Bridging Universal Family Support and Child Welfare: The Role of Family Resource Centers

Background and Purpose: Family Resource Centers (FRCs) are community-based organizations that provide locally responsive supports for children and families. Programming varies by community, but FRCs share a universal, strengths-based approach intended to promote family well-being and reduce stigma around help-seeking. Family strengthening and family safety are central to this model. Some FRCs also maintain formal partnerships with Child Protective Services (CPS), through which they may offer both mandated and voluntary services. This study examined whether FRCs’ universal and strengths-based orientation is associated with families successfully accessing resources, with particular attention to CPS-involved families and FRCs with formal CPS partnerships (“CPS-serving FRCs”).

Methods: This study uses data on service needs and household characteristics gathered from a baseline survey of 646 FRC families and 1,489 families from a general population sample. Survey data were matched to state CPS administrative records. A second survey wave, administered approximately three years later, included questions about resources accessed (n = 789). Descriptive analyses compared CPS-involved and non-CPS-involved participants on demographic characteristics, 13 indicators of economic instability, and resources accessed. Regression models assessed whether participation in a CPS-serving FRC was associated with accessing a greater number of resource types, adjusting for socioeconomic characteristics.

Results: At least one documented screened-in CPS report was identified for 22.4% of participants from CPS-serving FRCs, compared with 8.7% of participants from other FRCs and 6.0% of the general population sample. CPS-involved participants reported significantly more indicators of economic instability than non-CPS-involved participants (M = 4.2, SD = 3.2 vs. M = 2.03, SD = 2.7, p < .001). Participants from FRCs also reported significantly more indicators of economic instability than the general population sample (M = 2.97 vs. M = 1.89, p < .001). Across groups, the most accessed resources were parent education, basic needs assistance, medical/dental care, and childcare. Compared with the general population sample, participants from CPS-serving FRCs accessed a significantly greater number of resource types ( β = 1.72, CI =1.09, 2.34). Participants from other FRCs did not differ significantly from the general population sample in the range of resources accessed.

Conclusions and Implications: Although FRCs are open to all families, they appear to reach families facing greater economic risk than families in the general population. FRCs with formal CPS partnerships serve higher proportions of CPS-involved families and are associated with greater resource uptake. Findings suggest that the flexible, universal, and strengths-based FRC model may be especially well suited to engage families involved with—or at risk of involvement with—CPS, while maintaining a non-stigmatizing entry point to support. This has implications for how communities invest in preventive, family-centered service models that bridge universal support and child welfare response.