child welfare professionals’ experiences in engaging fathers in services
TRANSCRIPT
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences in EngagingFathers in Services
Mahasin F. Saleh
Published online: 9 October 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract The purpose of this exploratory focus group study was to examine child
welfare professionals’ (n = 22) experiences with and perspectives towards working
with fathers. The six themes that emerged from the thematic analysis contrasted
sharply with earlier research findings and indicated that child welfare professionals
skillfully engage fathers and that some fathers trust the system and are motivated to
be involved. The findings revealed insights about foster fathers and working with
foster parents. Unique regional issues also emerged as a factor that affect fathers and
families. Recommendations for designing training, especially in areas with limited
fatherhood specific services are provided.
Keywords Child welfare professionals � Child welfare workers � Fathers �Services/child protection � Foster fathers
Introduction
Increase in father absence in U.S. families has impacted family structure and is one
of the most consistent correlates of childhood poverty. In fact, poverty rates for
families without fathers are approximately five times higher than in dual parent
homes (Cabrera 2010). Due to these and other alarming statistics related to father
absence over the last 15 years, U.S. policy makers and others have emphasized and
disseminated research supporting the benefits of fathers’ involvement in their
children lives through local and national fatherhood initiatives (Cabrera and Peters
2000). Recently, federal attention has focused upon certain populations of fathers
and the child welfare system as evidenced by the federally funded National Quality
Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System
M. F. Saleh (&)
School of Social Work, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557-0090, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
Child Adolesc Soc Work J (2013) 30:119–137
DOI 10.1007/s10560-012-0282-0
established in 2006, as well as other initiatives (Sonenstein et al. 2002). Though
research in the arena of fathers and child welfare is still evolving, it is poignant and
promising that national attention is beginning to focus on an especially vulnerable
and at-risk population of children and families.
Fathers’ Participation in Child Welfare Services
At the beginning of the 20th century Cooper Hodgson posited that child welfare had
shut out fathers and ignored ‘‘one of two partners in the greatest business in the
world’’ (Cooper Hodgson 1929, p. 593). Some may wonder if the sentiment has
changed over the last century, because even recently fathers have been called the
‘‘forgotten clients’’ in child welfare (Jaffe 1983). Dubowitz (2009) argued that the
stereotype of absent fathers in high risk families is a generalization and that it is
important that Child Protective Services reach out to these fathers during assessment
and case planning phases in order to better understand the children’s environment
and leverage fathers’ strengths. In fact, non-resident fathers whose children are
involved in the child welfare system have been recognized as possible resources in
their children’s cases, even beyond financial support (Malm and Zielewski 2009).
Even if a father is not involved in his child’s life and does not or cannot provide
financial support, providing medical history/genetic background, survivor benefits
or health benefits can positively impact his child/ren (Malm et al. 2006). Fathers
who are incarcerated can provide their children some limited resources (English
et al. 2009). And, when circumstances are more acute, voluntary relinquishment of
parental rights may help the child move to permanency sooner (O’Donnell 2001).
Daniel and Taylor (1999) also point out that if a father is abusive he can still be
explicitly engaged in child welfare services by being held responsible for the abuse,
rather than expecting the mother to protect. An example of involvement in services
could include exploring assets, such as the possibility of offering the child ‘‘access
to important extended family members’’ (Daniel and Taylor 1999, p. 218).
However, other researchers suggest that not all fathers can be considered a resource
due to reasons which ‘appear legitimate’, such as domestic violence situations
(English et al. 2009).
Many studies have pointed to the benefits of fathers’ involvement in their
children’s lives (see Lamb 2010). However, little is known about fathers’
involvement in children’s lives when families are involved with the child welfare
system. Some initial research has found positive associations between non-resident
father support and foster children’s reunification outcomes, yet causality has not
been determined (Malm and Zielewski 2009). Another study found an association
between a non-custodial parent (often the biological father) and a reduced likelihood
of an out-of-home placement for children (Bellamy 2009). Other research indicates
that a woman living with a man who is not the biological father of all of her children
is more likely to be contacted by Child Protective Services, as compared to
instances in which the biological father resided in the family (Berger et al. 2009).
Researching fathers in the context of the child welfare system is complex due to
the variety of family constellations and circumstances, as well as the array of child
welfare services involved. However, additional understanding needs to be sought
120 M. F. Saleh
123
after and it could be acquired through various sources, including fathers, children,
mothers, and child welfare professionals. Despite the complexity, research needs to
be undertaken in order to continue to improve services and create practice models of
engaging fathers in services so as to support the best interests of the child (Bellamy
2009). Even though legal definitions of the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ vary from
state to state, the general meaning includes determining who is best suited to care
for the child (Child Welfare Information Gateway 2010). From a broad perspective
‘‘best interests of the child’’ also encompasses additional supports from other
persons in the child’s life, not just the custodial parent. It is essential that research
explore the effects of father contribution in various roles which support the child.
Child Welfare Professionals’ Perspectives
Child welfare professionals’ attitudes, beliefs and knowledge about fathers in the
child welfare system are essential to consider, because professionals are a valuable
source of information (US Department of Health and Human Services 2007).
Researchers have also found that caseworker characteristics have an impact upon
child welfare outcomes to varying degrees (Lipsky 1980; Rossi et al. 1999; Stone
and Stone 1983). Thus, child welfare professionals’ perspectives, attitudes, skills,
and experience in engaging fathers in services can inform practice, training, policy,
and research. There is a lack of research on fathers and the child welfare system and
even fewer studies within this area have been based upon the perspectives and
experiences of the professionals on the front lines.
The few published studies, with data gathered from 1993 to 2001, that examine
child welfare professionals’ service delivery and attitudes towards fathers continue
in the same vein as earlier studies from the 1970s and 1980s (see Fanshel 1982;
Jaffe 1983; Kirsh and Maidman 1984; Polansky et al. 1972). All of these studies
paint a bleak picture of lack of caseworker engagement of fathers in child welfare
services, as well as the fathers’ lack of participation. Some examples include two
related studies on father involvement in kinship foster care services (based on data
collected in 1993–94), both utilized case record reviews and caseworker surveys of
activity (O’Donnell 1999, 2001). The larger study (O’Donnell 2001) focused
specifically on involvement of multiple father families and the related study
(O’Donnell 1999) explored African American fathers’ involvement. The overall
findings in both studies revealed that mothers were more significantly involved than
fathers and participated more in permanency than fathers. In the multiple father
families study, there was no evidence that 68 % of the sample had been contacted
by caseworkers, while in the African American sample 70 % of the caseworkers did
not have any recent contact with the fathers and did not seek to contact them.
