ArticleChild abuse & neglect2022
Reasonable efforts to preserve families? An examination of service utilization and child removal.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developmental outcomes across foster care, adoption, and child welfare services: a mini review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Invisible victims: rising pediatric cocaine exposures in France (2020-2024) - insights from the national poison center database.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Working toward reunification as a case goal: does family structure matter?Children and youth services review · 2025Article
- "At the Mercy of our System": Structural and programmatic changes for supporting parents with children in out-of-home care.Children and youth services review · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecent federal policy has solidified the importance of preserving families, yet over 400,000 children enter foster care each year. Although a few studies have found that certain types of services, like intensive family preservation services, may reduce child removals, more research is needed.
objectiveThis study examined the relationship between family preservation, family support, and basic need service utilization and child removal among families with substantiated cases of maltreatment.
methodsWe conducted a survival analysis using data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS). We took a cohort of families with an investigation and substantiation of maltreatment in FY 2018 and followed them through FY 2019 to identify any that experienced a child removal during the study period. This included a total of n = 558,915 children.
resultsApproximately 15.33% of children experienced a removal during the study period. Case management was the most frequently reported service, followed by transportation services and family preservation services. In the multivariable analysis, family preservation services (HR = 0.95, p < .01), home-based services (HR = 0.98, p < .001), and housing services (HR = 0.87, p < .001) decreased the hazards of child removal. Family support services (HR = 1.36, p < .001), transportation services (HR = 2.30, p < .001), education (HR = 1.13, p < .01), case management (HR = 1.83, p < .001), or daycare (HR = 1.26, p < .001) increased the hazards of child removal. DISCUSSION: Findings from this study suggest that utilization of various services is associated with future child removals. While preservation and home-based services decreased the likelihood of removal, several basic needs services increased the hazards of child removal. This may reflect too little too late with services that may be better applied as primary or secondary preventive efforts. Implications for policy and future rollout of the Families First Prevention Services Act are explored.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.