Home  «  Program  «  Family Connections  « 

Family Connections (FC)

Scientific Rating:
3
Promising Research Evidence
See scale of 1-5
Child Welfare Relevance Level:
High

See descriptions of 3 levels

Brief Description

The information in this program outline is provided by the program representative and edited by the CEBC staff. The Family Connections (FC) program has been rated by the CEBC in the areas of: Casework Practice, Interventions for Neglect and Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (Secondary).

  • Type of Maltreatment: Physical Neglect
  • Target Population: Families at risk for child emotional and physical neglect.

FC is a multi-faceted, community-based service program that works with families in their homes and in the context of their neighborhoods. The goal of FC is to help these families meet the basic needs of their children and reduce the risk of child neglect. Nine practice principles guide FC interventions: community outreach; individualized family assessment; tailored interventions; helping alliance; empowerment approaches; strengths perspective; cultural competence; developmental appropriateness; and outcome-driven service plans. Individualized family intervention is geared to increase protective factors, decrease risk factors, and target child safety and well-being outcomes.The core components of FC include: (a) emergency assistance/concrete services; (b) home-based family intervention (e.g., family assessment, outcome-driven service plans, individual and family counseling); (c) service coordination with referrals targeted toward risk (e.g., substance abuse treatment) and protective factors (e.g., mentoring program); and (d) multi-family supportive recreational activities (e.g., theme-based gatherings such as Black History month, trips to museums, etc.).

Essential Components

FC Philosophical Principles Used in the Delivery of Services:

  • Community outreach
  • Family assessment
  • Individualized, tailored intervention
  • Helping alliance
  • Empowerment approaches
  • Strengths perspective
  • Cultural competence
  • Developmental appropriateness
  • Outcome-driven service plans

FC Practitioner Activities:

  • Uses, at a minimum, the original FC screening criteria (presence of at least one type of neglect, at least two additional risk factors related to child or caregiver, and no current CPS involvement) as clear inclusion criteria for targeting and screening program clients.
  • Initiates the therapeutic relationship through face-to-face contact with the family within one business day of acceptance into the FC program.
  • Is assigned to work with the qualified family on an ongoing basis.
  • Provides at least one hour of face-to-face FC services to families at least once per week for at least three months.
  • Provides most FC services in the community, meeting families where they live
  • Uses clinical assessment instruments to guide the identification of risk and protective factors associated with child neglect (or maltreatment) as part of the comprehensive family assessment.
  • Provides emergency/concrete services to address initial concrete needs and additional concrete on an ongoing basis as needed.
  • Conducts comprehensive family assessments to guide the service delivery process.
  • Develops outcome-driven service plans geared to decrease risk and increase protective factors associated with child maltreatment.
  • Delivers tailored and direct therapeutic services to help families reduce risks, maximize protective factors, and achieve service outcomes and goals.
  • Advocates on behalf of families in the community and facilitates services delivery by other organizations/individuals.

FC Program Leadership Activities:

  • Forms and utilizes a community advisory panel that incorporates consumer input.
  • Implements process for evaluation of client change over time and at case closing.

Child Component

Family Connections (FC) was designed with a child component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Externalizing and internalizing behaviors.

Age range: 0 – 17

Developmental Delays:

This program was developed for children with developmental delays; but has not been tested for children with developmental delays.

Parent / Caregiver Component

Family Connections (FC) was designed with a parent/caregiver component that addresses the following presenting problems and symptoms:

  • Poor Household Conditions, Poor Financial Conditions, Inadequate Supports to Caregivers, Unsafe Caregiver/Child Interactions, Abusive Interactions Between Caregivers, Dysfunctional Outcomes from Caregiver History, and Dysfunctional Caregiver Personal Characteristics and Behaviors.

Group Format

Family Connections (FC) was not designed to be conducted in a group setting, and has not been tested for use in a group setting.

Delivery Settings

This program is typically conducted in a(n):

  • Birth Family Home
  • Community Agency

Homework

This program does not include a homework component.

Languages

Family Connections (FC) does not have materials available in a language other than English.

Resources Needed to Run Program

The typical resources for implementing the program are:

Trained social worker, office space, computer and printer, transportation for meeting clients in their homes and in other community settings, emergency/concrete needs fund, and weekly supervision.

Minimum Provider Qualifications

Master's level worker or Bachelor's level worker supervised by a worker with a Master's.

Education and Training Resources

There is a manual that describes how to implement this program, and there is training available for this program.

Training Contact:
  • Diane DePanfilis, PhD, Associate Professor, Director
    Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children

    phone: (410) 706-3609
    525 West Redwood Street
    Baltimore, MD 21201
Training is obtained:

On-site at replicating agency, At original site-University of Maryland School of Social Work, Via video-conference, On-line Course (Core Curriculum), and Administration of Core Curriculum, developed by University of Maryland-School of Social Work, by replicating agency.

Number of days/hours:

Determined individually for each site based on needs.

Relevant Published, Peer-Reviewed Research

This program is rated a "3 - Promising Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale based on the published, peer-reviewed research available. The practice must have at least one study utilizing some form of control (e.g., untreated group, placebo group, matched wait list study) establishing the practice's benefit over the placebo, or found it to be comparable to or better than an appropriate comparison practice. Please see the Scientific Rating Scale for more information.

Child Welfare Outcomes: Safety and Child/Family Well-Being

Show relevant research...

DePanfilis, D., & Dubowitz, H. (2005). Family Connections: A program for preventing child neglect. Child Maltreatment, 10(2), 108-123.

Type of Study: Experimental Design
Number of Participants: 154 families

Population:

  • Age range — 0 – 18
  • Race/Ethnicity — 86.4% African American
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Referred due to concerns about neglect, but not currently involved with CPS.