O’Donnell (1999) noted that caseworkers rarely developed strategies to reach out to
the African American fathers who were not involved. And, in general, caseworkers
were more aware of fathers’ deficits as compared to their strengths. In these two
studies, the majority of caseworkers did not have degrees. It is not known to what
extent the lack of degrees affected caseworkers’ practice. Another limitation of both
studies was that caseworkers were not asked to discuss or explain their perspectives
and behaviors towards fathers. However, in relation to the African American
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 121
123
sub-sample O’Donnell (1999) suggested that caseworkers and agency attitudes
towards fathers were a factor that promoted an overall ‘‘silence’’ about fathers and
that they were rarely seen as a resource in planning for the child’s case (p. 437).
One study comparing caseworkers’ outreach to birth fathers and mothers of
children in foster care in New York City had strikingly similar results (Franck 2001)
to both O’Donnell’s (1999, 2001) studies. Utilizing a caseworker questionnaire
based upon casework activity, the researcher found that caseworkers attended to
birthmothers far more than birthfathers, despite any mediating variables (some of
which included caseworker gender, race, age, education, caseload size and case
turnover). Caseworkers did not ignore fathers, but at the same time did demonstrate
a preference for mothers over fathers in engagement, outreach and planning (Franck
2001). Similar to O’Donnell’s studies, Franck’s study did not ask workers rationale
for their behaviors. However, in contrast, each worker in Franck’s study had a
bachelor’s degree and approximately 22 % had completed graduate work.
It is important to note that there has only been one published peer reviewed focus
group study from this era (data gathered in 1999) that was found by this author. It is
O’Donnell et al. (2005) study, which utilized a statewide sample in Illinois, and
concentrated solely on 34 child welfare professionals’ perspectives of fathers and
the child welfare system. The educational status of the professionals was not noted.
While not linked to the aforementioned studies, O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) study had
similar findings and due to the qualitative nature shed some possible light on
caseworkers’ motivations or lack of motivation in engaging fathers. Workers were
asked if their experiences supported research that found that non-custodial fathers
are rarely involved in child welfare and planning services. Central to the qualitative
findings were that fathers were an ‘‘afterthought’’ and there were considerable
barriers in involving fathers in child welfare interventions and that fathers rarely
participated in services. O’Donnell et al. (2005) reported that generally caseworkers
had difficulty even articulating a coherent perspective about working with fathers
and had a greater comfort level in working with mothers and a better understanding
of them. The qualitative themes that emerged included that ‘‘Fathers are Peripheral
to the Child Welfare System’’; ‘‘The System Treats Fathers more Severely than
Mothers’’; ‘‘Fathers Mistrust and Avoid the Child Welfare System’’; ‘‘Mothers
Obstruct Fathers’ Involvement in Child Welfare Interventions’’; ‘‘Many Fathers
Have Little or No Commitment to their Children’’; and ‘‘Caseworkers Treat
Mothers and Fathers the Same’’. Due to the lack of father engagement articulated by
study participants, the authors concluded that child welfare as a profession needs to
assist child welfare workers in multiple ways to successfully work with fathers
(O’Donnell et al. 2005).
Findings from more recent studies paint a bit of a different picture of worker
behaviors and attitudes in the context of engaging fathers in child welfare services. In a
four state study about identifying, locating and involving non-residential fathers in
their children’s foster care cases, researchers found that caseworkers had contacted
55 % of the fathers at least once (Malm et al. 2006). However, caseworker and
administrators attitudes about father involvement were mixed. They reported that in
general children’s well-being could be enhanced by an involved father, but only if
the father was not a safety risk. Only a little over half (53 %) of the caseworkers
122 M. F. Saleh
123
believed that nonresident fathers wanted to be involved in making decisions about
their children. Approximately 70 % of caseworkers in the study reported that they had
attended training on identifying, locating, or engaging fathers. Findings showed that
those caseworkers who received specific training were more likely to identify or
engage fathers for cases involved in the sample. Most of the caseworkers had
bachelors’ degrees (73.4 %), while approximately 23 % had masters’ degrees.
Caseworker data was gathered October 2004 through February 2005 (Malm et al.
2006).
Another recent study surveyed both social services workers and fathers involved
in the child welfare system statewide (Huebner et al. 2008). Workers were queried
about their perceptions of fathers and their service needs and also about staff needs
surrounding engaging fathers in services. These questions were tied to the study’s
quantitative variables. In open ended responses, workers identified the need for
training on locating fathers and other father specific issues, as well as how to engage
fathers in cases. Other themes that emerged included that workers noticed
significant paternity and legal issues and resistance or safety issues in working
with fathers; that mothers needed help disclosing information about fathers; the
need to coordinate services between state social services programs; and the need for
education and capacity building for employees and the community. Themes were
reported in brevity, perhaps because the purpose was to clarify workers’ survey
responses. Also, workers’ educational status was not reported. Huebner et al. (2008)
did report that ‘‘workers struggled to know how to engage fathers’’ (p. 100). This
study was based on active cases from October through December 2004. No date was
noted for collection of caseworker surveys.
Finally, results of a pilot training study that utilized pre and post surveys revealed
that social work staff already had generally father friendly attitudes about fathers in
child welfare prior to training (English et al. 2009). This included a general
‘‘agreement about the importance of father involvement’’ (p. 232). Despite the
friendly worker attitudes, workers did not always identify fathers as resource in their
children’s cases for various reasons. Post training findings revealed that there
seemed to be positive changes in practices. The study did not seek to explain worker
attitudes, so details about the disconnect between attitudes and practice are
unknown. The educational status of the workers was not reported. Data for this
study were collected September 2002 through August 2003. The training pilot was
4 h long and implemented in 2002 (English et al. 2009).
Earlier studies on caseworker behaviors and attitudes towards fathers revealed a
lack of engagement, a somewhat negative or apathetic attitude towards fathers, and
a tendency to involve mothers much more than fathers. More recent studies seem to
show higher levels of caseworkers engagement of fathers, but also mixed findings
about worker attitudes surrounding father involvement, and, even reports of workers
‘‘struggling to know how to engage fathers’’ (Huebner et al. 2008; English et al.
