U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Administration for Children and Families

Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Children’s Bureau

Child Welfare Information Gateway

Children’s Bureau/ACYF

1250 Maryland Avenue, SW

Eighth Floor

Washington, DC 20024

800.394.3366

Email: info@childwelfare.gov

www.childwelfare.gov

ISSUE BRIEF

June 2011

Family Reunification: 

What the 

Evidence Shows

Research to Practice in 

Child Welfare

Issue briefs include a review and 

synthesis of recent published 

research and selected program 

examples that demonstrate 

evidence-based practices.

What’s Inside:

• The Child and Family Services 

Reviews and Family Reunification

• Research on Family Reunification

• Examples From the Field

• Program Support for Reunification
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

Family reunification in child welfare refers to 

the process of returning children in temporary 

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

Reunification is both the most common goal 

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

the most common outcome. According to 

preliminary estimates from the Adoption and 

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System 

(AFCARS), reunification was the case plan goal 

for nearly half (49 percent) of all children in 

foster care on September 30, 2009. More than 

half (51 percent) of the children who exited 

foster care during fiscal year 2009 returned 

to a parent or principal caregiver (Children’s 

Bureau, 2010a).

Since the majority of children who leave 

foster care are reunified with their families, it 

is important to focus on practices that help 

achieve successful reunification. A broad 

review of the empirical literature in child 

welfare suggests common characteristics 

of interventions that are most helpful in 

reunifying families when child maltreatment 

has been identified.1

 These include:

1	 It should be noted that the literature addresses some effective

reunification strategies at the agency level, rather than at the

level of caseworker interventions:

• Research suggests that caseworkers who have social work

education, appropriate training, specialized competencies,

and greater experience are better able to facilitate

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

Reilly, & Rittner, 1993; National Center for Youth Law, 2007;

Pine, Spath, & Gosteli, 2005; Walton, Fraser, Pecora, &

Walton, 1993).

• More flexible funding that allows agencies to provide

better community-based services to families can also lead

to greater rates of reunification (Children’s Bureau, 2010b;

Wulczyn & Martin, 2001; Wulczyn, Zeidman, & Svirsky,

1997). Waivers of constraints on categorical funding and

collaboration with community agencies to form more

efficient service networks have the potential to affect

reunification efforts positively by making more formal and

informal resources available to families.

Meaningful family engagement. 

Engagement of families is critical to the 

change process (Dawson & Berry, 2002; 

Kemp, Marcenko, Hoagwood, & Vesneski, 

2009; Yatchmenoff, 2005).

Assessment and case planning.

Individualized needs assessment and 

clear, mutually established goals are 

critical to case planning (DePanfilis, 1999; 

Macdonald, 2001).

Service delivery. Cognitive-behavioral, 

multi-systemic, skills-focused services 

have been found to be most effective 

(Corcoran, 2000; Macdonald, 2001).

This issue brief examines these strategies in 

terms of a series of questions: 

• What have the Child and Family Services 

Reviews identified regarding family 

reunification in States?

• What does the literature say about family 

reunification?

• What are some examples of success from 

the field?

Final Reports from the Federal Child and 

Family Services Reviews (CFSRs) present 

results and discussion for each State regarding 

its conformity with child safety, permanency, 

The Child and Family 

Services Reviews and 

Family Reunification
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

and well-being outcomes.2 In the first full 

round of 52 reviews, 19 States met the 

national standard for reunification, which 

stated, “76.2 percent of all children who were 

reunified went home in less than 12 months” 

(Children’s Bureau, 2004b). In order to reflect 

the ability of States to help families both 

achieve reunification and prevent reentry of 

their children into care, in the second round 

of reviews, which began in 2007, the data 

indicator for reunification was revised to 

include four components:

1. Percent of children who were 

reunified, where reunification 

occurred in 12 months or less from 

removal

2. Median length of stay from removal 

to reunification

3. Percent of all children who entered 

foster care who were reunified in 12 

months or less from removal

4. Percent of children reunified who 

reentered foster care within 12 

months

The national standard of 122.6 was then 

calculated using State data to establish a 

range.3

 Thirteen of the 49 States to have 

completed the review process received 

composite scores above that standard.

2	 The Child and Family Services Reviews are designed to

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

agency practice is in conformity with Federal child welfare

requirements, determine what is actually happening to children

and families as they are engaged in State child welfare services,

and assist States to enhance their capacity to help children and

families achieve positive outcomes. For more information about

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

hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/index.htm#cfsr.

3	 For a full explanation of data indicators and national

standards in the second round of reviews, see Children’s Bureau

(2007).

No State was found to be in conformity with 

the first permanency outcome, “Children 

have permanency and stability in their 

living situations,” in either round of reviews. 

