Targeting Families to Receive Intensive Family Preservation Services: Assessing the Use of Imminent Risk of Placement as a Service Criterion

The process for targeting families to receive intensive family preservation services was examined for 71 child welfare agencies in the United States. The focus of this exploratory/descriptive study was the concept of imminent risk of placement as a criterion for providing services. Findings indicated that agencies had difficulty defining imminent risk and were unable to successfully restrict services to imminent risk cases. Several factors besides imminent risk were identified in relation to the targeting process.

Measuring Service Effectiveness for Families

While most professionals do not dispute the fact that evaluation is necessary to determine whether agencies and practitioners are truly providing services that meet clients’ needs, information regarding consistent measures on service effectiveness in human service organizations is sparse. A national survey of 250 not-for-profit family service organizations in the United States (52.8% return rate) yielded results relevant to client identified needs and agency effectiveness measures in serving today’s families. On an open-ended survey item, 52.3% agencies indicated that poverty represented the most pressing problem among today’s families because other psychological needs also take priority. Over two thirds of these agencies used multiple methods to evaluate their services. Clients’ feedback and outcome measures are the most popular methods. The findings reveal agencies' difficulties in determining what or who decides if the most appropriate services are being provided for the target population. Limited data collected on outcomes and impact may impose additional difficulties in program design and planning.

Are Intensive Family Preservation Services Useful?: A Study in the United Kingdom

This evaluation of the first year of an Intensive Family Preservation Service in England is based on the analysis of eighty-six families: fifty-seven families who received the service and a comparison group of twenty-nine families who did not. The study considered whether the program was fulfilling its objectives of reducing the number of children and young people in the public care system; offering a safe, supportive service for children who need protection; integrating the program into family support services as a whole, and improving family functioning. The findings were complex to interpret. Child protection was improved but there was not a reduction in the number of children needing out of home care (indeed there was an increase) meaning that short term savings in costs could not be made. Nor were there lasting improvements in the children’s behavior. There were instead a number of more subtle, arguably more sensitive outcomes: parents’ capacity to tolerate their child’s behavior was greater and overall family functioning was better for most families who received the service. Also families were, on the whole, able to make better use of follow up services.