Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 7.4 Relationship with Caseworker

01/08/2001

Table 7-4 shows results from a number of questions in which caretakers were asked about their relationships with caseworkers. In all three states, for most of these questions, caretakers in the experimental group rated their workers significantly more positively than did caretakers in the control group. A greater proportion of experimental group caretakers felt their workers listened to their concerns "most of the time"; other responses were "some of the time"; and "not very often";. Also, a greater proportion of experimental group caretakers felt their workers understood their situation "very well"; as compared to "not very well."; A greater proportion of caretakers in the experimental group reported reaching agreement with their workers on goals "most of the time."

Table 7-4.
Caretakers'reports on relationship with caseworker, post-treatment interview
  Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee
Control Experimental   Control Experimental   Control Experimental  
% % p % % p % % p
Worker listened to your concerns most of the time 71 87 0.001 56 78 0.001 71 91 0.02
Worker understood your situation very well 75 90 0.002 62 79 0.001 64 81 0.09
You and worker agreed on goals most of the time 66 76 0.06 40 72 0.001 38 58 0.09
Did worker sometimes talk with you about issues that were not easy to talk about? 27 34   29 44 0.01 22 51 0.003
Caseworker helped you to see your good qualities 67 79 0.03 47 70 0.001 53 82 0.001
Caseworker helped you to see your problems 66 76 0.1 52 72 0.001 50 82 0.001
Did you see your caseworker   0.09     0.003        
More often than you wanted 9 18   12 14   19 27  
As often as you wanted 70 62   43 59   44 48  
Not often enough 21 20   45 27   36 25  

In all three states, experimental group caretakers significantly more often than control group caretakers reported that workers talked with them about problems that were not easy to talk about, helped caretakers to "see your problems"; (p = .1 in Kentucky), and helped them see their good qualities. With regard to the frequency of contact with the workers, in Kentucky, approximately 20 percent of caretakers from both the experimental and control groups indicated they did not see their caseworkers often enough. A greater proportion of caretakers in the experimental group indicated they saw their workers "more often than [they] wanted"; (18% vs. 9%) and a greater proportion of caretakers in the control group indicated they saw their workers "as often as [they] wanted"; (70% vs. 62%). In New Jersey, a greater proportion of caretakers in the experimental group responded that they saw their workers "as often as [they] wanted"; (59% vs. 43%) and a greater proportion of caretakers in the control group responded that they saw their workers "not often enough"; (45% vs. 27%). In Tennessee, more experimental group caretakers said they saw their workers more often than they wanted (27% vs. 19%) and more control group caretakers said they did not see their workers often enough (36% vs. 25%), but the differences between the groups on this item were not significant.

In none of the three states did the groups differ in the extent to which they called workers when they had problems.