However, 12 States received a rating of 

“Strength” on the indicator related to 

achievement of a child’s goal of reunification, 

guardianship, or placement with relatives in 

the first round;4

 three States received that 

rating in the second round. A Children’s 

Bureau (2004b) summary and analysis of the 

52 Final Reports in Round One found that the 

following factors had a significant association 

with a rating of “Strength” on this indicator:

• The stability of foster care placement

• Visiting with parents and siblings in foster 

care

• The needs of and services for the child, 

parents, and foster parents

• Child and family involvement in case 

planning

• Worker visits with the child

• Worker visits with the parents

Items associated with stronger performance in 

this permanency outcome in the first 32 States 

reviewed in the second round were: (Children’s 

Bureau, 2009)

• Services to the family to protect children in 

the home and prevent removal or reentry 

into care

• Needs assessment and services to children 

and parents

• Worker visits with the child

• Worker visits with the parents

4	 This indicator was added in the second year of reviews and

was therefore applicable for only 35 States.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

Further review of the States’ Final Reports 

in both rounds yields additional details 

about these and other factors’ relationships 

to the achievement of timely, stable family 

reunification. The factors related to family 

engagement, assessment and case planning, 

and service delivery, as well as a number 

of systemic issues, shed light on States’ 

successes and challenges in this area.

Family Engagement

The CFSRs indicated that a number of family 

engagement activities contribute to the 

success of family reunification efforts. Effective 

family engagement activities include involving 

birth families in planning and decision-making, 

encouraging foster parent support of the birth 

parents, and facilitating visits between children 

in foster care with their parents. States’ 

experiences in facilitating family engagement 

point to the following as important practices:

• The use of some type of family team 

meetings (e.g., Family Group Conferencing, 

Family Group Decision Making) to 

facilitate reunification efforts promotes 

active involvement of both birth parents, 

extended family, and others to achieve 

permanency for children.

• Foster parents’ support of contact between 

children and birth parents and the foster 

parents’ direct support of birth parents 

(e.g., mentoring) facilitates achievement of 

reunification goals.

• Increasing the frequency of visits leading 

up to reunification helps to facilitate 

achievement of this goal and decreases 

reentries to foster care.

• Early and diligent search for extended 

family members and use of kinship 

care supports maintaining parent-child 

connections during out-of-home care 

episodes contribute to reunification 

efforts that include return of the child to 

the parental home as well as permanency 

through guardianship and placement with 

relatives.

Assessment and Case Planning

Early emphasis on reunification as the most 

desirable permanency goal, adequately 

assessing the strengths and needs of children 

and families, involvement of parents and 

children in case planning, building on family 

strengths and addressing specific needs, 

and finally, carrying out plans are all critical 

activities to the achievement of a family’s 

reunification goals. States’ experiences in 

assessing the strengths and needs of families 

indicate that initial assessments can be vital 

to the implementation of case plans that 

ultimately lead to reunification. Conversely, 

early assessments can also lead to the 

decision that reunification is not in the best 

interest of the child, prompting States to seek 

alternate routes to permanency for some 

children. States also report that risk or safety 

assessments conducted prior to reunification 

help ensure safe, timely reunification decisions 

and minimize both the risk of harm to children 

and reentries to foster care.

Many Final Reports in both rounds of reviews 

cite child and parent problems that impede 

reunification efforts and contribute to foster 

care reentries. Parental substance abuse is 

the problem most often cited; other problems 

include child behavior problems, child 

involvement with the juvenile justice system, 

parental mental health concerns, and parents’ 

lack of cooperation with service plans. 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

Service Delivery

Targeted services that meet the individualized 

needs of children and families are key to 

achieving family reunification and ensuring 

children’s safety. Issues reported by States 

related to the delivery of appropriate services 

include the following:

• Some Final Reports mention the availability 

and coordination of specific services as 

factors important to the achievement 

of reunification. These include in-home 

services, concrete services such as housing 

and food, mental health and substance 

abuse services, culturally competent 

services, comprehensive wraparound 

services, and coordination or collocation 

of service providers. In the second round 

of reviews, many States pointed to the 

use of trial home visits, during which time 

the agency continues to provide services 

and supervision, as an important factor in 

reducing reentry to foster care.

• Many more Final Reports cite problems with 

service delivery, including a lack of specific 

services, a lack of transportation to services, 

long waiting lists, and inconsistent service 

accessibility in all jurisdictions, with rural 

areas having the most difficulties. Problems 

with housing and substance abuse, mental 

health, and culturally competent services 

were most often cited as specifically 

impeding efforts to reunify families.

Many States specifically cite the provision 

of post-reunification services as a key to 

reducing the risk of harm to children, repeat 

maltreatment, and reentries to foster care. A 

number of these reports discuss the length of 

time post-reunification services are provided 

(ranging from 3 months to as long as needed). 

Reports indicate that continued monitoring 

of families supports their participation in such 

services.

