A Framework for Engaging Resistant Parents in Child Welfare
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

A Framework for Engaging Resistant Parents in Child Welfare

on

  • 438 views

Although child welfare policy highlights the need for cooperative work with parents, research shows that in practice, child welfare caseworkers aren't working collaboratively, especially when parents ...

Although child welfare policy highlights the need for cooperative work with parents, research shows that in practice, child welfare caseworkers aren't working collaboratively, especially when parents appear resistant to services, do not participate in services, or are hostile.

Frequently, there is an assumption of a link between parental compliance and motivation to change, and parents’ ability to make changes and safely parent their children. Because of these assumptions, resistant behaviors are associated with negative outcomes, including lower rates of reunification, even when the parents’ progress on treatment goals is taken into account.

In this presentation, participants will gain an understanding of reactance theory and how to use it to guide interventions with parents. As an empowering strengths-based model, it fits strongly with social work values and is a good fit for child welfare work, where issues of power are omnipresent, and there is a dearth of empirically supported approaches.This framework can be utilized on individual (caseworker), systemic (agency), and policy (outcomes-to-impact) levels.

Learning Objectives:
--Develop an understanding of reactance, including what it is and how it differs from a traditional understanding of resistance and noncompliance
--Identify common client responses to feelings of reactance
--Utilize the reactance theory framework to identify interventions with “resistant” child welfare
clients

Presenter:
Rebecca Mirick has worked with adjudicated youth, Head Start teachers and families, and clients served by suicide prevention efforts. Mirick has developed and run gatekeeper trainings, collaborated on developing best practices for postvention work in agencies and schools, and researched suicide prevention and postvention strategies.

Her clinical experience and the knowledge gained through direct research with clients and service providers guides her current scholarship and writing, as well as her graduate social work teaching at Simmons School of Social Work. There she has taught clinical practice, human behavior, and research methods for a number of years.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
438
Views on SlideShare
438
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A Framework for Engaging Resistant Parents in Child Welfare Presentation Transcript