2009; Malm et al. 2006). Since a lack of qualitative studies exist in this area,
researchers need to gather current in depth information about workers attitudes and
behaviors from their perspective that is not tied to a predetermined set of
quantitative variables (O’Donnell et al. 2005). Firsthand insight from the front lines
could provide explanations and hypotheses about workers’ attitudes and beliefs
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 123
123
surrounding work with fathers. New knowledge may be gained, which could inform
training development and efforts. Findings also may tap underlying issues that
workers are experiencing, as well as revealing successful strategies that workers
utilize. Since there has been virtually no recent in-depth qualitative research on
child welfare workers’ attitudes and work with fathers, further exploration is
needed.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine experiences and perspectives
of Child Protection Services and Child Welfare workers’ have had in working with
all populations of fathers at a mid-size Western county social services agency. Due
for the need for exploratory research on child welfare professionals’ perspectives
and experiences of engaging fathers in services this author designed the following
study. Qualitative focus groups were utilized in order to gather rich descriptive data
which may not otherwise be obtained through survey response. In addition, focus
group research has been implemented with child welfare workers, because the group
format is comparable to the supervision and problem solving process used in
casework (Cardoso et al. 2009). In order to better understand child welfare
professionals’ perspectives and work with fathers, obtaining their first hand
experience was vital. The main research question for this study was ‘‘What are child
welfare professionals’ experiences in working with fathers?’’ A second question
included, ‘‘What are child welfare professionals’ perspectives towards fathers?’’
Methods
Participants
Focus groups were held at the County Social Services agency and were open to all
child welfare units in order to gain a variety of perspectives. The author recruited
participants with permission of the agency through email flyers and an announce-
ment at an agency meeting. The research protocol was approved by the affiliated
academic institution’s Institutional Review Board. Four focus groups were held
between November 2008 and June 2009 and were facilitated by the author. Twenty-
two county employees participated in the four groups that lasted approximately
1.5 h each. Between 3 and 8 employees attended each focus group.
Focus group participants’ length of experience in public child welfare ranged from
approximately 1 to 30 years with an average tenure of 11 years. Nearly half (45 %)
had been at the agency 10 years or more. Eighteen females and four males
participated. A range of child welfare positions were represented and often
participants reported having held multiple positions at the agency. Areas represented
included, but were not limited to assessment, adoption, foster care, and permanency.
In order to further sustain a confidential atmosphere, participants were asked only
minimal demographics. Various ethnicities were represented and all had at least
bachelors’ degrees, as a requirement of entry level case management position. In this
124 M. F. Saleh
123
study employees who participated in the focus groups will be referred to as child
welfare professionals, since they all had at least bachelors’ degrees and due to the
range of their positions both in child welfare and protection.
Instrument/Procedure
The interview guide was developed based upon a review of the current literature on
child welfare services and fathers and child welfare professionals’ perspectives
about engaging fathers in services. (It was also developed based upon the author’s
experience presenting and training on engaging fathers in child welfare and social
services in another state and at national venues). Each focus group was asked about
all types of fathers that they had worked with, including but not limited to single,
married fathers, residential, non-residential fathers, and fathers who had maltreated.
All the participants were asked about barriers they have found in working with
fathers and engaging them in their children’s cases. Question prompts for specific
barriers included barriers from individual child welfare professionals, agency wide,
and in policy. Participants were also asked about policies or procedures they thought
could be reconsidered in order to better engage fathers in services and benefit
children who are receiving services. From a strengths-based perspective participants
were also asked about successes they have had in working with all types of fathers.
Finally, participants were asked if they were to give advice to other child welfare
professionals what would be their suggestions on how best to engage fathers in
services or get them involved in their children’s cases.
Data Analysis
The focus group sessions were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. The
transcripts were analyzed by the author and a research team member. Qualitative
software QDA Miner 3.0.2 was utilized for the analysis. The focus group data were
coded in two cycles (as described by Saldana 2009). During the first cycle coding,
structural coding was utilized as an initial categorization of all the data (Saldana
2009). The author and a research assistant undertook first cycle coding independently
and agreed upon data within the structural coding themes, which were categorized
descriptively into barriers, successes, and advice about working with fathers in child
welfare. During the second cycle coding, thematic analysis was utilized in examining
the body of data as a whole, regardless of study questions. The author and research
assistant blindly validated the themes. Simultaneous coding (or coding overlap) was
necessary due to the nature and complexity of the data (Saldana 2009).
Results
Themes
Six major themes emerged from the qualitative analysis. The themes are presented
in order of frequency that they emerged. Participants were asked about engaging all
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 125
123
types of fathers, which resulted in discussion of many family configurations and
father statuses and circumstances (teen, older fathers, multiple father families,
custodial, single, married, etc.).
The Continuum of Father Responsibility
The first theme that emerged was ‘‘The Continuum of Father Responsibility’’. This
continuum ranged from positive father responsibility to the lack of paternal
responsibility. Child welfare professionals shared numerous case examples and
analysis relating to barriers and successes in working with fathers, which emerged
as the theme of paternal responsibility at both ends of the spectrum. Child welfare
professionals acknowledged that many fathers are ‘‘committed to their children’’,
while others are not. Approximately 60 % of the data in this theme referenced the
lack of paternal responsibility, while about 40 % focused on the positive end of the
paternal responsibility spectrum.
Examples of lack of father responsibility included father absence, denial of
paternity despite medical evidence, alcohol and/or drug abuse, blaming the mother,
and incarceration for various reasons, including maltreatment. One child welfare
professional shared the following, which exemplified lack of father responsibility:
‘‘They don’t believe. They took the paternity test and then its ‘I want a blood test’.
And some of them disappear because they feel like they’re not the father. That’s
hard, too, getting them engaged when they don’t believe.’’