• Specific post-reunification services that 

contribute to positive outcomes include 

in-home services, mental health or 

counseling services, substance abuse 

services, parenting support, child care, 

concrete services such as housing and 

financial assistance, and transportation.

• Many Final Reports specifically tie poor 

post-reunification services to an increased 

risk of harm to children after reunification, 

repeat maltreatment, and higher numbers 

of reentries to foster care. Common 

problems include service disruptions, the 

lack of availability of services in all areas, 

services not available at the intensity or 

duration that families need them, and the 

high costs of needed services.

Systemic Issues

The CFSR Final Reports mention a number of 

systemic issues that contribute both positively 

and negatively to the achievement of timely, 

stable reunifications. These include issues 

related to funding, courts, and staffing.

Funding. Positive contributions of various 

funding strategies cited in Final Reports 

as supporting reunification efforts include 

increased funding for reunification, dedicated 

reunification funds, flexibility in the use of 

funds, blended funding streams, and financial 

incentives for contractors.

Courts. Positive contributions related to the 

courts are mentioned in Final Reports and 

include cooperation between the courts 

and child welfare agencies, court tracking of 

permanency timeframes, and court monitoring 

of families after reunification. Court-related 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

issues noted as impeding reunification 

efforts include continuances and crowded 

court dockets delaying reunification, judges 

extending the timeframe for reunification 

beyond the Adoption and Safe Families 

Act (ASFA) guidelines, and courts ordering 

reunifications in cases in which agency staff do 

not feel the family is ready.

Staffing. Staffing problems that reportedly 

impede reunification efforts include high 

rates of staff turnover, inexperienced staff, 

and high caseloads. These problems may 

result in insufficient worker visits both with 

foster children and birth parents, insufficient 

monitoring and support of parents’ service 

participation and progress toward goal 

achievement, and longer timeframes to 

achieve reunification goals as each new worker 

starts over. 

Finally, policies regarding timeliness to 

reunification are cited as a concern in many 

State Final Reports. A few States report that 

while the time taken to reunification is longer 

than allowed for in the national standard, this 

caution results in fewer reentries to foster care. 

Correspondingly, other States are concerned 

that shorter times to reunifications are 

resulting in higher reentries because families 

are sometimes reunited before risk and safety 

issues are fully resolved. Many Final Reports 

state that the goal of reunification is often 

kept too long even when it seems unlikely 

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

have made little or no progress on service 

plan tasks).

It is clear from a review of the State CFSR 

Final Reports that numerous factors interact 

and play important roles in a State’s ability 

to reunite children in foster care with their 

birth families. Meaningful family engagement, 

assessment, case planning, and service 

delivery are key. Systemic supports related 

to funding for services, support from the 

courts, and stable, competent staff also 

appear to impact, directly and indirectly, the 

achievement of reunification goals. A review 

of the relevant literature sheds additional 

light upon State CFSR findings regarding 

the factors in achieving timely, stable 

reunifications.

Family Engagement Is Fundamental 

to Successful Reunification

Much of the literature addresses four 

dimensions of family engagement:

• The relationship between the caseworker 

and the family

• Parent-child visitation

• The involvement of foster parents

• The involvement of a parent mentor or 

advocate

The relationship between the caseworker 

and the family. Both the frequency and the 

nature of the caseworker’s contact with the 

family are important. Family reunification 

appears to be facilitated by more frequent 

caseworker contact (Farmer, 1996; Littell & 

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

Research on Family 

Reunification
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

In an analysis of 411 children who spent at 

least 3 years in out-of-home care, caseworker 

engagement with the family (measured 

by caseworker self-report) was positively 

associated with permanency outcomes of both 

reunification and adoption (Cheng, 2010). 

However, parents are sometimes mistrustful of 

child welfare professionals and thus unwilling 

to share information or establish a relationship 

with agency representatives (Kemp et 

al., 2009). Family engagement becomes 

meaningful when family members believe their 

involvement in case planning and services 

is valued and respectful of their potential to 

keep their children safe, provides them with 

the information they need to successfully 

advocate for themselves and their children, 

and enables them to access the services and 

resources they need to achieve reunification 

(National Resource Center for Permanency 

and Family Connections, 2009). In a study 

examining engagement in a sample of 63 

families receiving child protective services, the 

interpersonal relationship with the caseworker 

was determined to be the strongest predictor 

of the family’s self-report of engagement 

(Regional Research Institute for Human 

Services, 1998).

