IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v151y2023ics019074092300244x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Every state for itself: A comparison of states’ visitation guidelines with research studies

Author

Listed:
  • Zilberstein, Karen

Abstract

Contact between children in care and their families and affiliates is an important component of child welfare practice. Depending on how visitation is handled and the readiness of the parties to interact, contact can result in positive or negative effects. However, scholars find that workers who supervise and arrange visitation often lack the requisite skills and knowledge to conduct visits in the most beneficial ways. As agency policies, particularly when they are research-informed, influence practice, this study analyzes the guidelines on visitation collected from the state child welfare agencies in the United States of America (USA) and compares them with research findings and researchers’ recommendations for best practices. The materials analyzed were collected from 43 states and included pages from policy manuals or administrative standards, tip sheets for case workers, brochures developed for families, stand-alone guidelines, and documentation forms. The guidelines vary widely in terms of the amount and specificity of information they contain, but their overall coverage of topics is sparse and not always in line with research findings. A need exists to update and expand the guidelines, which could then function as one tool to improve practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Zilberstein, Karen, 2023. "Every state for itself: A comparison of states’ visitation guidelines with research studies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:151:y:2023:i:c:s019074092300244x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074092300244X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107049?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Morrison, Janet & Mishna, Faye & Cook, Charlene & Aitken, Gail, 2011. "Access visits: Perceptions of child protection workers, foster parents and children who are Crown wards," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1476-1482, September.
    2. McWey, Lenore M. & Cui, Ming, 2021. "More contact with biological parents predicts shorter length of time in out of home care and mental health of youth in the child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    3. Wulczyn, Fred & Parolini, Arno & Schmits, Florie & Magruder, Joseph & Webster, Daniel, 2020. "Returning to foster care: Age and other risk factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    4. Taplin, Stephanie & Mattick, Richard P., 2014. "Supervised contact visits: Results from a study of women in drug treatment with children in care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 65-72.
    5. Herbster, Julia M. & Ocasio, Kerrie, 2021. "The complex relationship between sibling contact and child and family well-being in foster care: An exploration of child and family functioning in a pre-permanency cohort," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    6. Hess, Peg McCartt, 1987. "Parental visiting of children in foster care: Current knowledge and research agenda," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 29-50.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gable, Sara & Holliday, Amelia & Zars, Jonathon & Simelus, Sonita & Nickell, Angela & Anderson, Bradd, 2024. "Intergenerational conflict, contact with biological parents, and child functioning in kinship caregiver families," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    2. Taplin, Stephanie & Lucas, Nina & Suomi, Aino & Humphreys, Cathy & Kertesz, Margaret & McArthur, Morag, 2021. "Parents’ supervised contact visits with their children in care: Factors associated with cancellations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Lecompte, Vanessa & Pascuzzo, Katherine & Hélie, Sonia, 2023. "A look inside family reunification for children with attachment difficulties: An exploratory study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Bellamy, Jennifer L., 2008. "Behavioral problems following reunification of children in long-term foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 216-228, February.
    5. Day, Angelique & Willis, Tamarie & Vanderwill, Lori & Resko, Stella & Patterson, Debra & Henneman, Kris & Cohick, Sue, 2018. "Key factors and characteristics of successful resource parents who care for older youth: A systematic review of research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 152-158.
    6. Gerdts-Andresen, Tina & Valen-Sendstad Andersen, Marie & Aarum Hansen, Heidi, 2024. "The child’s right to family life when living in public care: how to facilitate contact that preserves, strengthens, and develops family ties," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    7. Davies, Kate & Ross, Nicola & Cocks, Jessica & Foote, Wendy, 2023. "Family inclusion in child protection: Knowledge, power and resistance," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    8. Paulo Delgado & Isabel M. Bernedo Muñoz & João M. S. Carvalho & María D. Salas Martínez & Miguel Ángel García-Marín, 2019. "Foster Carers’ Perspectives about Contact in Portugal and Spain," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 7(6), pages 145-153, November.
    9. Ruiz-Romero, Kevin J. & Salas, María D. & Fernández-Baena, Francisco Javier & González-Pasarín, Lucía, 2022. "Is contact with birth parents beneficial to children in non-kinship foster care? A scoping review of the evidence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. González-Pasarín, Lucía & Bernedo, Isabel M. & García-Martín, Miguel A., 2023. "A qualitative study about changes that parents experience through a pilot parenting support program to improve the quality of contact visits in non-kinship foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    11. McWey, Lenore M. & Acock, Alan & Porter, Breanne E., 2010. "The impact of continued contact with biological parents upon the mental health of children in foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1338-1345, October.
    12. Danner Touati, Camille & Miljkovitch, Raphaële & Elina Sirparanta, Aino & Ahmad, Sam & Toléon, Camille & Deborde, Anne-Sophie, 2023. "Suicidal risk among adult survivors of childhood maltreatment: The role of parent–child contact during out of home placement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    13. Fernandez, Elizabeth, 1999. "Pathways in substitute care: Representation of placement careers of children using event history analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 177-216, March.
    14. Davis, Inger P. & Landsverk, John & Newton, Rae & Ganger, William, 1996. "Parental visiting and foster care reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(4-5), pages 363-382.
    15. Geen, Rob & Berrick, Jill Duerr, 2002. "Kinship care: an evolving service delivery option," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 1-14.
    16. Kiely, Elizabeth & O' Sullivan, Nicola & Tobin, Mary, 2019. "Centre-based supervised child-parent contact in Ireland: The views and experiences of fathers, supervisors and key stakeholders," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 494-502.
    17. Taplin, Stephanie & Mattick, Richard P., 2014. "Supervised contact visits: Results from a study of women in drug treatment with children in care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 65-72.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:151:y:2023:i:c:s019074092300244x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.