Examining the Initial Outcomes of a Court-Based Intervention In Child Welfare

Background: Parents and youth who experience foster care interact with court/legal services often. However, evidence of interventions to improve child welfare (CW) outcomes in court settings are scant. This study explored a pilot court-based strategy known as, 4 Questions. The 4 Questions aimed to increase active discussion, parent/youth engagement, and creative problem-solving during hearings to improve CW outcomes. The study’s research questions asked: 1) Is active engagement with the 4 Questions associated with positive permanency outcomes?; 2) To what extent did pilot counties achieve positive permanency outcomes?; and 3) What were CW professionals experience with the 4 Questions?

Method: Court observations (n=52) occurred from September 2025–November 2025 in one urban and one semi-urban county. Observations included these indicators: type of hearing participant, which of the 4 Questions were asked, whether questions were modified and open-ended, level of parent/caregiver and youth engagement, the helpfulness of the questions, and whether case/hearing outcome was influenced by 4 Questions. Additionally, we examined each county’s key metrics from administrative data and compared one year before and after implementation. Finally, we conducted three focus groups (n=9) of CW professionals in the urban county. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative data from the focus groups.

Results: Observation results indicated no significant relationship between parent/youth engagement and whether 4 Questions were helpful or improved case outcomes (χ²s range:0.77-2.72, ps=0.10-.38). Administrative data: One-year pre and post implementation periods were examined for differences on initial placement with kin, last day of the month kin placement, placement stability, reunification with family, and aging out of care. Improvements in initial placement with kin (p=0.002) and placement stability (p=0.036) were found in the urban county and worse aging-out outcomes (p=0.029) in the semi-urban county. No other statistically significant differences were found. The main themes that emerged from the focus groups were high acceptability and fit of the 4 Questions. Participants recommended adding a strengths component.

Implications/Conclusion: Our pilot study demonstrated improvements on some key metrics in the urban county. Although results in both counties showed no statistically significant association between high levels of active discussion and engagement and helpfulness or case outcomes, CW professionals reported that active discussions and engagement of the 4 Questions improved casework and court practices and centered discussions on finding workable solutions. Given the small sample, additional research is warranted to better understand how 4 Questions may influence outcomes.

One limitation was the small frequencies in each cell when calculating Chi-square tests of the observation data, which may contribute to increased Type II errors, decreasing the test’s ability to show effects. Thus, further implementation and replication is required to better understand the relationship between active discussion and engagement in court hearings and its impact on improving case outcomes. Despite its limitation, the pilot study shows how community collaboration can challenge the status quo to implement data-informed and innovative court-based interventions to improve outcomes for child and families in CW. Practice and policy implications of this collaborative court strategy will be discussed.