Another child welfare professional shared a major concern of ‘‘losing the dads,’’
because of alcohol and drug abuse/addiction. ‘‘Sometimes there’s a barrier that I see
often with substance abuse. We have a father who may be actively engaging in
criminal activity or drug abuse or what have you. He’s not at that point of willing to
engage in the case plan to work on those issues…’’
Positive father responsibility emerged as a strong aspect of the continuum theme
and participants shared many positive cases and their own analysis. Positive
responsibility was depicted by examples of men who had ‘‘stepped up’’ to become
responsible dads, those who were already being very responsible fathers, and those
who were going ‘‘above and beyond’’ and for some, even despite insurmountable
circumstances. Those who had ‘‘stepped up’’ covered a range of circumstances,
including those men who had not known they were fathers, others who had ‘‘cleaned
up’’ from alcohol and/or drugs, fathers who had been incarcerated or fathers who
lived far away and relocated to take care of their children.
A child welfare professional shared the following case, which exemplified a
father who was stepping up to his paternal responsibilities. ‘‘I had a father that was
incarcerated upon removal. And when we got to the 12 month mark, he was ready to
be released on parole. And mom’s done nothing. We would have gone permanent.
And the judge did give us two more months for him to show. He said, ‘‘Do this or
not.’’ And he [the dad] did everything he could possibly do and is now working to
get his kids back.’’
Child welfare professionals discussed cases in which single dads were ‘‘already
being responsible’’ and took fatherhood seriously and without the help of a partner
would raise the children, even if they had not been involved before. In a few cases
126 M. F. Saleh
123
there were mothers who had mental health or substance abuse issues and even
though they were no longer married, the children’s father assisted the mother, by
taking her to treatment or taking all the children while she was in treatment.
There were some cases where fathers went ‘‘above and beyond’’, despite
circumstances such as mothers having an affair and a child with another man. One
child welfare professional shared, ‘‘He’s the legal dad … and so he’s reunifying
with those two boys with that mom and he knows its someone else’s child. But he’s
gone above and beyond. He goes to their therapy sessions, the doctor’s
appointments. He’s working…’’
It is interesting to note that foster fathers also fell along the paternal
responsibility continuum. Child welfare professionals discussed cases of foster
fathers, both single and married, who were very involved and made a difference in
children’s lives. Some single foster fathers were mentioned as going above and
beyond. However, some participants also shared that there are some foster fathers
who do not interact with the child welfare system or those that only step in at the last
minute to insist on removing the foster child from the home when the foster mother
has reached a certain point.
Child Welfare Professionals’ Use of Skills and Relationship Building
The theme that occurred the second in frequency was ‘‘Child Welfare Professionals’
Use of Skills and Relationship Building’’. A variety of skills that child welfare
professionals utilized with fathers emerged throughout the discussion of cases, their
experiences, and advice. These skills included what are often termed as
‘‘microcounseling skills’’ (Ivey 1971) and social work skills, including active
listening, empathy, respect, acknowledging feelings, and encouragement. Other
skills that emerged included setting limits and good boundaries, confronting
inconsistencies, coaching, assessment, information giving, educating, teaching
skills, direct communication, and treating both fathers and mothers equal and fair.
Child welfare professionals also were keenly aware they had to confront their own
personal biases in working with fathers. One participant remarked, ‘‘I think
everybody, including our staff social workers even as well as the case managers
have personal biases. That’s something that we all have to deal with constantly at
social worker’s pay. So we have to battle against that and get along. It’s something
that’s human nature that we deal with. And we have to confront it. Deal with it and
put it aside. We all have personal biases. Social workers are not immune to them’’.
Other skills that child welfare professionals discussed included de-escalation
techniques, make it about the children, engage dads in decision making, avoid
power struggles, support, empowerment, mediation and the current trajectory
technique. (The current trajectory technique consists of presenting clients’ current
behavior and attitudes and then likely outcomes for clients and their children if
clients do not change their behaviors). Child welfare professionals also noted the
importance of recognizing and relying on appropriate client supports, including
family both paternal and maternal relatives and community supports. Participants
were very thoughtful in describing their work with fathers and efforts to engage
them. They discussed these skills both in terms of birth fathers they worked with
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 127
123
and also foster fathers and mothers. The following case exemplifies this theme. The
child welfare professional is educating foster parents who hold negative stereotypes
and biases about single fathering:
‘‘You try to work through that because they’ve got this ingrained. With mine it’s
just more trying to educate them. So he doesn’t have on Reebok shoes. He has on
Wal-Mart shoes. But he has shoes on. And he won’t go to Harvard probably because
he’s going back to his dad who has no money and won’t ever have a lot of money,
but it is his dad. He’s got legal rights and we reunify families. They’re attached to
the child. They want to do what’s best for the child. It is a good thing in that sense
… what’s best for the child is what everybody has in common. So you try to educate
them and explain.’’
Participants also discussed that men may communicate differently than women
and they shared skills they use and advice for communicating with fathers. The
participants recognized that men may show more emotion and anger than women
and advised that acknowledgement of fathers’ feelings including ‘‘letting them
vent’’, and empathizing is important. Being straightforward and open in commu-
nication was advice the child welfare professionals shared. Setting good boundaries
was also advisable given that some of the fathers are in services because they have
maltreated their children and may display intimidating behaviors. One participant
stated the following: ‘‘All of the guys I’ve worked with are like okay, ‘Tell me
exactly what I need to do.’ So every conversation I would have with the man was
very straightforward.’’ ‘‘Letting them know you’re hearing them and that you
understand what they’re saying. But also being really firm and setting some
boundaries.’’
The System is Treating Fathers Better, But More Change is Needed
The third theme that emerged was that ‘‘The System is Treating Fathers Better, But
More Change is Needed’’. Participants acknowledged how far the system has come,
but also noted that some additional work and change is needed. This theme included
substantial discussion of policy, legal issues as well as lack of system resources, and
fathers’ beliefs about the system.
One participant’s comment seemed to capture the general sentiment about the
Child Welfare System. ‘‘I think we’re at a good place right now in terms of actual
guidelines and also statewide policies and internal policies involving them
[fathers].’’ In general, child welfare professionals noted that policy has been
changing in a positive way for fathers. They recognized it had not been the best in
the past and noted that now children do not automatically go to the mother.
Participants discussed both positive policy shifts and current challenges with policy.
One system issue that child welfare professionals identified as a barrier was that
cases are still named after the mother.
Legal issues were discussed in similar frequency as policy issues. Legal paternity
was at the heart of the discussion. Paternity identification was a major issue, especially
when the father was not actually the biological father and the system could not legally
give the child to the man who had been acting as father. In these cases, this was
challenging news for fathers who had already been involved. A child welfare
128 M. F. Saleh
123
professional stated ‘‘in one case a father turned out not to be the biological father and
the mom said ‘this is not your child’. And then we did a paternity test and it wasn’t his.