  • 1. A Framework for Engaging Resistant Parents Info@FamiliesInSociety.org FamiliesInSociety.org alliance1.org September 18, 2012 Reactance and the Child Welfare Client A Framework for Engaging Resistant Parents Rebecca Mirick, PhD, LICSW Adjunct Faculty Simmons School of Social Work mirick@simmons.edu
  • 2. Goals  Develop an understanding of psychological reactance and how to use it as a framework to understand resistance in child welfare services  Identify client responses to feelings of reactance  Utilize the reactance theory framework to assess for reactance and identify interventions with ―resistant‖ child welfare clients September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 2
  • 3. Children in Child Welfare Who is impacted by child welfare services?  675,000 children became involved with child welfare services in 2010  Approximately 400,000 children were in foster care in 2011  55% of children in foster care have been there for more than 1 year  31% of children in foster care have been there for more than 2 years U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010; www.acf.hhs.gov September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 3
  • 4. Characteristics of Child Welfare Services What is expected of parents in child welfare work?  Participation  Compliance  Demonstration of ―deference to the authority of the worker‖  Task completion  Parents are often resistant to child welfare services Alpert & Brittner, 2009; Altman, 2005; Altman, 2008; Reich, 2005; Smith, 2008 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 4
  • 5. Resistance in Child Welfare  Anger  Defensiveness  Aggression  Arguing  Interrupting or ignoring the worker  Challenging the worker  Blaming others for problems  Making excuses for behaviors  Minimizing/denying the problem  Being unwilling to make changes or engage in the work  Arriving late to services or not attending at all  Passive resistance Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 5
  • 6. Impact of Resistance and Noncompliance Parental lack of participation (noncompliance) and resistance impacts decision making. Noncompliance is associated with:  Longer stays in foster care  Higher rates of child removal  Higher rates of future maltreatment reports  Greater chance of termination of parental rights Atkinson & Butler, 1996; DePanfilis & Zuravin, 2002; Jivanjee, 1999; Karski, 1999; Rittner & Dozier, 2000; Reich, 2005 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 6
  • 7. Examples of Resistant Clients Suzy (23) is a Caucasian mom of two small children involved with child welfare services for the first time; the baby (5 weeks old) broke her leg while her dad was watching her. She is very angry and frustrated that the children are in foster care—she yelled at the worker in a planning meeting. She does not like two of the goals (admitting that the boyfriend intentionally hurt the baby & getting a restraining order ) and believes the baby’s injury was an accident. She has been told not to contact her boyfriend; while her children are living in foster care, she secretly sees him. As a result, overnight visits with her children were postponed for 6 months. She is now pregnant. Jenna (28) is an African American mom living in an urban public housing development. She is polite and respectful to the worker, but is often not at home, even when visits were scheduled ahead of time. She has a history of substance abuse issues. She has missed multiple sessions of substance abuse treatment. She is always regretful about missing services and has a reason why she missed (e.g., car wouldn’t start, boss wouldn’t let her off of work, etc.) and promises not to miss any more…and yet always does. The worker told her that she has to attend all treatment services and meetings for the next month or the worker will recommend that she not regain custody of her little boy. Maria (35) is a Latina mom with a history of substance abuse; her children’s school filed a 51-A for neglect. She is angry that CPS is back in her life, and that she has mandated drug testing and substance abuse treatment. Although she was attending AA regularly a few months ago, she has now stopped. She blames the school for CPS involvement—they just don’t like her. Maria’s children remain with her at present, but the CPS worker has said that the children may need to live with a family member if she cannot cooperate with services. Maria’s been asked to do anger management treatment, a substance abuse program, attend AA regularly, do drug testing, and attend a parenting class. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 7
  • 8. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families
  • 9. Explanation #1: Family Characteristics or problems that negatively There are family characteristics impact participation.  Substance abuse/major mental illness  Shame  Domestic violence  Poverty  Cultural issues/disconnect  Lack of access to transportation or ability to get time off of work  Lack of access to health insurance Resistance: These issues interfere with parents’ engagement in services or access to services. Ayon & Aisenberg, 2010; Reich, 2005; Staudt, 2007 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 9
  • 10. Explanation #2: Lack of Motivationto change or motivation to parent can impact Lack of motivation participation.  They do not care enough about their child to make changes or participate in treatment services  They are in denial  Therefore, lack of participation is a predictor of whether the parent can parent the child safely Resistance: The parent is not motivated enough by the love of the child or desire to parent, the parent is in denial. Altman, 2008; Reich, 2005; Smith, 2008 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 10
