Parents Too Can Evaluate Family Preservation Services - or –Involving Parents In Evaluation of Family Preservation Services

In line with the long-standing emphasis in the human services on involving clients in program evaluation, in this essay I focus on principles and strategies for involving parents in evaluation of family preservation services. In particular, I delineate the crucial roles that parents can play as partners in the helping process within a family-centered context.

Family Preservation Journal, 2006, Volume 9, Issue 1. (Entire issue)

Entire issue (large pdf file)

Editorial: Family Preservation Issues

Editorial: Family Preservation Issues

Family Preservation in Child Welfare: Its Base and Its Future

This is the eleventh issue of the Family Preservation Journal, and we have chosen to focus this special issue on the use of family preservation services in child welfare. While family preservation services, as a philosophy and as a service model, are provided to families in a variety of service settings and sectors, including juvenile justice and mental health arenas, they have their basis and origin in services to children and families. We think it is time, in this 11th issue of the Journal, to take stock of the state of family preservation services in child welfare and assess where they might be heading.

The Elegant Simplicity of Family Preservation Practice Legecies and Lessons

An earlier version of this manuscript was prepared for the Chapin Hall invitational seminar on family preservation, The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, September 16 & 17, 1999. The author wishes to acknowledge the comments and helpful suggestions of seminar participants-Jacqueline McCroskey, Martha Shirk, Fran Jacobs, John Schuerman, Lee Schorr, Charlotte Booth, Kristi Nelson, Susan Kelly, Frank Farrow, and Susan Notkin. These comments, as indeed many of their prior contributions, have had a seminal effect on my thinking about family preservation services over the years. Clark Peters and other Chapin Hall staff deserve special thanks for creating the conditions necessary to produce a lively and productive discussion. As always, Harold Richman, Executive Director of Chapin Hall, and Hermon Dunlap, Smith Professor at the School of Social Service Administration of the University of Chicago, as seminar convenor combined perfectly the skills of gracious host and incisive critic. We in the child welfare field are in his debt for continually raising the level of discourse in our field. In the end, as it should be, the thoughts and opinions in the following paper are wholly my own.

A Case Study of an Agency's Three Family Preservation Contracts

This article presents a case study of a nonprofit child welfare agency that delivered family preservation services under three different purchase-of-service (POS) contracts. The research specifically focuses on how certain POS contract provisions and reimbursement rates influence the delivery of family preservation services. The three contacts examined differed on criteria, such as reimbursement mechanism, service volume, definition of clientele, and reimbursement rate. The study found that as reimbursement rates decline and as administrative costs increase, the service provider struggled with cash flow, staffing, fundraising, and service provision, among other things. It is concluded that contract-related resources, policies, and procedures impact provider agencies in multiple, significant ways that are critical to the provision of services and the accomplishment of positive client outcomes.

Family Preservation in Perspective

This essay traces the family preservation movement to its permanency planning roots; discusses the principles and underlying philosophy of the movement, and suggests the appropriate context for considering further development of child welfare services.

Family Preservation Journal, 2002, Volume 6, Issue 1 (Entire issue)

The entire issue. Large file.

Promising Practices to Engage Families and Support Family Preservation

The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA) is the latest legislation in two decades of important child welfare policy in the United States. The Adoption and Safe Families Act has served to shorten the period of time that caseworkers and families have to show that families are making progress toward family preservation, with permanency decisions being made after 12 months, rather than 18. The importance of engaging and motivating families in services has therefore increased. The practice directive of ASFA can be summarized as 'Act Smart, Fast, and Accountable. " Using findings from largely correlational research, concrete recommendations are made to ensure that practices to preserve families are smart, fast, and accountable, particularly critical given these new timeframes.

Perceptions of Family Preservation Practitioners: A Preliminary Study

This exploratory, qualitative study examined practitioners' perceptions about family preservation practice. Findings reveal a wide range of identified strengths as well as the limitations of such a model. Interestingly, the most frequently identified strengths were value based rather than practice based in perspective whereas limitations were practice based. Keeping families together was the most common perceived strength but concern about children's safety by keeping the family intact was a frequently reported limitation. Further, lack of support and a lack of theoretical clarity were identified as considerable limitations. Implications suggest these practitioners (mostly child welfare/mental health workers) believe in the approach for the sake of keeping families together but are concerned with endangering the child in the process and recognize the need for theoretical guidance.

Family Preservation Journal, 2005, Volume 8, (Entire issue)

The entire issue. Large file.

Learning What Works: Demonstrating Practice Effectiveness with Children and Families Through Retrospective Investigation

Intensive family preservation services (IFPS), designed to stabilize at-risk families and avert out-of-home care, have been the focus of many randomized, experimental studies. Employing a retrospective “clinical data-mining” (CDM) methodology (Epstein, 2001), this study makes use of available information extracted from client records in one IFPS agency over the course of two years. The primary goal of this descriptive and associational study was to gain a clearer understanding of IFPS service delivery and effectiveness. Interventions provided to families are delineated and assessed for their impact on improved family functioning, their impact on the reduction of family violence, as well as placement prevention. Findings confirm the use of a wide range of services consistent with IFPS program theory. Because the study employs a quasi-experimental, retrospective use of available information, clinical outcomes described cannot be causally attributed to interventions employed as with randomized controlled trials. With regard to service outcomes, findings suggest that family education, empowerment services and advocacy are most influential in placement prevention and in ameliorating unmanageable behaviors in children as well as the incidence of family violence.

Assessing Treatment Integrity: A Case Example

This paper presents an example of assessing treatment integrity as part of an experimental study of home-based, intensive family preservation services (IFPS). Participants were 103 IFPS workers and 24 state public child welfare agency workers (FC). The structured, self-report questionnaire included questions about specific components of the services, as well as the characteristics of the family and the workers themselves. Findings suggest that IFPS workers delivered services according to the treatment model guidelines. The procedure yielded a good estimate of whether the structural components of treatment were delivered according to the model as delineated in the treatment manual. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of this approach to assessing treatment integrity.

Is Our Business Family-Centered?

Human Services agencies often claim to be family-centered, but continue to implement “Service Integration” in a way that supports their mission rather than supporting families. David Berns, guest editor for this issue of the Journal of Family Strengths, presents a framework for redefining the role of governmental agencies beyond their day-to-day delivery of services to one that prevents the need for more intrusive and more costly interventions. Under this philosophy, agencies must consider how families functioned before they requested assistance, and how they will function if services are not successful. By taking the time to truly understand a family’s needs, caseworkers often discover that they may need a service for which they are not eligible and may be eligible for services that they don’t want or need. Instead of focusing entirely on what their agency can do for the family, caseworkers should consider all types of support that might produce better results. Families often need support from friends and communities rather than, or in addition to, a formalized service. Facilitating natural supports in the community may prevent the need for a governmental program. It is only when basic supports break down that families must use ever more intensive and costly programs. The author gives examples of how this framework is guiding the redesign of the TANF Program in Washington, D.C.