The five papers presented in this symposium will cover various aspects
of the evaluation within the Intensive Services component. The first
describes the emergence of Wraparound in the field of child welfare, and
reviews the literature on the effectiveness of Wraparound services provided
to families in the child welfare system. The second paper also focuses
on Wraparound services and discusses issues related to contamination of
the control group, as well as assessing Wraparound model fidelity.
The authors will describe the development of a Services Tracking Form (STF)
and an associated matrix of model fidelity measures, highlighting the important
components of each, and detailing their current use in the field.
The third paper describes the evolution of the Family Group Conferencing
model in child welfare, reviews the literature on the effectiveness of
the intervention and describes instruments designed by the Waiver team
to assess model fidelity. The fourth paper describes the design of
the cost-benefit/cost-effectiveness evaluation for Family Conferencing.
The authors will describe ways in which essential cost areas were identified
and will present data collection methods. The final paper describes
the development of an Evaluation Information System (EIS) constructed to
collect supplemental information specific to the needs of the Waiver evaluation,
using automated forms processing (scanner, fax, and web) and a customized
relational database. The authors will discuss challenges in the development
of this system resulting from study design considerations, technical constraints,
and the realities of field implementation. All papers will present
implications for practice, as well as for program development and evaluation
in the area child welfare.
Specifically, this paper relies on a review of the literature from the fields of mental health and child welfare to trace the development of Wraparound services, from its origins in the field of mental health to its increased use in child welfare. Wraparound's relationship with Systems of Care is explored, as well as the relationship with family preservation programs. Similarly, the overlap between the child mental health population and child welfare population is discussed. Finally, recent research studies assessing the effectiveness of Wraparound services in a child welfare context are analyzed.
References
Behar, L. (1985). Changing patterns of state responsibility:
A case study of North Carolina. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology
14: 188-195.
Burns, B.J., & Goldman, S.K. (Eds.) (1999). Promising practices in wraparound for children with serious emotional disturbance and their families. Systems of Care: Promising Practices in Children's Mental Health, 1998 Series, Volume IV. Washington, D.C.: Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice, American Institutes for Research.
Rosenblatt, A. (1996). Bows and ribbons, tape and twine: Wrapping
the wraparound process for children with multi-system needs. Journal
of Child and Family Studies 5(1): 101-116.
Based upon a review of the literature, a series of iterative meetings with key informants, and several pilot tests, the STF is currently being introduced into the field and may significantly augment administrative outcome data. By measuring the range, frequency, duration, and intensity of services provided to children and families, this instrument moves beyond random assignment, linking individual services receipt with individual outcome measures. Thus, the comparison of children and families need not be limited by their a priori assignment to one of two groups. While some studies have attempted to track services as part of the evaluation process (Bath and Happala, 1994; Bickman, Guthrie, Foster, Lambert, Summerfelt, Breda, and Heflinger, 1995; Heflinger, Northrup, Sonnichsen, and Brannan, 1998; Schuerman, Rzepnicki, and Little, 1994), none have gathered information at this level of detail.
Although the STF gathers essential information and captures some elements
of the wraparound philosophy (such as a wider range of services, the balance
of "formal" and "informal" care, and interagency/community/neighborhood
collaboration), it does not capture everything. Specifically, the
level of family involvement in decision-making, the use of a strengths-based
perspective, and the commitment to unconditional care cannot be assessed
by service receipt alone. Therefore, a matrix of associated tools
and data sources (both preexisting and newly devised) was developed in
conjunction with key state personnel in order to gauge model fidelity -
the extent to which children in both groups receive the ideal form of wraparound
services.
This paper will explore the development of both of these tools, highlighting
the important components of each, and detailing their current use in the
field.
References
Bath, H. I., & Haapala, D. A. (1994). Family preservation services:
What does the outcome research really tell us? Social ServiceReview,
68(3), 386-404.
Bickman, L., Guthrie, P. R., Foster, E. M., Lambert, E. W., Summerfelt, W. T., Breda, C. S., & Heflinger, C. A. (1995). Evaluating managed mental health services: The Fort Bragg experiment. New York: Plenum Press.