  • 11. Explanation #3: Mistrust A lack of trust that the worker or agency is there to help can impact participation in services.  Mistrust is common particularly in poor, urban neighborhoods of color  Child welfare agencies often have negative reputations (―baby snatchers‖) Resistance: The parent does not trust the worker or the agency. Anderson, 2000; Reich, 2005 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 11
  • 12. Explanation #4: Readiness to Change exclusive stages of change that clients cycle There are mutually through in a non-linear manner.  Precontemplation  Contemplation  Preparation  Action  Maintenance Resistance: Clients are pushed to change in the precontemplation or contemplation stage. Girvin, 2004; Littell & Girvin, 2004; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1984 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 12
  • 13. Explanation #5: Worker/Client Relationship A motivational interviewing approach suggests that worker’s behavior in the relationship can impact resistance. Resistance: Occurs when there is dissonance in the relationship between worker and client. The worker should address this by changing her/his approach. Hohman, 1998; Miller & Rollnick, 2002; Mullins et al., 2004 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 13
  • 14. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families
  • 15. What is Reactance? Take a minute and think about a situation where you were forced to do something you really did not want to do. What did you think? How did you feel? What did you do? Rooney, 1992 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 15
  • 16. Psychological Reactance A normal, expected motivational drive to regain a lost or threatened freedom a person had assumed would be available to him/her. The magnitude of the reactance depends on: 1. The importance of the lost/threatened freedom to the person 2. The presence of an implied threat to other freedoms 3. The strength of the person’s assumption that this freedom would be available to him/her 4. The proportion of freedoms threatened/lost versus those available to the person Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 16
  • 17. Threatened or Lost Freedoms Threatened/lost freedoms in child welfare include:  Decisions about who to date/ live with  Living arrangements  Decision to leave a partner or to obtain a restraining     order against a partner Custody of a child Parenting decisions Alcohol or drug use AA/NA attendance/ treatment attendance Altman, 2008; Reich, 2005; Smith, 2008 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 17
  • 18. How Is Reactance Expressed? Responses to reactance can be viewed as attempts to decrease intolerable affect (reactance) and regain feelings of power and control. How do clients express reactance? 1. Attempt to regain the lost/threatened freedom 2. Search for loopholes to restore the lost/ threatened freedom 3. Express hostility or aggression towards the person who restricted/threatened the freedom 4. Value the lost/ threatened freedom more than before it was lost/ threatened Brehm, 1966; Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 18
  • 19. 1. Attempts to Regain the Freedom People often respond to reactance by trying to regain the lost freedom directly. Examples:  Arguing with the child welfare worker  Denying the abuse occurred  Demanding the return of the child/ children  Defending parent’s behavior Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 19
  • 20. 2. Search for Loopholes Parents respond to the feeling of reactance by trying to regain the freedom—not outright, but indirectly through a loophole in the limit. Examples:  If children are placed with family members, the parent may try to visit there, instead of at the supervised, scheduled visits  A mother who has lost custody of a child may get pregnant again Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 20
  • 21. 3. Anger Parents express reactance as anger, hostility, or aggression toward the limit-setter. This occurs even when the expression of anger will not restore the lost or threatened freedom. Examples:  Parent gets angry and frustrated in a team meeting  Parent spends half of a treatment session expressing anger and frustration about CPS involvement Rooney 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 21
  • 22. 4. Restricted Behaviors Become More Appealing Sometimes reactance is not expressed either directly or indirectly and must be tolerated instead. The prohibited behavior can become more desirable. Examples:  The unsafe partner becomes more desirable  Although a parent with substance abuse issues had been contemplating about change—the mandate to attend treatment services and label of ―substance abuser‖ decreases her desire to enter treatment services Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 22
  • 23. Example #1 Suzy (23) is a Caucasian mom of two small children involved with child welfare services for the first time; the baby (5 weeks old) broke her leg while her dad was watching her. She is very angry and frustrated that the children are in foster care—she yelled at the worker in a planning meeting. She does not like two of the goals (admitting that the boyfriend intentionally hurt the baby and getting a restraining order ) and believes the baby’s injury was an accident. She has been told not to contact her boyfriend; while her children are living in foster care, she secretly sees him. As a result, overnight visits with her children were postponed for 6 months. She is now pregnant. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 23
  • 24. Example #2 Jenna (28) is an African American mom living in an urban public housing development. She is polite and respectful to the worker, but is often not at home, even when visits were scheduled ahead of time. She has a history of substance abuse issues. She has missed multiple sessions of substance abuse treatment. She is always regretful about missing services and has a reason why she missed (e.g., car wouldn’t start, boss wouldn’t let her off of work, etc.) and promises not to miss any more…and yet always does. The worker told her that she has to attend all treatment services and meetings for the next month or the worker will recommend that she not regain custody of her little boy. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 24