The above studies, as well as engagement 

research in related fields, suggest that the 

following caseworker behaviors are important 

in mitigating families’ fears and building the 

rapport necessary for effective helping:

• Establishing open, honest communication 

with parents (Yatchmenoff, 2005)

• Requesting family participation and 

feedback in the planning process (Regional 

Research Institute for Human Services, 

1998; Rooney, 1992)

• Providing instruction and reinforcement 

in the performance and completion of 

mutually agreed-upon activities (Rooney, 

1992)

Parent-child visitation. Research supports 

the significance of parent-child visitation as 

a predictor of family reunification (Leathers, 

2002). A study of reunification in a sample of 

922 children aged 12 and younger found that 

children who were visited by their mothers 

were 10 times more likely to be reunited 

(Davis, Landsverk, Newton, & Ganger, 1996). 

Effective visitation practice goes far beyond 

attention to the logistics of scheduling and 

transportation; it provides an opportunity to 

build parental skills and improve parent-child 

interaction. Studies suggest that visitation 

should have a therapeutic focus. Thus, it is 

important that anyone supervising visits has 

clinical knowledge and skills (Haight, Sokolec, 

Budde, & Poertner, 2001).

The involvement of foster parents. Foster 

parents may facilitate family reunification 

through both the mentoring of the birth 

parents and the support of their visitation. 

The development of a positive relationship 

between the foster and birth parents may 

allow children to avoid the stress of divided 

loyalties and position foster parents to play a 

supportive role after reunification. However, 

when selecting foster parents to work with 

birth parents, agencies should consider their 

experience, maturity, communication skills, 

their ability to handle these multiple roles, and 

the possible need for additional training (Lewis 

& Callaghan, 1993; Sanchirico & Jablonka, 

2000).

The involvement of a peer mentor or 

advocate. When parents lose custody of their 

children, they must interact with an array of 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

systems, including—at a minimum—the child 

welfare agency, the court, and one or more 

service providers. In order to negotiate their 

way through unfamiliar systems, they can 

benefit from having a designated partner who 

can help them understand court and agency 

processes, normalize their experiences, and 

focus on changes they need to make in order 

to have their children returned to them. 

Such partners are most often foster parents 

or parents who have successfully achieved 

reunification themselves (Marcenko, Brown, 

DeVoy, & Conway, 2010; Romanelli et al., 

2009). Anthony, Berrick, Cohen, & Wilder 

(2009) found that parents participating in a 

program that paired them with parents who 

had successfully navigated the system were 

more than four times as likely to be reunified 

with their children as parents in a comparison 

group.

Accurate, Individual Assessment 

and Case Planning Are Crucial 

for Successful Reunifications

Child maltreatment is a complex phenomenon 

with a number of underlying causes. Accurate 

differential assessment is therefore essential. 

Differential assessment involves developing an 

individualized, family-centered understanding 

of a child and family’s circumstances, 

environment, and potential in order to identify 

each family’s unique needs, determine 

the extent of the risk to the child, and to 

construct an appropriate intervention plan 

(National Resource Center for Foster Care 

and Permanency Planning, 2003; Macdonald, 

2001; National Research Council, 1993).

Research has demonstrated that adequate 

assessment often does not occur in child 

welfare, and this failing may be linked to the 

instability of reunification. In a review of 62 

failed reunifications, Peg McCartt Hess and 

her colleagues found that “poor assessment 

or decision-making by the caseworker or 

service provider” was a factor in 42 cases 

(Hess, Folaron, & Jefferson, 1992).

The use of standardized tools to aid 

assessment is an emerging area of child 

welfare research that offers some promise 

of improving practice in this area (Corcoran, 

1997; McMurtry & Rose, 1998). 

• The North Carolina Family Assessment 

Scales for Reunification (NCFAS-R), 

developed by Ray Kirk, Ph.D., at the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel 

Hill, is a validated instrument designed 

specifically for use in reunification. The 

NCFAS-R, an adaptation of the original 

North Carolina Family Assessment Scale 

used in family preservation, has proven to 

be an effective tool in assessing readiness 

for reunification and parent and child 

ambivalence (Kirk, 2001).

• The Structured Decision Making® 

Reunification Reassessment was recently 

validated by the California Department of 

Social Services (Wagner & Bogie, 2010). 

The instrument is designed to help workers 

assess caregiver case plan progress and 

estimate probable child safety and stability 

after reunification.

Services Should Be Practical and 

Comprehensive, Addressing 

All Aspects of Family Life

Services should be designed to promote 

an environment to which a child can be 

safely returned and to help maintain that 

environment after reunification. A number 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

In 2005, the National Child Welfare 

Resource Center for Family-Centered 

Practice, a service of the Children’s 

Bureau, published Comprehensive Family 

Assessment Guidelines for Child Welfare

(available on the Children’s Bureau 

website at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/

cb/pubs/family_assessment/index.htm). 

In 2007, the Children’s Bureau funded a 

5-year demonstration grant cluster, Using 

Comprehensive Family Assessments (CFA) 

to Improve Child Welfare Outcomes. 

