X

Why Children, Families, and Communities Need Family Support Organizations?

Increased Protective Factors

Research has shown that FSOs improve a family’s wellbeing by strengthening parent-child relationships, strengthening social connections between families, and contributing to parental and child well-being. For example, in New York, Family Resource Center participants showed a 12% increase in Parental Resilience after receiving services, and families who were at higher risk improved their Parental Resilience by 31%.

  • 2009 to 2015, the Family Development Matrix (FDM) was implemented in 25 collaborative networks across California, with outcome results gathered for 140 family resource centers. Using the FDM, Change by protective factor (all clients with at least 2 assessments): Percentage of families at the “safe” or “self-sufficient” level in all indicators considered for the protective factor. For children’s social and emotional development, the percentage increased from 38.5% to 53.3%, a difference of 14.8%. Parental resilience and knowledge of parenting and child development rose from 66.2% to 79.0%, showing a 12.8% improvement. Concrete support in times of need saw the largest increase, from 13.6% to 29.5%, a difference of 15.9%. Parental resilience improved from 75.9% to 86.7%, a difference of 10.8%, while social connections increased from 74.6% to 87.4%, with a change of 12.8%. All differences were statistically significant at p ≤ .05. CITE: Endres, J. (2016). Family Assessment Effectiveness of California Family Resource Centers Using Family Development Matrix Outcomes. Weed, CA: Matrix Outcomes Model, LLC. Table 4. Link

  • Massachusetts Family Support Programs (117 centers) In Massachusetts, 2016 data show a 20% increase in parents’ confidence in their ability to protect children from abuse after receiving FRC services. After receiving parenting education services through the FRCs, 87% of participants said they were aware of parenting skills that fit their child’s ages and needs, up from 29% at baseline. CITE: Henry, A. D., Gettens, J., Pratt, C., & McGlinchy, L. (2017, March). Massachusetts Family Resource Center program evaluation report: Calendar year 2016. Center for Health Policy and Research, University of Massachusetts Medical School Link

  • South Carolina, Geographic comparison group, Child problem behavior: Triple P reduces problem behavior in children and improves parents’ well-being and parenting skills. CITE: Nowak, C. & Heinrichs, N. (2008). A comprehensive meta-analysis of Triple P – Positive Parenting Program using hierarchical linear modeling: Effectiveness and moderating variables. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 11, 114-144. as retrieved from Pecora, P. J., & DiLorenzFrom o, P. (2019). Outcome and cost-savings data for selected types of family support services: A summary for Orange County Social Services. Compiled with assistance from A. Russo and resource center leaders. Retrieved from National Family Support Network Link

  • New York Family Resource Centers: Average PFI scores across ALL FRC participants showed a 12% increase in Parental Resilience after receiving FRC services. Families who were at higher risk improved their Parental Resilience by 31%. Average PFI scores across ALL FRC participants showed a 12% increase in Social Connections after receiving FRC services. Families who were at higher risk improved their Social Connections by 32%.CITE: FRIENDS National Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) & New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (2021). Family Resource Centers in New York Make a Difference Link

  • California FRCs who use Family Development Matrix Assessments (25 Collaboratives, 129 FRCs) Data was collected from September 2009 to March 2013, after 90 days of FRC support, 20.7% average gain in Children’s social and emotional development. CITE: Endres, J., Navarro, I., & Sherman, J. (2013). Family Development Matrix Pathway to Prevent Child Abuse and Neglect Project. Funded by the Office of Child Abuse Prevention. Link

  • New York Family Resource Centers. Average PFI scores across ALL FRC participants showed an 11% increase in Nurturing and Attachment after receiving FRC services. CITE: FRIENDS National Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) & New York State Office of Children and Family Services. (2021). Family Resource Centers in New York Make a Difference: Evaluation Brief. Link

  • Pathways to Hope for Children’s Family Resource Center in Redding, CA (1 center) Between January 2020 and mid-2021, with 147 parents served, Hope Survey scores rose by 4.82 points (a statistically significant improvement). parental stress improved by 15%, while flourishing (well-being) scores increased by 5.43 points.Notable improvements in parent-child relationships and parental well-being, particularly among parents with high levels of childhood adversity. Cite: Jackson-Stowe, J., Hellman, C.M., Muilenburg-Trevino, E.M.(2022). Pathways to hope for children: An assessment of the impact of program services on parent hope, well-being, and relationship with their children. The University of Oklahoma Hope Research Center. Link

Significant Reductions in Child Abuse and Neglect

Communities with FSOs have significantly lower rates of child maltreatment investigations compared to those communities without. Equally promising is that families engaged in FSO services are less likely to be referred back to child welfare or enter the system, than those who do not receive these services. Research shows that by prioritizing strengthening families first, FSOs decrease child welfare involvement by 63% in their communities.