He was very bonded to the little girl and wanted her … he was raising this little girl as
his own, and all of a sudden … ‘Oh, oh. Sorry. Not yours.’’’
Another legal issue was fathers who are undocumented and are suddenly
deported during a case. One worker stated, ‘‘And it also seems like we have such a
large Hispanic population where a lot of times dad has been deported … or they get
deported during the case. We started working with them and then ‘boom’, they’re
gone.’’ Participants also shared that fathers seem to have more challenges than
mothers in receiving or obtaining adequate legal representation and that they are
‘‘shorted’’ on representation.
While not discussed in great frequency, participants shared that some services
such as drug treatment, and transitional services and shelters served mothers and
their children only and there were no corresponding resources for fathers and their
children. Participants also shared that some fathers did not think the system was
perfect and did not trust the system, while some fathers asked for assistance. One
example of system mistrust included a father who had aged out of the foster care
system and then had become involved again with the system with his child and he
was wary to trust the system, due to his past experience. An example of a father
asking for assistance and trusting the system included a single father who suddenly
had custody of his teenage daughter. He frequently relied upon more than one
worker and the agency as his guides.
Gender Communication and Stereotypes
‘‘Gender Communication and Stereotypes’’ was a theme that emerged and a
frequent topic woven throughout all the group discussions. Participants voiced
gender as a variable within their communication and work with fathers and the
awareness and knowledge that men may communicate differently than women. As
noted in the ‘‘Child Welfare Professionals’ Use of Skills and Building Relation-
ships’’ theme, participants shared specific gender communication skills that they
utilize in working with fathers. One participant noted the importance of working
with both men and women and emphasized that many employees in child welfare
are women. She shared that even with the awareness of gender communication, it is
not always easy. Participants shared that how men communicate and deal with their
emotions may be different than women. For example, child welfare professionals
were very aware that underneath presenting emotions, maybe other underlying
feelings. Participants also reported that some fathers do not like to hear something
from a woman (i.e., worker, attorney, judge) and they may get angry, because they
feel like women are trying to tell them what to do.
Another very real concern that one female child welfare professional shared is
working with some fathers who have maltreated their children and are verbally
abusive and threatening towards female child welfare professionals. She shared that
through her experience that men with abusive histories have been more threatening
than women involved in services. She noted the importance of always being
professional no matter the circumstance and setting boundaries. In a different
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 129
123
gender vein, another worker shared that she had dealt with male clients who
expressed romantic interest in her. She realized that she may have been the only
consistent female in one of the father’s lives and perhaps that was why he was
approaching her. She was straightforward in setting boundaries and reminded them
of her professional role.
Since referrals to counseling for parents are common as part of child welfare
services, child welfare professionals reported fathers’ preferences surrounding
counseling services, which sometimes tapped both gender communication and
stereotypes. Child welfare professionals reported that some fathers were willing
participants in counseling; others attended counseling even though they did not want
to, while others clearly did not want to and did not attend counseling. Participants
shared that some fathers viewed counseling as a vehicle for women to process
feelings and that ‘‘strong men’’ do not attend counseling. ‘‘And we got him into
counseling with a male counselor, but he would call me and he would say,
‘‘Counseling is for women. I don’t like to talk about my feelings. And you’re
making me do this, and he’s made me cry. And I don’t like dealing with my stuff.’’
One child welfare professional mentioned a case of a father who questioned
going to counseling, since he had been a successful parent in the past. The
participant thought that there may be a different path for him to deal with his issues
rather than counseling. Another worker shared that she frequently experienced men
in her office crying and because of relationship issues. She surmised that these
fathers were probably not comfortable sharing their emotions with family and
friends, but needed to share them with someone.
Child welfare professionals said that they occasionally heard gender stereotypes
from the fathers themselves. Some fathers felt it was not their role to change diapers
or to clean house when they were seeking placement or had the child placed with
them. It is important to note, that there was more discussion of cases of fathers who
did not seem to have a gender stereotype of the paternal role and were doing
whatever it took to be a father. (These emerged in the positive father responsibility
theme). There were other examples where other people or the system stereotyped
fathers. In one case a foster mother had the belief that a family consisted of a mother
and a father, not a single father. The foster parent had much higher expectations for
the father and made it very difficult for him, so the child welfare professional
intervened.
Gatekeepers
Another theme that emerged was that of ‘‘Gatekeepers’’. This theme is defined as
mothers or maternal relatives or others close to the father who limit or inhibit
fathers’ access to their children for various reasons. In this context, mothers as were
mentioned almost twice as often as the maternal relatives. Child welfare
professionals acknowledged that maternal relatives are not always barriers and
‘‘more often are a good resource’’, as they may share information that may be
helpful in ‘‘planning and figuring out what’s best for the child’’. On the other hand
in a couple of cases maternal relatives made allegations against fathers and the
allegations were not founded and seemed to make ‘‘the father’s life miserable’’. In
130 M. F. Saleh
123
another case, the worker mentioned that sometimes reports can be due to strained
relations and other times ‘‘it gives us more information’’. A variety of reasons were
given for mothers not sharing information, including that she has a poor relationship
with the father, is embarrassed or feeling shameful, fearful, or angry. One worker
shared that it affects the children—‘‘What I’ve seen is not only that [mothers]
they’re not identifying, but just the anger. And the relationship problems break
down between them and falls down on the kids a lot of times.’’
Child welfare professionals also mentioned two separate cases in which foster
mothers held stereotypes about single fathers and sought to restrict the birth father’s
access to his children. Thus, even foster parents could be considered gatekeepers. As
was discussed in the ‘‘Child Welfare Professionals’ Use of Skills and Relationship
Building’’ and ‘‘Gender Communication and Stereotypes’’ themes, in these cases the
child welfare professionals would intervene and educate the foster parents.
Regional Issues are a Factor that Affect Fathers
The final theme that emerged was that ‘‘Regional Issues are a Factor that Affect
Fathers’’. This theme was characterized by discussion of local issues and
environment, such as longtime legalized gambling and prostitution, which impact
fathers and families. One participant noted that because of the longtime gaming
industry that the state is transient. ‘‘We have people [who] get stuck here. They lose
their money and here they are.’’ Another participant shared more about the
environmental impacts, ‘‘All those holiday weekends we always have those Monday
morning’’ casino arcade placements. ‘‘And the drug traffic is huge.’’
