Evaluation of Family Preservation and
Reunification Programs:
Final Report - Volume One

Submitted to:
Department of Health and Human Services
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Submitted by:
Westat
Chapin Hall Center for Children
James Bell Associates

December, 2002

Contents

Executive Summary

1. Study Overview

• 1.1 Background
• 1.2 Study Objectives
  • 1.2.1 Site Selection and Recruitment
  • 1.2.2 Sample Size
• 1.3 Data Elements and Measures
• 1.4 Data Sources

2. Implementation

• 2.1 Site Selection and Recruitment
• 2.2 Negotiations
• 2.3 Random Assignment and Case Enrollment Status
• 2.4 Data Collection Activities
• 2.5 Lengths of Time from Random Assignment to the Interviews
• 2.6 Administrative Data
• 2.7 Maintaining Study Integrity

3. Kentucky

• 3.1 Introduction
• 3.2 Characteristics of Kentucky's Children and Families
• 3.3 History of Family Preservation in Kentucky
  • 3.3.1 Description of State Family Preservation Program Model
  • 3.3.2 Family Preservation Services in Jefferson County
• 3.4 Implementation of the Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification
  • 3.4.1 Louisville Study Procedures
  • 3.4.2 Lexington Procedures
  • 3.4.3 Workers' Major Concerns About the Study
• 3.5 Other Initiatives
  • 3.5.1 Restructuring
  • 3.5..2 Welfare Reform Initiative
• 3.6 Summary

4. New Jersey

• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 History of FPS Service in New Jersey
  • 4.2.1 Referral Process
  • 4.2.2 Statewide FPS Case Characteristics
  • 4.2.3 Reunification Component of the Program
  • 4.2.4 Training
• 4.3 Implementation of the Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Services
  • 4.3.1 State's Interest in FPS Evaluation
  • 4.3.2 DYFS Evaluation
  • 4.3.3 The New Jersey Family Preservation Services Targeting Referrals Project
  • 4.1.1 Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Services
  • 4.3.4 Initiation of Project
  • 4.3.5 The Random Assignment Process
  • 4.3.6 Concerns of DYFS and FPS Staff
  • 4.3.7 Violations and Exceptions
  • 4.3.8 Inappropriate Referrals
• 4.4 Child Welfare Issues in New Jersey
• 4.5 Current Status in New Jersey
  • 4.5.1 Feedback From Counties Post-Random Assignment.
  • 4.5.2 FY 1998 Case Characteristics of Participating Counties
  • 4.5.3 Current Policy Context
• 4.6 Summary

5. Tennessee

• 5.1 Introduction
• 5.2 Characteristics of Tennessee's Children and Families
• 5.3 History of Family Preservation in Tennessee
  • 5.3.1 Background
  • 5.3.2 Initial Planning, Program Development, and Training
  • 5.3.3 Program Expansion
  • 5.3.4 Significant Events Affecting HomeTies
  • 5.3.5 Description of Tennessee Family Preservation Model
  • 5.3.6 Family Preservation Services in Shelby County
• 5.4 Implementing the Evaluation
  • 5.4.1 Study Procedures
  • 5.4.2 Other Evaluations

6. Philadelphia

• 6.1 Introduction
• 6.2 Characteristics of Philadelphia's Children and Families
• 6.3 Child Welfare Services
  • 6.3.1 Child Abuse and Neglect Intake
  • 6.3.2 In-home Services
• 6.4 Services
• 6.5 Training
• 6.6 Public-Private Collaboration
• 6.7 Funding
• 6.8 Implementation of the Evaluation
  • 6.8.1 Random Assignment
  • 6.8.2 Challenges to Implementation

7. Families Served by Homebuilders Model Programs

• 7.1 State Policies on Referral
• 7.2 The Kentucky Families
• 7.3 The New Jersey Families
• 7.4 The Tennessee Families
• 7.5 Summary

