Promoting Racially and Ethnically Minoritized Father Involvement in the Child Welfare System
Stephanie Miodus, M.A., M.Ed., Audris Jimenez, M.A., & Tiffany Rodriguez, BSSW, CWCM
ABSTRACT
Children in the child welfare system benefit from father involvement with a lower risk of psychosocial problems and less time spent in foster care (Coakley, 2013). However, even with the substantial benefits for children with increased father involvement, fathers are not fully engaged in the child welfare system. Specifically, case workers are less likely to contact fathers for case planning than mothers (Malm, 2006) and fathers report lower levels of satisfaction with the system (Huebner et al., 2008), citing experiencing exclusion from engagement with their children due to biased policies and practices (Coakley, 2013). These biases may be further pronounced for racially and ethnically minoritized fathers who experience other systemic barriers (e.g., mass incarceration) and biases (Miller et al., 2013). Thus, this training seminar seeks to address the need for inclusion of fathers by highlighting research on the benefits of and barriers to racially and ethnically minoritized father involvement in the child welfare system. The seminar will also explore resources, strategies, policies, and structural changes that can support greater engagement of fathers in the child welfare system. Participants will leave prepared to take the skills and resources they acquire to put them into practice through advocacy, practice, or research.
This training seminar will address barriers to, benefits of, and resources to support father involvement in the child welfare system, particularly for fathers from racially and ethnically minoritized backgrounds.
Learning Objectives
Explain the benefits of and barriers to father involvement in the child welfare system and the impact on children and families.
Identify community and agency resources and strategies that address barriers to racially and ethnically minoritized father involvement in the child welfare system.
Generate ideas and future policy and practice avenues to support racially and ethnically minoritized father engagement in the child welfare system.
Benefits of Father Involvement & the Impact on Children/Families
Overall:
In general, father involvement or engagement with children can lead to:
Positive health outcomes in infants
Weight gain
Breastfeeding
Young boys-reduction of frequency of behavioral problems and delinquency
Young girls-reduction of psychological problems and likelihood of depression
Promote more independent behavior
Challenge child’s language competency
Higher levels of confidence
43% more likely to earn A’s in school
Further into adulthood:
More likely to go to college or find employment
Less likely to go to be incarcerated
Absence of father involvement:
Long lasting psychological effects
Hinders development
Mental Health (Leon et al., 2016)
Father involvement with children in Illinois state custody, results indicated that father involvement was associated with lower externalizing behaviors
Oppositional behavior, conduct, attention deficit/impulse control, anger control, danger to others, sexual aggression, and delinquency
Case Planning
A study (Coakley, 2013) that included biological fathers, stepfathers, the mother’s boyfriend, their uncles, or legal guardians found that children had a shorter stay in foster care when their fathers complied with the case plan
Also more likely to be placed with a parent or relative than with a non-relative
But only 38.6% of fathers in this study signed the case plan and only 15.9% complied with the case plan
Father-identified cases led to more reunification with a parent than non-father identified cases (Barrus et al., 2012)
1.6 times more likely
In these cases, children also spent more time with a parent and less time in foster care
Barriers to Father Involvement & the Impact on Children/Families
Sexism (Brewsaugh et al,. 2018):
A study looked at child welfare workers sexism and found that:
Case workers with profiles suggesting less sexist beliefs had more positive attitudes about father involvement
Also had a lower preference for working solely with mothers
Rigid Thinking (Maxwell et al., 2012):
Case study in England found workers had rigid thinking when it comes to fathers
“All good” or “all bad” fathers
They did not take “bad fathers” seriously when they made complaints for their kids
Difficulty changing label after successful completion of intervention
Past problematic behavior perception lingered
Difficulty (Maxwell et al., 2012b):
Study focused on training social workers to improve father engagement
Feedback from the workers was that it was difficult and time-consuming to work with men
Fathers also seen as a potential risk and were fearful of aggression
Fathers' Perceptions of System (Coakley, 2013):
Unprofessional child welfare workers
Felt that they had a title so they could treat them however
Outward displays of annoyance:
Rolling eyes
Smacking teeth
Prejudice
How they look at you, color of skin
Stereotypes
Talk to mother instead of the father
Feeling ignored
Maternal Gatekeeping (Maxwell et al., 2012):
Mothers may block access to fathers
Mothers do not provide contact for fathers
Scared to identify fathers for fear of losing children or not divulge info on past abuse
African American Fathers (Coakley, 2008):
Not always involved in permanency planning with their children due to:
Inability to provide financial support
Incarceration
Substance use
Mental health problems
Bond with children
Relationship with children’s mother
Child welfare agencies not taking into account race-related social problems
Disproportionality (Arroyo et al., 2019):
Child welfare agencies less likely to identify Black fathers and fathers of multiracial children, in comparison to White fathers
Agencies less likely to locate Black and Latinx fathers
Black and Latinx fathers have lower odds of being contacted after being located
Things that affected contact odds:
Fathers presenting safety risk
Fathers currently incarcerated or in the past
Father’s migration
Resources & Strategies for the Child Welfare System
Efforts to Locate and/or Identify Fathers
Diligent Searches
Family Finder Program
Putative Father Registry
Clear Searches
Access to DMV records and local criminal history
Identifying Legal and Biological Father
Paternity Testing
Identifying a Family’s Needs
Florida Safety Decision Making Methodology
Risk Assessment, FFA-I, Present Danger Assessment
Staffings and Joint Responses
Assessments by CWIST Clinicians
Other Parent Home Assessment
Case Plan Conference
Translator Available 24/7
Financial Assistance
Daycare Fees
Rent/Mortgage Payment
Utilities
Legal Fees
Legal Assistance
Therapeutic Services
Prevention Programs
Community Referrals
Services for Incarcerated Parents
Incarcerated Parents and Dependency Court
Facilitating Parent-Child Visits
Therapeutic Supervised Visitation
Resources & Strategies for Fatherhood Advocacy & Support Programs
Consider intergenerational trauma & support system needs
Help identify a support system
Flexible scheduling
Accommodate work schedules, etc.