Because prostitution is legalized in nearby counties some local families are
involved in the industry, as well as those who come from other areas to participate.
One child welfare professional noted, ‘‘… there’s a lot of areas nearby, ranches in
other counties where it’s legalized. That’s what they do. They leave the baby with
dad for 2 or 3 days at a time, go out to the ranch and make some extra income. Seen
cases like that where the dad will say, ‘‘Oh, she makes more money than I can.’’
‘‘All types of people come in from out of town and then they might end up getting
arrested here and stuck here. The children may come into our custody.’’ Another
participant shared one fathers’ response to paternity: ‘‘I had a gentleman [who] just
stated outright that ‘how could this child be his?’ He had paid. ‘‘Where are the
relinquishment papers? Let me sign now.’’
Child welfare professionals noted that clients come to the area for various
reasons, including because they think ‘‘it is a good place to raise a family’’, or it is a
‘‘destination’’, or to get away from their past and addictions. One participant noted,
‘‘We’re uniquely located’’. Close proximity to another state border also affects who
comes into service. Child welfare professionals in this study were very aware of the
unique issues that could affect fathers and families in the area.
Limitations
This study sheds light on child welfare professionals’ experiences and perspectives
towards fathers. However, there was a limitation that needs to be considered when
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 131
123
interpreting the findings. This limitation includes that sample participants were not
randomly selected, since they volunteered in response to flyers and a meeting
announcement. Therefore, it is possible that other child welfare professionals at the
agency may hold different views about engaging fathers in services, as compared to
those persons who chose to participate in the study.
Discussion
This research fills a gap in the literature, because it is the only published focus group
study based on child welfare professionals’ experiences and perspectives since
1999. Recent research has utilized quantitative and mixed methods, but with limited
qualitative components. Thus, this study provided new insights and a voice for child
welfare professionals to share their experiences in working with fathers. The six
themes that emerged in the study depicted the child welfare professionals’
experiences in working with fathers thus answered the study’s first research
question. Three of the themes in this study, ‘‘The Continuum of Father
Responsibility’’; ‘‘The System is Treating Fathers Better’’; and ‘‘Gender Commu-
nication and Stereotypes’’, contrast sharply with O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) focus
group study findings. Additionally, two themes from this study, ‘‘Child Welfare
Professionals’ Use of Skills and Relationship Building’’; and ‘‘Regional Issues are a
Factor that Affect Fathers’’ are also unique to the literature and provide specific
insights about child welfare professionals’ practice skills and behaviors in working
with fathers, as well as distinctive regional issues fathers face. Finally, one theme
‘‘Gatekeepers’’ is somewhat related to the theme ‘‘Mothers Obstruct Fathers’
Involvement in Child Welfare Interventions’’ in O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) findings,
but this study’s theme expands the notion of those who limit fathers’ access to
children and provides rationale behind gatekeeping behaviors.
In response to the second research question child welfare professionals’
perspectives towards fathers were positive and realistic. Overall the findings point
to evidence that child welfare professionals in this study expected to, and actually
worked with, both fathers and mothers and reported skillfully engaging fathers. In
comparison, past research studies have shown that caseworkers expected to work
mainly with mothers and engaged with women at significantly higher rates than
fathers (Franck 2001; O’Donnell 1999, 2001; O’Donnell et al. 2005). In this study,
fathers were not merely an ‘‘afterthought’’ as was the case in O’Donnell et al.’s
(2005) study. More recent studies show workers’ working with fathers more,
however, attitudes about fathers in child welfare have been mixed and workers are
unsure how to engage fathers (Huebner et al. 2008) or had more positive attitudes,
but their behaviors did not support these attitudes (English et al. 2009).
Additionally, child welfare professionals in this study articulated cohesive and
comprehensive narratives about working fathers in comparison to O’Donnell et al.’s
(2005) description of study participants, who had challenges articulating consistent
perspectives on working with fathers. The theme of ‘‘Child Welfare Professionals’ Use
of Skills and Relationship Building’’ which emerged in this study was based upon child
welfare professionals’ frequent discussion of a vast array of skills in working with and
132 M. F. Saleh
123
engaging fathers. The emergence of this theme is especially important, because it
documents specific use of skills. The ‘‘Gender Communication and Stereotype’’ theme
also demonstrated the child welfare professionals’ awareness and recognition of the
differences in working with men and women. Professionals utilized strategies
surrounding gender communication and stereotypes. At the same time, they
emphasized the importance of treating fathers and mothers fair and equal. This
contrasted to O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) theme ‘‘Caseworkers’ Treat Mothers and
Fathers the Same’’, because in this study the child welfare professionals sought to treat
both fathers and mothers equal or fair, but they also had the added awareness and
utilized skills surrounding gender communication. For example, child welfare
professionals reported challenging fathers about their stereotypes of paternal roles
(i.e., fathers belief that diaper changing not a man’s job), especially when the fathers
were planning to reunify with the child/ren as the sole parent. Child welfare
professionals were also mindful to teach fathers skills that they may never have
learned, again such as diaper changing. As child welfare professionals discussed cases,
it was apparent that their strategies were strength based. A few child welfare
professionals noted that they had to be vigilant to remember absent fathers.
The theme ‘‘The Continuum of Father Responsibility’’ was supported by the
cases and examples that child welfare professionals shared which characterized that
many fathers exhibit paternal responsibility and are committed to their children.
This continuum starkly contrasts other findings of caseworker sentiment that ‘‘Many
Fathers Have Little or No Commitment to their Children’’ (O’Donnell et al. 2005)
or other studies which indicated that fathers did not reach out or were not responsive
to caseworkers (Franck 2001; O’Donnell 2001; O’Donnell et al. 2005). These
findings indicate that some fathers with children in the child welfare system are
actively involved in their children’s cases (Malm et al. 2006). Additionally, the
findings support the point that more fathers are participating in their children’s cases
than has been noted by child welfare professionals in the past.