Grantees were:

• Alabama Department of Human 

Resources

• Alamance County Department of Social 

Services (North Carolina)

• Contra Costa County Child and Family 

Services Bureau (California) 

• Illinois Department of Children and 

Family Services 

• Ramsey County Community Human 

Services (Minnesota)

At the end of the projects, the grantees’ 

process evaluations will assess the 

implementation of the eight key 

components of the Comprehensive 

Family Assessment Guidelines for Child 

Welfare, as well as the linkages between 

child-serving systems that will help ensure 

that identified needs of children and 

families are met. The practice evaluation 

will demonstrate how the practice of 

comprehensive and ongoing assessment 

has improved over time. The outcomes 

component will utilize a randomized trial, 

or other approach of sufficient rigor, to 

examine how the assessment approaches 

affect key outcomes of interest. 

of studies have supported the use of 

interventions that have a behavioral, skillbuilding focus and that address family 

functioning in multiple domains, including 

home, school, and community (Corcoran, 

2000; Macdonald, 2001). Cognitive-behavioral 

models have been demonstrated to reduce 

physical punishment and parental aggression 

in less time than alternative approaches 

(Kolko, 1996, cited in Corcoran, 2000). The 

most effective treatment involves all family 

members and addresses not only parenting 

skills but also parent-child interaction and a 

range of parental life competencies such as 

communication, problem solving, and anger 

control (Corcoran, 2000; Dore & Lee, 1999).

The literature reports on the effectiveness of 

several types of services:

Concrete services. The provision of concrete 

services such as food, transportation, and 

assistance with housing and utilities has been 

demonstrated to be an important aspect of 

family reunification services (Cheng, 2010; 

Choi & Ryan, 2007). A study reviewing 

effective family-centered service models 

identified concrete services as critical elements 

of practice (Wells & Fuller, 2000). The most 

effective programs not only provided services 

to meet concrete needs, but offered families 

instruction in accessing community resources 

so that they could do so independently 

in the future. In a study of 1,014 families 

participating in a family reunification program 

in Illinois, the 50 percent of families who 

experienced reunification demonstrated high 

utilization of concrete services such as financial 

assistance and transportation (Rzepnicki, 

Schuerman, & Johnson, 1997).

Substance abuse treatment. The welldocumented incidence of parental substance 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

abuse as a factor in the placement of children 

into foster care (Smokowski & Wodarski, 

1996) supports the critical importance of 

readily available resources for the assessment 

and treatment of addiction. In a longitudinal 

study of 1,911 mothers, Green, Rockhill & 

Furrer (2007) found that those who entered 

substance abuse treatment faster after their 

children were placed in substitute care, stayed 

in treatment longer, and completed at least 

one course of treatment were significantly 

more likely to be reunified with their children. 

A few agencies have established alliances with 

drug treatment centers or brought addiction 

professionals into the agency to ensure 

more effective assessment of drug-related 

needs, treatment planning, and monitoring 

of progress. Others have undertaken more 

intensive training of staff in addictions and the 

process of recovery (Maluccio & Ainsworth, 

2003; Hohman & Butt, 2001). Research has 

shown promising results with three types of 

service delivery:

• Intensive case management. Ryan, Marsh, 

Testa, and Louderman (2003) reported 

significant results when substanceinvolved families received intensive case 

management that included “recovery 

coaches” to facilitate assessments, conduct 

service planning, and eliminate barriers 

to accessing substance abuse treatment. 

However, later follow-up with the same 

population indicated that likelihood of 

reunification is diminished when families 

experience co-occurring problems and are 

unable to make progress in those areas 

as well (Children and Family Research 

Center, 2007). Choi & Ryan (2007) found 

that the likelihood of both substance 

abuse treatment completion and family 

reunification was improved when mothers 

also received matched services that 

addressed co-existing problems such 

as mental health issues, housing, family 

counseling, and parenting skills. 

• Tailoring programs for women with 

children. The provision of treatment 

services specifically developed to meet 

the needs of women with children appears 

to hold promise for retaining women in 

treatment and decreasing subsequent 

drug use (Clark, 2001). In a study of 1,115 

mothers, Grella, Needell, Shi, & Hser (2009) 

found that the likelihood of reunification 

was enhanced when mothers received a 

broad range of employment, educational, 

and family and children’s services in 

addition to substance abuse treatment.

• Strong social support. Because social 

support appears to be an important factor 

in the successful treatment of addiction, 

assessment and intervention should involve 

the entire family, especially spouses or 

partners, and include consistent, ongoing 

support from caseworkers and treatment 

providers (Gregoire & Schultz, 2001).

Home-based services. Many home-based 

service models originally developed to 

prevent out-of-home placement have shown 

some success in effecting family reunification. 