  • The study of Allegheny County Family Support Centers in Pennsylvania found that neighborhoods with these centers had significantly lower investigation rates for child abuse and neglect (30.5 per 1,000 children) compared to similar neighborhoods without centers (41.5 per 1,000 children) between 2008 and 2013.This reduction is attributed to increased collective efficacy or the ability of residents to work together to address common challenges. CITE: Allegheny County Department of Human Services and Chapin Hall Center for Children. (2016). An evaluation of the family support center network. Pittsburgh: Author. Wulczyn, F. & Lery, B. (2018). The impact of family support centers on the rates of investigations. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children. (PowerPoint presentation) Link

  • The Los Angeles Prevention Initiative Demonstration Project (PIDP) showed that families who used ASK Centers were less likely to be re-referred to the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) for child maltreatment. In Compton, only 12% of families who accessed ASK Centers were re-referred to DCFS between June 2008 and July 2010, compared to 23% of families in a comparison group. In Lancaster, only 23% of families receiving PIDP services were re-referred, while 31% of the comparison group were re-referred during the same period. CITE: McCroskey, J., Franke, T., Christie, T., Pecora, P. J., Lorthridge, J., Fleischer, D., & Rosenthal, E. (2010). Prevention Initiative Demonstration Project (PIDP): Year two evaluation summary report. Los Angeles: LA County Department of Children and Family Services and Seattle: Casey Family Programs. Link

  • Westminster Family Resource Center, Orange County CA (1 center) In 2016 and 2017, the rate of substantiated child abuse among families served by WFRC was small but significantly lower than comparable communities in Los Angeles County, with reductions of 21% in 2016 and 41% in 2017, keeping over 90 children out of the child welfare system. CITE: OMNI Institute (2021). Return on Investment of a Family Resource Center to the Child Welfare System: Westminster Family Resource Center, Orange County, CA Link

  • Colorado Family Resource Center Association (30 centers) There was a 62.84% reduction in substantiated child maltreatment assessments from 2015 to 2018, equating to 51 fewer cases and an estimated savings of $49,026 per avoided assessment. CITE: OMNI Institute (2021). Return on Investment of a Family Resource Center to the Child Welfare System: Community Partnership Family Resource Center, Teller County, CO. Community Services Analysis LLC. Social Return on Investment Study. Link

Proven Return on Investment

Investing in FSOs yields remarkable returns; for every dollar invested, FSO networks generate an impressive $4.70 in immediate and long-term benefits. Research shows that in California, an FSO can generate $3.65 per dollar invested in savings to the child welfare system over a two-year period by reducing child maltreatment cases.

  • Alabama Family Resource Network: 2014 data yielded a total return of nearly $29 million against an initial cost of just over $2.1 million. The most significant fiscal impacts were linked to parenting education, fatherhood programs, and home visitation services. This study attached cost savings to services provided by FRCs and included the broader family and societal impacts of child maltreatment. CITE: Social Return on Investment Study conducted by Community Services Analysis for the Alabama Network of Family Resource Centers. Link
  • Westminster Family Resource Center, Orange County CA (1 center) In 2016, the WFRC provided the Orange County child welfare system with $2.80 in savings for every $1 invested, representing a 280% return on investment. Over two years, this increased to a return of $3.65 for each $1 invested. For an estimated savings of over $1.84 million. The study examined the economic benefits of FRCs to local child welfare systems by reducing child maltreatment cases. CITE: OMNI Institute (2021). Return on Investment of a Family Resource Center to the Child Welfare System: Westminster Family Resource Center, Orange County, CA Link
Life-Changing Concrete Supports

FSOs help reduce poverty, a key factor in reducing child abuse and neglect, by providing flexible economic support and access to essential resources. By acting as crucial community hubs, FSOs connect families to a vast network of resources beyond their direct services, foster long-term resilience and generate immeasurable benefits that positively impact families and communities for generations. A recent literature review found that 20 out of 24 studies (1990-2023) demonstrated statistically significant positive effects of economic and concrete support, highlighting their effectiveness in preventing child maltreatment and reducing child welfare system involvement.

  • The 2024 review analyzed 24 studies between 1990 and 2023 with low risk of bias, covering various types of economic and concrete supports like cash transfers, tax credits, housing assistance, food assistance, etc. Effects were most consistent for reducing child maltreatment and child welfare involvement. Impacts on child and adult well-being outcomes were more mixed, though generally positive. CITE: Cusick G, Gaul-Stout J, Kakuyama-Villaber R, Wilks O, Grewal-Kök Y, Anderson C. A Systematic Review of Economic and Concrete Support to Prevent Child Maltreatment. Societies. 2024; 14(9):173. Link – Chapin Hill 2023 Slide Show

  • Data from 2009 to 2011, from family resource centers in California using the FDM system, with 3-6 months between assessments. For families initially rated as “in crisis,” improvements were observed: Community Resource Knowledge: 91% improved. CITE: Endres, J., & Navarro, I. A. (2012). Why Families Are Getting Good Outcomes: The Family Development Matrix Outcomes Model / Pathways Project 2012. Matrix Outcomes Model, LLC. Link

  • Colorado Family Resource Center Association (30 centers) A statewide program evaluation from 2089-2019 indicates that follow-up assessments of 1,823 families demonstrated statistically significant gains in addressing their basic needs (including income, cash savings, debt management, housing, employment, food security, child care, children’s education, mental and physical health, and transportation). Concrete Support increased from 3.4 to 3.7, an 8.8% improvement, with overall economic self-sufficiency increasing from 2.8 to 3.1 on a 5-point scale, a 10.7% improvement. Cite: Colorado Family Resource Center Association 2018-2019 Evaluation Report Executive Summary by OMNI Institute 2019 Link