Heflinger, C. A., Northrup, D. A., Sonnichsen, S. E., & Brannan, A. M. (1998). Including a family focus in research on community-based services for children with serious emotional disturbance: Experiences from the Fort Bragg Evaluation Project. In M. H. Epstein & K. Kutash (Eds.), Outcomes for children and youth with emotional and behavioral disorders and their families: Programs and evaluation best practices (pp. 261-293) Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc.
Schuerman, J. R., Rzepnicki, T. L., & Littell, J. H. (1994). Putting
families first: An experiment in family preservation. New York: Aldine
de Gruyter.
Behind the rapid proliferation of the model are claims that FGC with its emphasis on family-centered, strengths-based, solution-focused strategies will improve outcomes for children and families (Fraser & Norton, 1996; Hardin et al., 1996, Merkel-Holguin, 1996). However, scant research exists to substantiate these claims. In addition, it is not clear from the existing literature exactly how FGC differs from existing child welfare services and interventions including case planning processes and mediation.
As part of the IV-E Waiver demonstration evaluation, California has the unique opportunity of evaluating FCG using a true experimental design. The study will also evaluate the model fidelity of the intervention.
The purpose of this paper is to: 1) trace the evolution of FGC in the field of Child Welfare; 2) review the research to date; 3) outline the research design for the Family Conferencing component of the IV-E Waiver Demonstration evaluation; and 4) describe instruments developed to assess FGC model fidelity.
References
American Humane Association (2000). Family Group Decision Making.
Englewood, CO. American Humane Association.
Fraser S. & Norton J. (1996). Family group Conferencing in New Zealand child protection work. In J. Hudson, A. Morris, G. Maxwell, & B. Galaway (Eds.), Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice. (pp. 37-48). New York: Willow Tree Press
Hardin, M., Cole, E., Mickens, J., & Lancour, R. (1996). Family
Group Conferences in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: Learning From
the Experiences of New Zealand. Washington, D.C.: ABA Center on Children
and the Law.
Merkel-Holguin, L. (1996). Putting families back into the child
protection partnership: family group decision making. Protecting
Children, 12(3), 4-7.
Merkel-Holguin, L. (1998). Implementation of family group decision
making processes in the U.S.: policies and practices in transition?
Protecting Children, 14(4), 4-10.
As a first step, agency personnel were surveyed to identify essential cost areas and to speculate on how costs and benefits might change. A data collection plan was proposed for each identified cost and benefit area. Because of the difficulty of valuing non-economic benefits such as child well-being, child safety, and family cohesion, the design chosen was a cost-effectiveness model. In response to staffing shortages and heavy workloads in the agency, the data collection plan was designed to take maximum advantage of existing data.
The result was a reality-based data collection plan utilizing low-impact data collection methods. Essential cost areas identified included direct family conference costs, training costs, foster care payments, court costs, and services provided as part of the case plan.
The paper will highlight lessons learned from this experience.
In order to develop viable cost study designs, communication with respondents
and flexibility on the part of the researchers is necessary from the earliest
stages. Considerable cooperation from both workers and administrators
must be cultivated through early and frequent dialogue with the agency
to ensure consistency of definitions and data collection methods.
Data collection methods must take into account the larger context in which
agency programs operate, including issues of staff workload and willingness
and ability to take on additional paperwork. Research ideals may
sometimes need to give way to plans to collect “good enough” data when
“best” data collection plans are unworkable due to the time or expense
involved for agencies or evaluators. This information should be of
benefit to both practitioners and evaluators who are interested in assessing
the cost-effectiveness of child welfare interventions.
Reference
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. Y., & Edwards, M. (1999). Recurrence of
maltreatment: An application of the national child abuse and neglect data
system (NCANDS). Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 633-650.
Goerge, R., Wulczyn, F., & Harden, A. (1996). New comparative insights into states and their foster children. Public Welfare, 54, (3), 12-25.
Needell, B, & Barth, R. P. (1998). Infants entering foster care compared to other infants using birth status indicators. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 1179-1187.
Poertner, J., Bussey, M., & Fluke, J. (1999). How safe are out-of-home placements? Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 549-563.
Testa, M. F., & Rolock, N. (1999). Professional foster care: A future worth pursuing? Child Welfare, 78, 108-124.