The common perception which emerged from child welfare professionals’
discussions was that the child welfare system is in a much better place than it had
been in the past in terms of its treatment of fathers. They conveyed that the system
has made great advances, but also discussed some policy and legal areas that still
need to be improved. This contrasted O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) study two themes
‘‘The System Treats Fathers more Severely than Mothers’’ and ‘‘Fathers are
Peripheral to the Child Welfare System’’. Another interesting aspect that emerged in
line with systemic issues in this study was that child welfare professionals noticed
that fathers’ feelings about the system span a continuum and that not all fathers are
wary of the child welfare system. In fact, child welfare professionals shared cases
where fathers were very reliant upon them and the agency. This is an important
finding to catalog, because this also contrasts the theme ‘‘Fathers Mistrust and
Avoid the Child Welfare System’’ from O’Donnell et al. (2005) findings.
‘‘Gatekeeping’’ which was defined as mothers, maternal relatives or others close
to the fathers blocking or limiting fathers’ access to their children was a theme that
emerged in this study. However, this study’s findings reveal some differences in
comparison to the theme that Mothers Obstruct Fathers’ Involvement in Child
Welfare Interventions in O’Donnell et al.’s (2005) study. One difference, as noted
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 133
123
earlier, includes those close to the father, namely, foster mothers and parents, who
sometimes act inappropriately as gatekeepers. Child welfare professionals in this
study reported keenly assessing the motivation behind foster parents’ gatekeeping
and intervened in a timely manner as needed. In this study, child welfare
professionals noted that some gatekeeping appeared to be revenge, while other
gatekeeping simply provided more information to assist in the child’s case. In the
same vein, an important footnote of the study is that child welfare professionals
recognized that there are circumstances when fathers should not be involved (i.e.,
domestic violence situations, continued abuse, etc.). Therefore, if there are safety
issues, gatekeeping can be justified. Inherent throughout all the focus group
discussions was the underlying premise that children are the main purpose for the
work and that child welfare professionals engage parents for the best interests of the
child.
The final theme of ‘‘Regional Issues are a Factor’’ provided information about
unique regional issues of longtime legalized prostitution and gambling, which can
dramatically affect fathers and families. This theme implied that the work in this
region differs from child welfare work in other locations, because of the unique
backdrop. The child welfare professionals analyzed the regional issues from an
ecosystemic perspective and recognized the range of influence upon fathers and the
related issue of engaging fathers in services.
Foster fathers were of note during the discussions and they also were included in
most of the themes that emerged. Foster fathers can play an important role in
children’s lives (even if it is just the role of a safe male), especially when a child’s
biological father has been absent. Child welfare professionals shared that in addition
to traditional foster fathers, some older and single foster fathers were valuable
resources and father figures and/or mentors to children in the system. However, it is
important to remark that child welfare professionals mentioned that some foster
fathers chose not to have contact with the child welfare system, instead their wives
were the main point of contact with the system.
Implications for Future Practice, Training, and Research
Although neither this study nor the O’Donnell et al. (2005) study are generalizable,
the contrast in findings between studies may suggest a general positive shift in child
welfare professionals’ attitudes and practice with fathers in child welfare. The
question arises why is there such a contrast between the findings of the two studies?
Obviously, time could be one factor, since research findings of the benefits of father
involvement in childrens’ lives have permeated the professional helping realm and
the larger society to some extent. The US Government’s policy focus upon
Fatherhood and Marriage Initiatives seems to have had an effect. Specific to the child
welfare system may be the advent of system changes such as the Child and Family
Services Review (CFSR) and corresponding Program Improvement Plan (PIP), in
which states are assessed for conformity to federal requirements in child welfare and
protection (US Department of Health and Human Services 2010). Additionally,
Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) is being utilized by more child welfare
134 M. F. Saleh
123
agencies and may positively affect engaging fathers, as it involves collaborative case
planning with extended family members, community supports, and child welfare
staff (Sonenstein et al. 2002). The child welfare agency in this study utilizes Team
Decision Making (TDM) an approach related to FGDM (AHA, n. d.), so use of this
family focused strength based method most likely positively affected child welfare
professionals’ practice behaviors and perspectives. Educational status of child
welfare professionals may also effect how child welfare professionals work with
fathers and that may have also affected the positive shift in findings. However, it
remains unknown in this case, because O’Donnell et al. (2005) did not reveal the
educational status of focus group participants. Additionally, the child welfare
professionals in this study were not asked their educational background, but the
agency requires that child welfare professionals hold a minimum of a bachelor’s
degree.
Only one father-specific resource, a fathers’ parenting group, was mentioned as a
referral source by the child welfare professionals in this study. The minimal
discussion of specific fatherhood services was probably due to the actual lack of
father specific resources in the community. Child welfare professionals noted that
there were mother-focused services that excluded fathers. This dearth of services
points to the fact that despite federal attention and promotion of father involvement
in children’s lives, ‘‘fatherhood’’ specific programs, services and coalitions are not
dispersed equally throughout the nation and are virtually non-existent in some states
and areas. This in turn may impact the availability of local social services training
resources and collaborations that deal with location and population specific
considerations. Lack of father specific services could be considered a regional issue,
which is related to the final theme that emerged regional issues are a factor.
Therefore, it is important that training for child welfare professionals are tailored to
fit specific regional needs and also that training is evaluated in order to move toward
building best practices and models of engagement. Trainings also need to include
regional considerations such as working with diverse populations of fathers. It is
essential to have local child welfare professionals and administrators, and IV-E
University child welfare trainers with the institutional community knowledge to
design regional specific training. Rural areas also have unique issues that need to be
taken into consideration when engaging fathers in services, which may include the
factor of staffing and large geographic distances.
Cross discipline training on fathers and the child welfare system is recom-
mended, especially for areas with limited father specific services or no free standing
fatherhood coalitions. Bringing together child welfare professionals, judges, law
enforcement, and those who contract for services with Child Protective Services
(such as parenting educators and therapists) could help spark ideas and collabo-
rations in the community. Thus, trainings could include information on how to build
services for fathers and community coalitions. For example, some counseling
services for fathers may focus on ‘‘coaching’’ rather than traditional counseling, as
some fathers may be more responsive to a different approach.
Foster fathers were a frequent topic of discussion in this study and thus it is
important to consider and engage foster fathers in services and especially during
foster parent recruitment. The findings about foster parents as gatekeepers in this
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 135
123
study lead to the suggestion that trainings need to include components on working
with foster parents that include helping them overcome any biases they may have
towards single fathers. Training for foster parents and non-traditional foster fathers
also need to include information on the importance of fathers’ role in child
development, which includes the role of foster fathers’ influence on children.
