Intensive Reunification Program (IRP) - Detailed Report

Group support:

• Biological families are reunited twice a week in a church fellowship hall (free donated space in community).
  
• Parents and children share a meal, and then children and parents are separated for group support meetings.
  
• Child welfare supervisors and workers with clinical experience in a group setting lead the parents' groups.
  
• The parents largely determine the topics, which tend to deal with the challenges of reunification.
  
• These challenges include the venting of frustrations and anger about their current situations and forming strategies for problem solving and reunification.
• There are two children's groups; one for younger children and one for older children. The younger group primarily has playtime, while the older group talks about being in foster care and progress toward reunification.
• The session ends with playtime between all parents and all children in age-appropriate games, such as basketball, puzzles, toys, etc.

Home Visits:

• Home visits are also important to individually deal with the specific needs of each family in achieving reunification.

Intensive Reunification Program is rated a "4 – Lacks Adequate Research Evidence" on the Scientific Rating Scale because it lacks published, peer-reviewed research that meets the CEBC criteria for a scientific rating of a 3, 2, or 1; however it was identified by the topic expert as a program being used in the field, or it is being marketed and/or used in California with children receiving services from child welfare or related systems and their parents/caregivers. Some programs rated a 4 may have some published, peer-reviewed research that does not meet the above stated criteria or may have other studies that have not yet been published in the peer-reviewed literature. For more information on the rating of a “4 – Lacks Adequate Research Evidence,” please see the Scientific Rating Scale.

Berry, M., McCauley, K., Lansing, T. (2007). Permanency through group work: A pilot intensive reunification program. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 4(5), 477-494.

Type of Study: Non-randomized comparison group
Number of participants: 12 intervention, 12 comparison
Population:

Age Range: Not given
Race/Ethnicity: Intervention: 33.33% African American, 41.67% Caucasian, 16.67% Native American and Caucasian, 8.33% Hispanic and Caucasian; Comparison: 30.43% African American, 56.52% Caucasian, 0% Native American and Caucasian, 13.04% Hispanic and Caucasian
Status (e.g., foster care, CW): Families with children in foster care with the goal of reunification.

Location/Institution: Topeka, Kansas
Summary: (To include comparison groups, outcomes, measures, notable limitations) Families receiving the intervention were compared to families receiving regular services during approximately the same time period. Groups were comparable on reasons for referral, but the comparison group had fewer cases of parental drug use, criminal history and developmentally disabled children. It also had fewer children overall, but more children under age 6. Workers completed the Lutheran Social Services Screening tool which assesses factors predicting foster placement and good or poor prognosis for reunification. At the first and last meeting parents filled out the Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI-2) which assesses factors predicting of child abuse and neglect. Workers also filled out the Strengths and Stressors Tracking Device at intake and closure (posttest only for the comparison group.) Reunification rates at 1 year after pretest were higher for intervention and time to reunification was shorter. Higher rates of success were shown for reduction of neglect than for abuse. Intervention parents made gains on AAPI scores, with the exceptions of Empathy, and of Corporal Punishment, which had not been at elevated levels at intake. They also improved in all areas on strengths and stressors over the comparison group posttest scores. Limitations include small sample size and lack of randomization to groups.
Length of post-intervention follow-up: 1 year after intake