In one experimental study, families in the 

treatment group received intensive casework 

services, parenting and life skills education, 

family-focused treatment, and help in 

accessing community resources. The treatment 

group had a reunification rate three times that 

of the control group and remained intact at 

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

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

to note, however, that while some short-term 

intensive models have demonstrated success 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

in achieving family reunification, not all such 

programs appear to reduce the risk of reentry 

into foster care substantially (Kimberlin, 

Anthony, & Austin, 2009; Littell & Schuerman, 

1995; Wulczyn, 2004). Many families who 

have experienced placement of one or more 

children in foster care require longer term 

intervention and support (Gaudin, 1993).

Post-reunification services. Data from the 

Multistate Foster Care Data Archive indicate 

that about 25 percent of all children who go 

home will return to care at some point, often 

within 1 year (Wulczyn, 2004). Reunification, 

although a positive milestone for the family, 

is also a time of readjustment, and a family 

already under stress can have difficulty 

maintaining safety and stability. The difficulty 

is compounded when children or parents 

have numerous or more complex personal 

needs or when environmental factors, such as 

extreme poverty and a lack of social supports, 

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

Research suggests that follow-up services 

that enhance parenting skills, provide social 

support, connect families to basic resources, 

and address children’s behavioral and 

emotional needs must be provided if reentry 

into foster care is to be prevented. Postreunification services are especially important 

when parental drug or alcohol use is a concern 

(Festinger, 1996; Terling, 1999).

The following program examples illustrate 

key characteristics of interventions found to 

be associated with the achievement of timely, 

stable reunifications. 

Examples From the Field

Michigan: Time-Limited, 

Intensive Services Promote 

Family Reunification

In 1992, Michigan created and pilot tested 

the Family Reunification Program for families 

with children in out-of-home care. The 

program was intended to reduce the number 

of children in out-of-home care and to reduce 

the cost to the agency. The program provided 

several services to each family in treatment, 

including:

• Assessment

• Case management

• Transportation services

• 24-hour service availability

• Flexible funds

• In-home services

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

level) for each family

Families were required to participate in 

assessment, family or individual therapy, and 

workshops on parenting. Services were offered 

for either 4 or 8 months. 

An evaluation of the program showed that 

the families who participated in treatment 

programs were more likely to remain reunified 

than those in the control group. In addition, 

treatment was more cost-effective in the long 

run.

Fewer children in out-of-home care. Twelve 

months after exiting the program, 73 percent 

of the 813 children in the treatment group 

had been returned home and remained safely 

with their families; 69 percent of children in 

the comparison group had been returned 

home. No significant difference was found 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

in reunification rates between families who 

participated in the 4-month (78 percent) and 

8-month programs (72 percent). At 24 months 

following reunification, 81 percent of the 

treated families remained reunified, compared 

to only 60 percent of the comparison group 

families. Furthermore, the research indicated 

that children in the treatment group who did 

reenter out-of-home care tended to spend 

less time out of the home.

Cost-effectiveness. The agency calculated 

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

those participating in the Family Reunification 

Program (more than half of the cost for a 

child in the control group). The average cost 

per child was $3,830 to return a child in the 

treatment group home, including 6 months 

of services and 12 months of follow-up. 

The cost for the same 18-month period 

was approximately $9,113 per child in the 

comparison group, due to more frequent 

contacts and more reentries into care after 

reunification.

In follow-up interviews, families rated the 

following program features most strongly: 

the use of two-worker teams, the services 

offered in the family home, the 24-hour service 

availability, the use of a solution-focused 

service delivery, the skill-teaching in both 

individual and child management techniques, 

and concrete services (e.g., transportation, 

home repairs, etc.).

Today, the Family Reunification Program 

has expanded into 26 counties throughout 

Michigan, which serve 85 percent of all foster 

children in the State. The program served 

730 families in fiscal year 2008. The twoworker team is made up of a team leader who 

provides the therapeutic intervention with 

family members and a family reunification 

worker who provides skill teaching and 

concrete services. Services are home-based 

and intensive, averaging 8-12 hours per week 

for the first 2 weeks after children are placed 

back in the home, and 4 hours per week for 

4-6 months. Services are strength-based and 

focus on child safety. Family Reunification 

workers maintain small caseloads (six families), 

and the Team Leader provides 90 minutes of 

weekly family therapy and carries a larger case 

load (up to 12 families) during an intervention 

period.

For additional information, contact:

Guy Thompson, FPS Manager or Juli Gohl, 

FPS Specialist

Michigan Department of Human Services

Bureau of Child Welfare

235 S. Grand, Suite 510

Lansing, MI 48909

517.373.6286 

ThompsonG@michigan.gov

Gohlj@michigan.gov

Rhode Island: Project Connect 

Improves Reunification Rates for 

Substance Abuse-Affected Families

Established in 1992 by Children’s Friend & 

Service in Providence, RI, Project Connect is 

a community-based program for substance 

abuse-affected families who are at imminent 

risk or who have already had a child removed 

from their care. Project Connect offers homebased substance abuse and family counseling, 

as well as parent education, nursing services, 

parenting groups, domestic violence groups, 

sobriety support, and links to services such 

as affordable housing, substance abuse 

treatment, and health care. Each family is 

assigned to a team that includes a master’s 

level clinician, pediatric nurse, and parent 
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

educator. Staff work with parents and foster 

families to support relationships with children 

while in out-of-home care. Since 2007, the 

project has expanded its services statewide.