  • Colorado Family Resource Center Association (30 centers) In 2018-2019 Among families indicating readiness for change at intake, those who moved above the prevention line, 35% for housing by the follow-up assessment. Cite: Colorado Family Resource Center Association 2018-2019 Evaluation Report Executive Summary by OMNI Institute 2019 Link

  • Data from 2009 to 2011, from family resource centers in California using the FDM system, with 3-6 months between assessments. For families initially rated as “in crisis,” improvements were observed: Stability Home Shelter: 60% improvement. CITE: Endres, J., & Navarro, I. A. (2012). Why Families Are Getting Good Outcomes: The Family Development Matrix Outcomes Model / Pathways Project 2012. Matrix Outcomes Model, LLC. Link

  • Harder+Company Community Research. (2019). 2019 California Family Resource Center Statewide Survey Results Brief. Retrieved from Link

  • Data from 2009 to 2011, from family resource centers in California using the FDM system, with 3-6 months between assessments. For families initially rated as “in crisis,” improvements were observed: Community Resource Knowledge: 91% improved, Health Services: 80.6% improved, Child Health Insurance: 75.1% improved, Nutrition: 91.7% improvement, Presence of Substance Abuse: 75.8% improvement, Access to Transportation: 71% improvement, Stability Home Shelter: 60% improvement. CITE: Endres, J., & Navarro, I. A. (2012). Why Families Are Getting Good Outcomes: The Family Development Matrix Outcomes Model / Pathways Project 2012. Matrix Outcomes Model, LLC. Link

  • Colorado Family Resource Center Association (30 centers) A statewide program evaluation from 2018-2019- Health scores also rose from 3.6 to 3.8, representing a 5.6% increase. Among families indicating readiness for change at intake, those who moved above the prevention line, 34% for food security and 30% for health coverage by the follow-up assessment. Cite: Colorado Family Resource Center Association 2018-2019 Evaluation Report Executive Summary by OMNI Institute 2019 Link

  • Data from 2009 to 2011, from 90 family resource centers in California. Using the FDM system, 5,579 families were served, representing 12,439 children under 18, and there were 3-6 months between the 1st and 2nd assessments. For families initially rated as “in crisis,” 82.4% improved to a higher status in child supervision, and 67.5% improved in child care. CITE: Endres, J., & Navarro, I. A. (2012). Why Families Are Getting Good Outcomes: The Family Development Matrix Outcomes Model / Pathways Project 2012. Matrix Outcomes Model, LLC. Link

  • Stanislaus County FRCs, Children 0-5 who received developmental screening: 20% (394/1,740) Children 0-5 who received early intervention or support services as indicated by screening results: 70% (15/25 ) CITE: First 5 Stanislaus. (2024). Annual Program Evaluation 2022-2023. Retrieved from Link

San Francisco Shines as a Model for Family Support Organization Success

Since FRCs launched in 2009, San Francisco has seen a 52% reduction in the rate of children in foster care and a 60% drop in substantiated child maltreatment. Research shows that family support services in San Francisco improve family functioning and reduce child abuse risk by enhancing parenting skills, emotional well-being, and support systems through coordinated case management.

  • In San Francisco, a network of neighborhood-based centers target supports to families with specific needs (such as families of children with special needs, families experiencing housing instability, and pregnant and parenting teens). Since FRCs launched in 2009, San Francisco has seen a 52% reduction in the rate of children in foster care and the rate of substantiated child maltreatment has dropped more than 60%, along with other interventions in child welfare and demographic changes. Link NEED Data

  • A 2012 evaluation of the FRC network used the Parenting Scale, Family Development Matrix, Keys to Interactive Parenting Survey (KIPS), and Child Welfare Services Case Management System to assess effectiveness in parenting skills, family progress, parent-child interactions, and visitation improvements. CITE: The First Five Commission of the City and County of San Francisco undertook this initiative. O’Brien-Strain, M., Gunther, K., Rosenberger, A., and Theobald, N. (2012). San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative Year 2 Evaluation 2010-11. San Francisco, CA: Mission Analytics Group. Link

  • A 2012 evaluation of the FRC network used the Parenting Scale, Family Development Matrix, Keys to Interactive Parenting Survey (KIPS), and Child Welfare Services Case Management System to assess effectiveness in parenting skills, family progress, parent-child interactions, and visitation improvements. CITE: The First Five Commission of the City and County of San Francisco undertook this initiative. O’Brien-Strain, M., Gunther, K., Rosenberger, A., and Theobald, N. (2012). San Francisco Family Resource Center Initiative Year 2 Evaluation 2010-11. San Francisco, CA: Mission Analytics Group. Link

  • Recent and ongoing research co-led by Safe and Sound, Safe & Sound Website – Need to put in official cite

  • https://sfdec.org/support-and-investment-in-family-resource-centers/ – need to put in an official cite