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 2-1 Assignment of Cases by County
• Table 2-2 Violations and Minimal Service Cases by County
• Table 2-3 Caseworker Response Rates
• Table 2-4 Caseworker Interview Completion Rates by County
• Table 2-5 Data Collection Status for Caretaker Interviews
• Table 2-6 Caretaker Interview Completion Rates by County
• Table 2-7 Timing to and Between Completion of Interviews
• Table 2-8 Numbers of Cases on which Administrative Data are Available by County
• Table 3-1 Age and Race Distribution of Children in Kentucky
• Table 3-2 Indicators of Children and Family Health, Education, Social and Economic Welfare in Kentucky as Compared to Nation
• Table 3-3 Number of Children with Child Abuse and Neglect Reports, and Percent Substantiated by Age and Race, Jefferson County, Kentucky
• Table 3-4 Children served in Substitute care in FY 1995 and FY 1997 In Louisville, Kentucky
• Table 3-6 Results of Petition Review
• Table 3-7 Screening Protocol Responses
• Table 3-8 Number of Cases Referred to the Screener and Enrolled in Study in Louisville
• Table 4-1 Indicators of Child Health, Education and Welfare in New Jersey as Compared to Nation
• Table 4-2 Number and Percentage Of DYFS Referrals to FPS by County for FY 1994-1996
• Table 4-3 Race/Ethnicity of Families Served in FPS
• Table 4-4 Percent of FPS, DYFS Total, and Foster Care Caseload That is African-American by County
• Table 4-5 Placement Data by Months Since Termination
• Table 4-6 Item Response for Screening Protocol
• Table 4-7 Number of DYFS Screeners and Local Offices by County
• Table 4-8 Total Referrals by County by Reason for Referral
• Table 4-9 Number of Families Served by FPS, FY 1996 - FY 1998 by County
• Table 4-10 Number of Families, Children Served, and Children at Risk in Family Preservation by County FY 1998
• Table 4-11 Age Category Of Children at Risk NY County
• Table 4-12 Reason for Referral by County
• Table 4-13 Families With Substance Abuse Problems by County
• Table 5-1 Age and Race Distribution of Children in Tennessee
• Table 5-2 Indicators of Children and Family Health, Education, Social And Economic Welfare In Tennessee as Compared to Nation
• Table 5-3 Number of Children with Child Abuse and Neglect Investigations and Percent Indicated by Type of Maltreatment, Age, and Gender in Shelby County
• Table 5-4 Source and Type of Funds Used to Provide Initial Program Funding
• Table 5-5 Number of Families Served in Fiscal Year 1990-1995 ^b
• Table 5-6 Families Served by HomeTies in Shelby County From FY 1993-98
• Table 5-7 Demographic Characteristics of Children at Risk Presenting Problems of Children and Parents Demographic Characteristics of Parents and Families at Time of Referral
• Table 6-1 Age and Race Distribution of Children in Pennsylvania
• Table 6-2 Indicators of Children and Family Health, Education, Social and Economic Welfare in Pennsylvania Compared to the Nation
• Table 6-3 Indicators of Children and Family in Philadelphia County Compared to Pennsylvania
• Table 6-4 Child Welfare Statistics In Philadelphia County
• Table 6-5 Assignment of Cases
• Table 6-6 Violations and Minimal Service Cases
• Table 6-7 The Time Between When a Case Entered the Program and Was Assigned a Caseworker March 1998 - March 1999
• Table 7-1 Description of the Kentucky Families at Time of Initial Interviews
• Table 7-2 Caretaker Problems and Strengths, Caretaker Initial Interview, Kentucky urred in the past month)
• Table 7-3 Concerns and Problems Regarding Children, Caretaker Initial Interview, Kentucky
• Table 7-4 Participation in Social Programs Prior to Initial Interview, Kentucky
• Table 7-5 Description of the New Jersey Families at Time of Initial Interviews
• Table 7-6 Caretaker Problems and Strengths, Caretaker Initial Interview, New Jersey (occurred in the past month)
• Table 7-7 Concerns and Problems Regarding Children, Caretaker Initial Interview, New Jersey
• Table 7-8 Participation in Social Programs Prior to Initial Interview, New Jersey
• Table 7-9 Description of the Tennessee Families at Time of Initial Interviews
• Table 7-10 Caretaker Problems and Strengths, Caretaker Initial Interview, Tennessee (occurred in the past month)
• Table 7-11 Concerns and Problems Regarding Children, Caretaker Initial Interview, Tennessee
• Table 7-12 Participation in Social Programs Prior to Initial Interview, Tennessee

List of Figures

• Figure 4-1 New Jersey Counties Participating as Evaluation Sites
• Figure 6-1 CPS/GPS Abuse and Neglect Case Intake

  ---

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last update:  03/04/03