Location / Institution: Baltimore

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Families were randomly assigned to receive services through Family Connections (FC) for either 3 or 9 months. The study measured risk factors, protective factors, and two child outcomes: safety and behavior. Risk factors measured were caregiver depressive symptoms, measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); parenting stress, measured by the Parenting Stress Inventory (PSI); and everyday stress, measured by the Everyday Stressors Index. Protective factors included parenting attitudes, measured by the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; parenting sense of competence, measured by the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale; family functioning, measured by the Self-Report Family Inventory; and social support, measured by the Social Provisions Scale. Child safety was assessed by observation, using three subscales of the Child Well-Being Scales (household furnishing, overcrowding, and sanitation) and by CPS reports (prior, during and 6 months after intervention.) Finally, child behavior was measured with the Child Behavior Checklist. Results for both groups showed positive changes in protective factors (parenting attitudes, parenting competence, and social support); diminished risk factors (depressive symptoms, parenting stress, life stress); improved safety (physical and psychological care of children); and improved behavior (decreased internalizing and externalizing). There was no advantage seen in the 9-month versus the 3-month intervention with the exception of child behavior. Families served for 9 months demonstrated greater or more sustained reported improvements in child behavior. Limitations noted are the relatively small sample, short follow-up, and a possible self-selection bias of families willing to accept a home-based intervention.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months.

Girvin, H., DePanfilis, D., & Daining, C. (2007). Predicting program completion among families enrolled in a child neglect prevention intervention. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(6), 674-685.

Type of Study: Experimental design (see summary)
Number of Participants: 136 families participating in the Family Connections (FC) program (subset of families in DePanfilis & Dubowitz, 2005)

Population:

  • Age range — 0 – 18
  • Race/Ethnicity — 87.5% African American
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Referred due to concerns about neglect, but not currently involved with CPS.

Location / Institution: Baltimore

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
Caregivers and families were randomly assigned to groups, which would receive either 3 or 9 months of services. Variables used as potential predictors for program completion included previous CPS contact, history of drug use, depressive symptoms (as measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D), everyday stressors (as measured by the Everyday Stressors Index), and worker/client relationship (as measured by the Helping Relationship Inventory.) Finally, the Parent Outcome interview was used to assess caregivers’ satisfaction with the worker. Results of analyses showed that more families in the 3-month condition completed services. Those who completed also had significantly more children and reported a better alliance with their worker. Depressive symptoms also correlated with higher completion rates. The authors note that research has not yet been done to show a link between completion rates and outcomes. They also note that a high overall attrition rate resulted in a reduced usable sample for the study.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months.

DePanfilis, D., Dubowitz, H., & Kunz, J. (2008). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of Family Connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 335-351.

Type of Study: Experimental design (see summary)
Number of Participants: 154 families participating in the Family Connections (FC) program (same sample as DePanfilis & Dubowitz (2005).

Population:

  • Age range — 0-18
  • Race/Ethnicity — 87.5% African American
  • Gender — Not Specified
  • Status — Referred due to concerns about neglect, but not currently involved with CPS.

Location / Institution: Baltimore

Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations)
This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of two alternate forms of Family Connections (FC), in relation to changes in risk and protective factors and improvements in child safety and behavioral outcomes. Families were randomly assigned to receive services through FC for either 3 or 9 months. The study measured risk factors, protective factors, and two child outcomes: safety and behavior. Risk factors measured were caregiver depressive symptoms, measured by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D); parenting stress, measured by the Parenting Stress Inventory (PSI); and everyday stress, measured by the Everyday Stressors Index. Protective factors included parenting attitudes, measured by the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory; parenting sense of competence, measured by the Parenting Sense of Competence Scale; family functioning, measured by the Self-Report Family Inventory; and social support, measured by the Social Provisions Scale. Child safety was assessed by observation, using three subscales of the Child Well-Being Scales (household furnishing, overcrowding, and sanitation) and by CPS reports (prior, during and 6 months after intervention). The 3-month intervention was more cost effective than the 9-month intervention in relation to positive changes in risk and protective factors and child safety. However, cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that the 9-month intervention was more cost effective (CE ratio = $276) than the 3-month intervention (CE ratio = $337) in relation to improved unit changes in the child’s behavior between baseline and 6 months after service closure. A notable limitation is that this is a single-site study. More extensive cost analyses are currently being conducted in the replication of this program in eight jurisdictions in the United States.

Length of post-intervention follow-up: 6 months.

References

Show references...

DePanfilis, D. (2002). Helping families prevent neglect final report. Study funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau 1996-2002 (Grant Number 90CA1580). Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland School of Social Work.

DePanfilis, D. (2009). Using prevention science to reduce the risk of child neglect. Children Australia, 34(1), 40-44.

Lindsey, M. A., Hayward, R. A., & DePanfilis, D. (2009, accepted). Exploring gender differences in behavioral outcomes: The promise of a family-focused prevention intervention. Research on Social Work Practice.

Swanson Ernst, J., Meyer, M., & DePanfilis, D. (2004). The effects of structural characteristics of housing on adequacy of physical child care: An exploratory analysis. Child Welfare, Special Issue on Housing and Homelessness, 83, 437-452.

Thomas, D., Leicht, C., Hughes, C., Madigan, A., & Dowell, K. (2003). Emerging Practices In the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (pp. 24- 27). Washington DC: Department of Health and Human Services.

Contact Information

Name: Diane DePanfilis, PhD, MSW
Agency/Affiliation: University of Maryland
Department: School of Social Work
Website: www.family.umaryland.edu
Email:
Phone: (410) 706-3609
Fax: (410) 706-1346

Date Reviewed: June 2011 (originally reviewed in May 2008)