  • 25. Example #3 Maria (35) is a Latina mom with a history of substance abuse; her children’s school filed a 51-A for neglect. She is angry that CPS is back in her life, and that she has mandated drug testing and substance abuse treatment. Although she was attending AA regularly a few months ago, she has now stopped. She blames the school for CPS involvement—they just don’t like her. Maria’s children remain with her at present, but the CPS worker has said that the children may need to live with a family member if she cannot cooperate with services. Maria’s been asked to do anger management treatment, a substance abuse program, attend AA regularly, do drug testing, and attend a parenting class. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 25
  • 26. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families
  • 27. Benefits of Reactance  Can be predicted  Client-centered approach  Some approaches are supported by preliminary research  Is congruent with social work values  Separates client behavior from client motivation/ desire to parent  Not client blaming Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 27
  • 28. Assess for Reactance Signs of reactance: Anger, refusal to participate in services, denial, interrupting, getting off task easily, making negative comments, questioning the worker or treatment provider’s expertise, missing appointments or visits. Formal measures of reactance:  Hong Psychological Reactance Scale  Therapeutic Reactance Scale (Dowd) Beutler et al., 2011; Dowd, Milne & Wise, 1991; Hone & Page, 1989 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 28
  • 29. Approaches With Reactant Parents of reactance theory to interpret the 1. Use the lens 2. parent’s behavior Use interventions likely to reduce the reactance versus increase it Interventions to Reduce Reactancethe power differential 1. De-emphasize 2. 3. Use nondirective approaches Limit restrictions September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 29
  • 30. Intervention #1: Limit Use of Power Parents in child welfare services are sensitive to the power issues inherent in the work.  Examples: ○ Mandates ○ Threats ○ Unscheduled home visits ○ Asking parents to ―jump through hoops‖ to demonstrate motivation ○ Persuasion ○ Coercion Altman, 2008; Berg & Kelly, 2000; Diorio, 1992; Dumbrill, 2006; Smith, 2008 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 30
  • 31. What Does It Look Like to De-Emphasize Power?  Avoid threats, coercion, or persuasion  Avoid unnecessary requirements or mandates  Be respectful of client’s space particularly when in their home (e.g., ask permission to look in the kitchen or talk to the child—if the response is no, then have a conversation about what that might mean)  Focus on a collaborative, empathetic approach versus one that highlights power differential Berg & Kelly, 2000; Dumbrill, 2006; Rooney 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 31
  • 32. The Cycle of Reactance and Use of Power Reactance behaviors expressed Increased reactance Increased use of power & authority Social worker responds with use of power & authority Increased reactance G. D. Rooney, 2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 32
  • 33. Example #1 Suzy (23) is a Caucasian mom of two small children involved with child welfare services for the first time; the baby (5 weeks old) broke her leg while her dad was watching her. She is very angry and frustrated that the children are in foster care—she yelled at the worker in a planning meeting. She does not like two of the goals (admitting that the boyfriend intentionally hurt the baby & getting a restraining order ) and believes the baby’s injury was an accident. She has been told not to contact her boyfriend; while her children are living in foster care, she secretly sees him. As a result, overnight visits with her children were postponed for 6 months. She is now pregnant. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 33
  • 34. Intervention #2: NonDirective Approaches  Directiveness is how much the practitioner is in control of the work  This intervention for high-reactant clients has the most empirical support  Practitioner directiveness is negatively correlated with outcomes for high reactant clients Beutler & Clarkin, 1990; Beutler & Harwood, 2000; Beutler et al., 2011; Karno & Longabaugh, 2005 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 34
  • 35. What Are Non-Directive Approaches? Non-directive approaches Directive approaches Cognitive behavioral therapy Supportive therapy Traditional, disease model-based substance abuse treatment Motivational interviewing Practitioner as expert Client as expert in his/her own life Giving advice, confrontation, interpretation, providing information, initiating topics Active listening, collaborative goal setting Limiting choices, using persuasion or coercion, taking the lead Offering choices, letting the client take the lead, avoiding persuasion or coercion Avoid practitioner-directed interventions Use client-directed interventions (like bibliotherapy) Beutler & Clarkin, 1990; Karno et al., 2009; Karno & Longabaugh, 2005 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 35
  • 36. Example #2 Jenna (28) is an African American mom living in an urban public housing development. She is polite and respectful to the worker, but is often not at home, even when visits were scheduled ahead of time. She has a history of substance abuse issues. She has missed multiple sessions of substance abuse treatment. She is always regretful about missing services and has a reason why she missed (e.g., car wouldn’t start, boss wouldn’t let her off of work, etc.) and promises not to miss any more…and yet always does. The worker told her that she has to attend all treatment services and meetings for the next month or the worker will recommend that she not regain custody of her little boy. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 36