Evaluations of the program in 2003 and 2010 

indicate that nearly all of the babies born to 

parents involved with Project Connect were 

born drug-free. Parents who completed the 

program after a high level of involvement 

with services showed significant progress in 

their parenting capabilities vis-a-vis creating 

a learning environment, addressing the 

health needs of their children, and effective 

use of supervision and discipline. They also 

were more likely to display adequate to mild 

strengths in family safety.

An evaluation of the 2003 program 

documented a number of positive outcomes. 

Parents showed marked improvement in 

meeting reunification goals and the ability to 

address the health needs of their children. 

Progress also was made in dealing with 

substance abuse issues, parenting behaviors, 

and meeting concrete needs. Researchers also 

noted that all but 2 of the 16 children assessed 

were functioning at or above the appropriate 

developmental stage.

Since 2007, improvements in child well-being 

are being assessed using the North Carolina 

Family Assessment Scale; while almost all 

children showed some improvement in the 

areas of child mental health, child behaviors, 

and parent-child relationships, those whose 

parents were highly involved with services 

displayed the greatest improvements. In the 

period 2007-2009, 16 of the 23 children who 

were removed from their families experienced 

reunification. Seventy-five percent of Project 

Connect reunifications occurred within 12 

months of removal, compared to 68 percent 

for all reunifications in the State. Only one 

Project Connect child reentered foster care in 

that time period, 15 months after reunification.

The program attributes its success to a 

number of factors:

• A service coordinating committee, which 

developed statewide policies that are 

responsive to families, reduced barriers to 

services, and developed opportunities for 

cross-training of service providers

• Increased outreach and engagement efforts 

by staff

• An increased focus on permanency 

planning for children

For more information, contact:

Valentina L.S. Laprade, LICSW

Director of Family Preservation

Children’s Friend

153 Summer St.

Providence, RI 02903

401.276.4352

vlaprade@cfsri.org

In addition to offering insight into factors 

and services that are linked to reunification 

and stability, the literature and the program 

examples discussed above suggest several 

guiding principles for practice in this critical 

area of permanency planning:

• Families must be included and engaged in 

the planning and selection of services and 

the assessment of progress. Positive change 

is best driven by mutually established goals 

Program Support for 

Reunification
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

and open, honest communication between 

families and helping professionals.

• Maintaining family relationships while 

children are in care is a critical component 

of any successful reunification practice. 

Frequent family visitation is linked to both 

the likelihood of reunification and postreunification stability.

• Successful reunification must be 

systematically considered and planned 

for from the earliest possible point. Such 

planning must rest on comprehensive 

assessment that focuses not only on the 

issues precipitating placement, but also on 

family history, relationships, the parents’ 

health and emotional functioning, and the 

community environment.

• Reunification preparation and postreunification supports must be based on 

the needs of the children and family rather 

than on arbitrary timeframes. Reunification 

should be viewed as a process that 

includes maintaining family relationships 

while children are in care, careful planning, 

and the provision of post-reunification 

supports. Families are best supported 

when all available resources, both formal 

and informal, are brought to bear on their 

behalf (Warsh, Maluccio, & Pine, 1994).

Some of these guiding principles can be 

implemented by caseworkers; all of them, plus 

the systemic changes such as flexible funding, 

can be implemented at the agency level or 

higher.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

Adoption and Safe Families Act, 105 U.S.C. § 89 (1997). Retrieved April 2011 from www.acf.hhs.

gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/public_law/pl105_89/pl105_89.htm

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

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

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

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

Anthony, E. K., Berrick, J. D, Cohen, E., & Wilder, E. (2009). Partnering with parents: Promising 

approaches to improve reunification outcomes for children in foster care. Berkeley, CA: Center 

for Social Services Research. Retrieved February 2011 from www.parentadvocacy.org/padocs/

Final_Report_UC_Berkeley_2009_Evaluation_of_Contra_Costa_Parent_Parners.pdf

Cheng, T. C. (2010). Factors associated with reunification: A longitudinal analysis of long-term 

foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, 1311−1316.

Children and Family Research Center. (2007). Illinois Alcohol & Other Drug Waiver Demonstration 

semi-annual progress report, June-December 2007. Chicago, IL: Illinois Department of Children 

and Family Services.