Programming available in different languages
Based on community
Cultural competence, sensitivity, & humility
Provide ongoing support to staff
Family programming
Co-parenting classes
Act as a supervised visit site
Financial/resource assistance
E.g., diapers, toys
Additional incentives
E.g., GOOD+ Foundation
Court support
Community events and celebrations of milestones
Focus on supporting the father as an individual first
Build on this support to then work on their skills as a father
Work with father using evidence-based strategies that meet their specific needs
Communicate and coordinate with child welfare case worker
Special considerations for incarcerated fathers
Facilitate continued visitation for fathers
Future Policy & Practice Avenues
Father-Specific Recommendations (e.g., Huebner et al., 2008):
Case-specific help that incorporates the fathers
Seek father input (including an advisory council from fathers with prior cases who were successful)
Partner with mediation/counseling services to navigate caregiver conflicts
Improve information systems
Staff development
Funding & legislative support
Recommendations to Address Systemic/Structural Bias (e.g., Miller et al., 2013):
Increase awareness of bias
Checks & balances in decision-making
DEI practices
Cultural humility
Increase funding for appropriate training & make sure systems support ongoing training and incentives to implement best practices
Positive images & perceptions
REFERENCES & FURTHER READING
Arroyo, J., & Peek, C. W. (2015). Child welfare caseworkers’ characteristics and their attitudes toward non-custodial fathers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 47, 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.06.007
Arroyo, J., Zsembik, B., & Peek, C. W. (2019). Ain’t nobody got time for dad? Racial-ethnic disproportionalities in child welfare casework practice with nonresident fathers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 93, 182–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.03.014
Brewsaugh, K., Masyn, K. E., & Salloum, A. (2018). Child welfare workers’ sexism and beliefs about father involvement. Children and Youth Services Review, 89, 132–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.04.029
Burrus, S. W. M., Green, B. L., Worcel, S., Finigan, M., & Furrer, C. (2012). Do dads matter? Child welfare outcomes for father-identified families. Journal of Child Custody, 9(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.715550
Coakley, T. M. (2008). Examining African American fathers’ involvement in permanency planning: An effort to reduce racial disproportionality in the child welfare system. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(4), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.015
Coakley, T. M. (2013). An appraisal of fathers' perspectives on fatherhood and barriers to their child welfare involvement. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23(5), 627-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10911359.2013.775935
Coakley, T. M. (2013). The influence of father involvement on child welfare permanency outcomes: A secondary data analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(1), 174-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.023
Huebner, R. A., Werner, M., Hartwig, S., White, S., & Shewa, D. (2008). Engaging fathers: Needs and satisfaction in child protective services. Administration in Social Work, 32(2), 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v32n02_06
Leon, S. C., Jhe Bai, G., & Fuller, A. K. (2016). Father involvement in child welfare: Associations with changes in externalizing behavior. Child Abuse & Neglect, 55, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.04.003
Malm, K., Murray, J., & Geen, R. (2006). What About the Dads?: Child Welfare Agencies' Efforts to Identify, Locate and Involve Nonresident Fathers. Urban Institute.
Miller, K. M., Cahn, K., Anderson-Nathe, B., Cause, A. G., & Bender, R. (2013). Individual and systemic/structural bias in child welfare decision making: Implications for children and families of color. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(9), 1634-1642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.07.002
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Featherstone, B., Holland, S., & Tolman, R. (2012). Engaging fathers in child welfare services: A narrative review of recent research evidence. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 160-169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00827.x
Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Holland, S., Featherstone, B., & Lee, J. (2012). The benefits and challenges of training child protection social workers in father engagement. Child Abuse Review (Chichester, England : 1992), 21(4), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2218
Nievar, M. A., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., Saleh, M. F., & Cabrera, N. (2020). Families offering children unfailing support (FOCUS) Fatherhood Program: Changing child welfare through child support and parenting skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 118, 105321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105321
Why Fatherhood Engagement Matters: Children's Bureau. Child Abuse Prevention, Treatment & Welfare Services | Children's Bureau. (2017, May 1). https://www.all4kids.org/news/blog/why-fatherhood-engagement-matters/
Zanoni, L., Warburton, W., Bussey, K., & McMaugh, A. (2013). Fathers as ‘core business’ in child welfare practice and research: An interdisciplinary review. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(7), 1055-1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.04.018
CONTACT INFORMATION
For more information on this presentation, please contact:
Stephanie Miodus, MA, MEd at stephanie.miodus@temple.edu, Audris Jimenez, MA at audrisj15@gmail.com, or Tiffany Rodriguez, BSSW, CWCM at tgome033@fiu.edu