  • 37. Intervention #3: Limit Restrictions Theoretically, decreasing the number of restrictions on personal freedoms should decrease the reactance response. Examples:  Keep goals as specific as possible  Emphasize the freedoms which remain available to the client  Clarify ―silent mandates‖ G.D. Rooney, 2009; R.H. Rooney, 1992/2009 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 37
  • 38. What Does It Look Like to Limit Restrictions?  If the parent is mandated to attend substance abuse treatment services, offer the parent a choice of programs; thus, the main limit still remains, but the freedom to choose which one remains  Emphasis specific, not global, goals; and clarify that the parent needs to stay away from a violent partner, not stop dating; the issue is the violence, not the dating  Help a parent manage losses associated with the required loss of an unsafe partner—find new childcare, if he cannot watch the children, or apply for financial assistance since he is no longer helping to pay the bills  Avoid restrictions or requirements that are only present to determine how motivated the parent is Smith, 2008 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 38
  • 39. Example #3 Maria (35) is a Latina mom with a history of substance abuse; her children’s school filed a 51-A for neglect. She is angry that CPS is back in her life, and that she has mandated drug testing and substance abuse treatment. Although she was attending AA regularly a few months ago, she has now stopped. She blames the school for CPS involvement—they just don’t like her. Maria’s children remain with her at present, but the CPS worker has said that the children may need to live with a family member if she cannot cooperate with services. Maria’s been asked to do anger management treatment, a substance abuse program, attend AA regularly, do drug testing, and attend a parenting class. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 39
  • 40. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families
  • 41. Future Research  Does the use of reactance theory have the potential to improve child welfare outcomes?  How open are child welfare agencies to the use of reactance theory? Workers themselves versus administration? If barriers to the adoption of this approach are present, what are they?  What is the impact of the context of child welfare work (e.g., federal legislation, timelines, safety concerns for both child and self, lack of treatment services)?  How can child welfare workers effectively assess for reactance?  How many parents are experiencing reactance? How many are resistant for other reasons? What are these reasons?  Does the use of reactance-based interpretations of parent-behavior improve parent attendance and increase engagement in services? Is this associated with more positive outcomes? September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 41
  • 42. Presentation Resources • Reactance and the Child Welfare Client: Interpreting Parents’ Resistance to Services Through the Lens of Reactance Theory (2012) Families in Society, (93)3, doi:10.1606/1044-3894.4224 • Dr. Rebecca G. Mirick mirick@simmons.edu Presentation references available in handout file. Additional Alliance Resources PRACTICE • • • Practice & Policy Focus: http://alliance1.org/ppf Alliance for Children and Families Annual Conference (Innovation Track): http://www.alliance1.org/nc/workshops-innovation-implementation START and Family Outcomes: Collaborative Strategies That Work (Webinar): http://alliance1.org/webinar/start-and-family-outcomes-collaborative-strategies-work POLICY • Washington Insider: http://www.alliance1.org/policy/insider Info@FamiliesInSociety.org FamiliesInSociety.org alliance1.org/intellectual-capital-division
  • 43. References Administration for Children & Families. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars Alpert, L.T. & Britner, P.A. (2009). Measuring parent engagement in foster care. Social Work Research, 33, 135-145. doi: 10.1093/swr/33..3.135. Altman, J.C. (2005). Engagement in children, youth & family services. In G.P. Mallon & P.M. Hess (Eds), Child welfare for the 21st century: A handbook of practice, policies and programs (pp. 72-86). New York: Columbia University Press. Altman, J.C. (2008). Engaging families in child welfare services: Worker versus client perspectives. Child Welfare, 87, 31-63. doi: 0009-4021/2008/030841-61 Altman, J.C. & Gohagan, D. (2009). Work with involuntary clients in child welfare settings. In R.H. Rooney (Eds.), Strategies for work with involuntary clients (224-247). New York: Columbia University Press. Anderson, D.G. (2000). Coping strategies and burnout among veteran child protection workers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24, 839848. Atkinson, L. & Butler, S. (1996). Court-ordered assessment: Impact of maternal noncompliance in child maltreatment cases. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 185-190. doi: 10.1016/S0145-2131(95)00146-8 Ayon, C. & Aisenberg, E. (2010). Negotiating cultural values and expectations within the public child welfare system: A look at familismo and personalismo. Child and Family Social Work, 15, 335-344. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2010.00682x Barth, R.P. (2008). The move to Evidence-Based Practice: How well does it fit child welfare services. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, 145-173. doi: 10.1080/15548730802312537 Berg, I.K. & Kelly, S. (2000). Building solutions in child protective services. New York: Norton. Beutler, L.E. & Clarkin, J. (1990). Systematic treatment selection: Toward targeted therapeutic interventions. