

chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/Parents%20Past%20

and%20Families_08_30_12-FINAL.pdf

Thornton, E., & Gwin, B. (2012). High-quality legal 

representation for parents in child welfare cases results 

in improved outcomes for families and potential cost 

savings. Family Law Quarterly, 1, 139–154. Retrieved 

from https://www.oregon.gov/gov/policy/Documents/

LRCD/Meeting6_031616/Cost_Benefit_Analysis/

Parent_Rep_cost_savings.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. (2011). Federal Child and Family Services 

Reviews aggregate report: Round 2: Fiscal years 

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

sites/default/files/cb/fcfsr_report.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. (2016). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY1 

2015 estimates as of June 2016 (No. 23). Retrieved from 

https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/resource/afcars-report-23

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. (2017). Child Welfare Outcomes 2010–2014: 

Report to Congress. Retrieved from https://www.acf.

hhs.gov/cb/resource/cwo-10-14
Supporting Successful Reunifications https://www.childwelfare.gov

 

ZERO TO THREE & Child Trends. (2013). Changing the 

course for infants and toddlers: A survey of state child 

welfare policies and initiatives. Retrieved from https://

www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/

changing-the-course-for-infants-and-toddlers-FINAL.

pdf

Suggested Citation: 

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2017). Supporting 

successful reunifications. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s 

Bureau.