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

2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families. Retrieved April 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/

results/sld001.htm

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

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. Retrieved April 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/

genfindings04/index.htm

Children’s Bureau. (2007). Corrected Federal Register announcement. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Retrieved 

January 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/legislation/fed_reg.htm

References
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

Children’s Bureau. (2009). Results of the 2007 and 2008 Child and Family Services Reviews. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. Retrieved January 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/

agencies_courts.pdf

Children’s Bureau. (2010a). The AFCARS report: Preliminary FY 2009 estimates as of July 2010. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. Retrieved January 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/

tar/report17.htm

Children’s Bureau. (2010b). Summary of the Title IV-E child welfare waiver demonstrations. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families. Retrieved January 2011 from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/programs_fund/

cwwaiver/2010/summary_demo2010.htm

Choi, S., & Ryan, J. P. (2007). Co-occurring problems for substance abusing mothers in child 

welfare: Matching services to improve family reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 

29(11), 1395−1410.

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

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

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

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

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

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

and methods. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

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

reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 363–382.

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

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

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

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

Publications, Inc.

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

Family Relations, 48, 313–325.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

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

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

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

18(4), 383–402.

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

20(1), 66–89.

Green, B. L., Rockhill, A., & Furrer, C. (2007). Does substance abuse treatment make a difference 

for child welfare case outcomes? A statewide longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services 

Review, 29, 460–473.

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

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

Grella, C. E., Needell, B., Shi, Y., & Hser, Y. (2009). Do drug treatment services predict reunification 

outcomes of mothers and their children in child welfare? Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 

36(3), 278–293.

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

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

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

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

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

Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Hoagwood, K., & Vesneski, W. (2009). Engaging parents in child 

welfare services: Bridging family needs and child welfare mandates. Child Welfare, 88(1), 

101–126.

Kimberlin, S. E., Anthony, E. K., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Re-entering foster care: Trends, evidence, 

and implications. Children and Youth Services Review, (31), 471–481.

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

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

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

Foundation.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

Leathers, S. J. (2002). Parental visiting and family reunification: How inclusive practice makes a 

difference. Child Welfare, 81(4), 595–616.

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

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

43–65.

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

analysis of a successful experiment. Research on Social Work Practice, 5(3), 259–282.

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

reunification programs. Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc.

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

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

Wiley & Sons.

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

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

Marcenko, M., Brown, R., DeVoy, P. R., & Conway, D. (2010). Engaging parents: Innovative 

approaches in child welfare. Protecting Children, 25(1), 23–34. 

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

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

National Center for Youth Law. (2007). Improving the child welfare workforce: Lessons learned from 

class action litigation. Oakland, CA: Author. Retrieved January 2011 from www.youthlaw.org/

publications/yln/2007/january_march_2007/improving_the_child_welfare_workforce

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

National Academies Press.

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

planning curriculum: Concurrent planning for timely permanency. New York, NY: Author.

National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections. (2009). Family engagement: A 

web-based practice toolkit. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved April 2011 from www.nrcpfc.org/

fewpt
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

www.childwelfare.gov

Pine, B. A., Spath, R., & Gosteli, S. (2005). Defining and achieving family reunification. In 

G. P. Mallon & P. Hess, (Eds.), Child Welfare for the twenty first century: A handbook 

of practices, policies, and programs (pp. 378–391). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

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

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

Romanelli, L. H., Hoagwood, K. E., Kaplan, S. J., Kemp, S. P., Harman, R. L., Trupin, C., & the Child 

Welfare-Mental Health Best Practices Group. (2009). Best practices for mental health in child 

welfare: Parent support and youth empowerment guidelines. Child Welfare, 88(1), 189–218.

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

Press.

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

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

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

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

New York: Columbia University Press.

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

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

185–203.

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

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

504–523.

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

reentry for abused and neglected children reunited with their families. Child Abuse & Neglect, 

23(12), 1359–1370.

Wagner, D., & Bogie, A. (2010). California Department of Social Services validation of the SDM® 

Reunification Reassessment. Madison, WI: The Children’s Research Center. Retrieved April 8, 

2011, from www.nccd-crc.org/crc/crc/pdf/CRR_Validation_Report.pdf

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

reunification experiment. Social Work Research, 22(4), 205–214.
Family Reunification: What the Evidence Shows www.childwelfare.gov

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

Information Gateway. Available online at www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification

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

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

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

Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

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

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

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

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

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

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

Yatchmenoff, D. K. (2005). Measuring client engagement from the client’s perspective in 

nonvoluntary child protective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 84–96.

Suggested Citation:

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Family reunification: What the evidence shows. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.

The original (2005) version of this issue brief was developed in partnership with the Child Welfare 

League of America, under subcontract to the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect. 

This update was developed by Child Welfare Information Gateway, in partnership with Susan 

Dougherty. This document is made possible by the Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, 

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

Human Services. The conclusions discussed here are solely the responsibility of the authors and do 

not represent the official views or policies of the funding agency.