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Beutler, L.E. & Harwood, T.M. (2000). Prescriptive therapy: A practical guide to systematic treatment selection. New York: Oxford University Press. Beutler, L. E., Harwood, T. M., Michelson, A., Song, X., & Holman, J. (2011). Resistance Level. In Norcross, J. C. (Ed), Relationships that work: Therapist Contributions and Responsiveness to Patient Needs (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Brehm, J. (1966). A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York: Academic Press. Brehm, S. & Brehm, J. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom & control. New York: Academic Press. Bundy-Fazioli, K., Briar-Lawson, K. & Hardiman, E.R. (2009). A qualitative examination of power between child welfare workers and parents. British Journal of Social Work, 39, 1447-1464. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn038 DePanfilis, D., & Zuravin, S. J. (2002). The effect of services on the recurrence of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(2), 187–205. September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 43
  • 44. References (continued) Dowd, E., Milne, C., Wise, S. (1991). The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A Measure of Psychological Reactance. Journal of Counseling & Development, 69, 541-545. Drake, B., Jolley, J.M., Lanier, P., Fluke, J., Barth, R.P. & Jonson-Reid, M. (2011). Racial bias in child protection? A comparison of competing explanations using national data. American Journal of Pediatrics, 127, 471-478. doi: 10.1542/pes.2010-1710 Diorio, W. D. (1992). Parental perceptions of the authority of public child welfare workers. Families in Society, 73(4), 222-235. Dumbrill, G. (2006). Parental experience of child protection intervention: A qualitative study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 27-37. doi: 10.1016/j.chaibu.2005.08.012 Gelles, R.J. (1996). The book of David: How preserving families can cost children’s lives. New York: Basic Books. Girvin, H. (2004). Beyond 'stages of change': using readiness for change and caregiver-reported problems to identify meaningful subgroups in a child welfare sample, Children & Youth Services Review, 26, 897-917. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.04.001 Hohman, M.M. (1998). Motivational Interviewing: An intervention tool for child welfare case workers working with substance abusing parents. Child Welfare, 77, 275-291. Hong, S. & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323-1326. Jivanjee, P. (1999). Professional and provider perspectives on the family involvement in therapeutic foster care. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8(3), 329-341. Karno, P.M., Beutler, L.E. & Harwood, M. (2002). Interactions between psychotherapy process and patient attributes that predict alcohol treatment and effectiveness: A preliminary report. Journal of Alcohol Studies, 27, 779-797. Karno, P.M. & Longabaugh, R. (2005). Less directiveness by therapists improves drinking outcomes of reactant clients. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 73, 262-267. Karski, R.L. (1999). Key decisions in child protective services: Report investigation and court referral. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(8), 643-656. Karno, P.M., Longabaugh, R. & Herbeck, D. (2009). Patient reactance as a moderator of the effect of therapist structure on post treatment alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol & Drugs, 70, 929-936. Keller, J. and McCade, K. (2000). Attitudes of low-income parents toward seeking help with parenting: Implications for practice. Child Welfare, 79, 285–312. Littell, J.H. & Girvin, H. (2004). Ready or not: Uses of the stages of change model in child welfare. Child Welfare, 83 (4), 341-366. doi: 0009-4021/2004/040341-26 Miller, R.M. & Rollnick, S.P. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing people for change. New York: Guildford Press. Mullins, S.M., Suarez, M, Ondersma, S.J. & Page, M.C. (2004). The impact of motivational interviewing on substance abuse treatment retention: A randomized control trial of women involved with child welfare. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 27, 51-58. doi: 10.1016/j.jsat.2004.03.010 September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 44
  • 45. References (continued) Prochaska & DiClemente (1984). The transtheoretical approach: Crossing the traditional boundaries of change. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones/Irwin. Reich, J.A. (2005). Fixing families: Parents, power and the child welfare system. New York: Rutledge. Rittner, B., & Dozier, C. D. (2000). Effects of court-mandated substance abuse treatment in child protective services cases. Social Work, 45(2), 131-140. Rooney, R.H. (1992). Strategies for work with involuntary clients, 1st edition. New York: Columbia University Press. Rooney, R. H. (2009). Strategies for work with involuntary clients, 2nd edition. New York: Columbia University Press. Rooney, G.D. (2009). Oppression and involuntary status. In R.H. Rooney (Eds.), Strategies for work with involuntary clients (349387). New York: Columbia University Press. Smith, B.D. (2008). Child welfare service plan compliance: Perceptions of parents and caseworkers. Families and Society, 89, 521-533. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.3818 Staudt, M. (2007). Treatment engagement with caregivers of at-risk children: Gaps in research and conceptualization. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 16, 183-196. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9077-2 US GAO. (July 2007). African American children in foster care. GAO-07-816. Retrieved March 23, 2012 from www.gao.gov/cgibin/getrpt?GAO-07-816. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. Child Maltreatment 2010 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2010). September 18, 2012 ● Alliance for Children and Families 45