Additional efforts could also be taken during recruitment and training to engage
absent foster fathers.
Future research needs to focus on evaluation of trainings for child welfare
professionals, as few programs have been evaluated. Additional qualitative research
with child welfare professionals and fathers needs to be undertaken as it may be
beneficial in developing practice models for engaging fathers in services. Rich
narrative on engaging fathers from child welfare professionals could reveal
additional specific practice skills that could then be tested for best practices.
Educational background also needs to be a variable tested, as helping profession
degrees may make a difference in engaging fathers. Research needs to especially be
undertaken in rural areas, as the focus of the research has been in urban areas.
This study revealed was that some fathers trusted the child welfare system and
others were willing and sought out counseling. It would be helpful to gain more
information about these fathers and their own reports of what may have influenced
them to be engaged in services. Researchers also need to explore the extent to when
a father in the child welfare system should and should not be involved, as some
studies have pointed to the reticence of workers and administrators to engage fathers
when there are domestic violence issues or safety issues (Bellamy 2009). The child
welfare professionals in this study emphasized their work is about the children and
their best interests. Therefore, it is necessary to continue to discover how to best
engage fathers in services in order to ultimately achieve better outcomes for
children, fathers, and families.
Acknowledgments The author wishes that thank Susan Mears, Ph.D. for her assistance with the data
analysis and Naomi Suskind, MSW for research team assistance. This work was supported in part by a
grant from the University of Nevada, Reno, Junior Faculty Research Grant Fund. This support does not
necessarily imply endorsement by the university of research conclusions.
References
American Humane Association (AHA). Family group decision making: Various approaches and models to
engage the family group in child welfare decision making. Retrieved from http://www.american
humane.org/assets/docs/protecting-children/pc-fgdm-quickreference-guide.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2010.
Bellamy, J. L. (2009). A national study of male involvement among families in contact with the child
welfare system. Child Maltreatment, 14, 255–262.
Berger, L. M., Paxson, C., & Waldfogel, J. (2009). Mothers, men, and child protective services
involvement. Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 263–276.
Cabrera, N. J. (2010). Father involvement and public policies. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the fatherin child development (5th ed., pp. 517–550). Hoboken: Wiley.
Cabrera, N. J., & Peters, E. (2000). Public policies and father involvement. Marriage and Family Review,29(4), 295–314.
Cardoso, J. B., Gomez, R. J., & Padilla, Y. C. (2009). What happens when family resources are across
international boundaries? An exploratory study on kinship placement in Mexican immigrant
families. Child Welfare, 88(6), 67–84.
136 M. F. Saleh
123
Child Welfare Information Gateway (CWIG). (2010). Determining the best interests of the child:
Summary of state laws. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies
statutes/best_interest.cfm. Accessed 16 August 2010.
Cooper Hodgson, H. S. (1929). The education of the father: The case for its inclusion in a maternity and
child welfare scheme. The Journal of the Royal Society for the Promotion of Health, 50, 593–596.
Daniel, B., & Taylor, J. (1999). The rhetoric versus the reality: A critical perspective on practice with
fathers in child care and protection work. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 209–220.
Dubowitz, H. (2009). Commentary on fathers and children and maltreatment: Relationships matter most.
Child Maltreatment, 14(3), 291–293.
English, D. J., Brummel, S., & Martens, P. (2009). Fatherhood in the child welfare system: Evaluation of
a pilot project to improve father involvement. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 3, 213–234.
Fanshel, D. (1982). On the road to permanency. An expanded data base for service to children in fostercare. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Franck, E. J. (2001). Outreach to birthfathers of children in out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 80(3),
381–399.
Huebner, R. A., Werner, M., Hartwig, S., White, S., & Shewa, D. (2008). Engaging fathers: Needs
satisfaction in child protective services. Administration in Social Work, 32(2), 87–103.
Ivey, A. (1971). Microcounseling: Innovations in interviewing training. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Jaffe, E. D. (1983). Fathers and child welfare services: The forgotten client? In M. Lamb & A. Sagi
(Eds.), Fatherhood and family policy (pp. 129–137). Hillside: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kirsh, S., & Maidman, F. (1984). Child welfare problems and practice: An ecological approach.
In F. Maidman & S. Kirsh (Eds.), Child welfare: A sourcebook of knowledge and practice(pp. 1–14). New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (2010). The role of the father in child development (5th ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York:
Russell Sage.
Malm, K., Murray, J., & Geen, R. (2006). What about the dads? Child welfare agencies’ efforts toidentify, locate and involve nonresident fathers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Malm, K. E., & Zielewski, E. H. (2009). Nonresident father support and reunification outcomes for
children in foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 1010–1018.
O’Donnell, J. M. (1999). Involvement of African American fathers in kinship foster care services. SocialWork, 44(5), 428–441.
O’Donnell, J. M. (2001). Paternal involvement in kinship foster care services in one father and multiple
father families. Child Welfare, 80(4), 453–479.
O’Donnell, J. M., Johnson, W. E., D’Aunno, L. E., & Thorton, H. L. (2005). Fathers in child welfare:
Caseworkers’ perspectives. Child Welfare, 84(3), 387–414.
Polansky, N. A., De Saix, C., & Sharline, S. A. (1972). Child neglect: Understanding and reaching theparent. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Rossi, P. H., Schuerman, J., & Budde, S. (1999). Understanding decisions about child maltreatment.
Evaluation Review, 23(6), 579–599.
Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sonenstein, F., Malm, K., & Billing, A. (2002). Study of fathers’ involvement in permanency planning
and child welfare casework. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/cw-dads02/. Accessed 13 May 2004.
Stone, N. M., & Stone, S. F. (1983). The predictions of successful foster placement. Social Casework: TheJournal of Contemporary Social Work, 64(1), 11–17.
US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2007). Non-resident fathers, paternal kin and
the child welfare system. Retrieved from http://www.abanet.org/child/fathers/QICNRFLiterature
Review.pdf. Accessed 14 July 2008.
US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). (2010). Child and Family Service Reviews.
Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/management/reform/cfsr/. Accessed 16 August 2010.
Child Welfare Professionals’ Experiences 137
123