Family Drug Court, Targeted Parent Training and Family Reunification: Did this Enhanced Service Strategy Make A Difference?

• Author: Jody Brook,Becci A. Akin,Yueqi Yan,Margaret H. Lloyd
• Date: 01 April 2015
• Published date: 01 April 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/jfcj.12028

Family Drug Court, Targeted Parent Training

and Family Reunification: Did this Enhanced

Service Strategy Make A Difference?

By Jody Brook, Becci A. Akin, Margaret H. Lloyd, and Yueqi Yan

ABSTRACT

This article reports findings from an evaluation of reunification outcomes for

children and families who participated in a family drug court (FDC) that incorporated

the use of two innovative evidence-based parenting programs. In addition to com-

prehensive FDC services, families participated in the Strengthening Families

Program and Celebrating Families!TM programs in a sequential format. Data analyses

were conducted on a sample of 214 children whose child welfare cases were adjudi-

cated through the FDC and 418 matched comparison cases. Entry-cohort survival

analysis results indicated that families receiving FDC services were more than twice

as likely to reunify in a 45 month observation window.

Dr. Jody Brook is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare. She

has served as a National Research/Doctoral Fellow for the Administration for Children and Families

(USDHHS-Children’s Bureau) in the area of substance abuse in child welfare, as well as serving as Principal

or Co-Principal Investigator for 3 externally funded programs, all in the area of community responsiveness

to substance abuse and child welfare. Currently, this work involves serving as an evaluator for 7 family drug

court implementations in 2 States, and overseeing the implementation of statewide universal screening for

substance use disorders among child welfare involved families. Her interests include provision of targeted

evidence based parenting programs within the child welfare setting, and utilization of mixed methods

research.

Correspondence: jbrook@ku.edu

Dr. Becci A. Akin is an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare.Dr.

Akin serves as the Principal or Co-Principal Investigator for 6 externally funded research projects, all in the

area of child welfare, children’s mental health, and implementation research and program evaluation.

Margaret H. Lloyd, MS is a PhD student at the University Of Kansas School Of Social Welfare

researching the intersection of substance abuse, child well-being and the legal system.

Yueqi Yan, MS is a doctoral candidate at the University of Kansas, School of Social Welfare. Yueqi’s

research focuses on how family and child well-beings are impacted by parental substance abuse and other risk

behavior. Also, his area of interest expands to children’s mental health, evidence-based practice, heterogeneity

of treatment effect, and advanced quantitative research methods.

bs_bs_banner

Juvenile and Family Court Journal 66, No. 2 (Spring) 35

© 2015 National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

1. INTRODUCTION

Prevalence estimates suggest that parental alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) is

a major contributor to various levels of child welfare system involvement. Testa and

Smith (2009) estimated that 11-14% of investigated cases, 18-24% of substantiated

cases, and 50-79% of cases where the child is placed into foster care are characterized by

parental substance abuse concerns. Prior research suggests that substance abuse affected

children encounter worse outcomes than their peers who enter care for other reasons

(Barth, Gibbons, & Guo, 2006). For example, children whose child welfare cases are

characterized by parental substance abuse experience more placement instability

(Connell, Bergeron, Katz, Saunders, & Tebes,2007), stay in foster care longer, and are less

likely to reunify with their primary caregivers (Courtney & Hook, 2012; McDonald,

Poertner, & Jennings, 2007), especially in cases involving illicit drug use (Brook,

McDonald, Gregoire, Press & Hindman, 2010). Even when these children do return

home, they are more likely to re-enter care (Brook & McDonald, 2009).

Despite the fact that parental AODA is widely recognized as a factor in multiple

aspects of child welfare system involvement, the public service delivery systems designed

to serve this highly vulnerable population of parents and children continue to struggle

with identification, implementation, and sustainability of effective interventions. This

study presents the findings of a rigorous four-year evaluation of one Midwestern com-

munity’s efforts to provide comprehensive, collaborative services within the context of an

existing family drug court (FDC).

1.1 Family Drug Courts

Family drug courts have operated in child welfare jurisdictions across the country

since 1994, serving as an alternative to traditional family court dockets that handle cases

of child abuse and neglect and involve parental substance use disorders (McGee, 1997).

The FDC model has shown promise in prior research for decreasing the amount of time

children spend in foster care, and for increasing the likelihood that families will reunify

(see Lloyd, 2015 for a review). FDCs were developed based on the adult drug court model,

which is characterized by therapeutic diversion. Adult drug courts began in the late

1980s to combat the rising population of drug-addicted individuals in jails and prisons

(Hora, 2002). The FDC, like its criminal predecessor, emphasizes substance abuse treat-

ment for AODA-involved parents, while also leveraging successful child welfare out-

comes including sustaining parental rights and reunification to encourage treatment

participation and compliance (McGee, 1997). In addition to the focus on substance abuse

treatment receipt, the FDC model encourages a collaborative team approach that facili-

tates the receipt of comprehensive services aimed at parental substance abuse, employ-

ment, domestic violence intervention, and housing stability. As of 2013, more than 350

FDCs were operating nationwide (Young, Barber, & Breitenbucher, 2013).

Although no two FDCs are identical in their day-to-day operations, certain features

are common to most FDCs. The courts are modeled off of criminal drug courts, and as

such rely on the use of the 10 key components of drug courts as a starting point for

36 | JUVENILE AND FAMILY COURT JOURNAL / Spring 2015