Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 7.5 Caseworkers' Reports of Services

01/08/2001

In the second interview, caseworkers were asked whether they had made referrals to any of 25 services, such as childcare, homemaker services, income programs, treatment programs of various sorts, and health care. Results from these 25 items are shown in Table 7-5.

Table 7-5.
Caseworkers'Report of Services Provided to Family, Post-treatment interview
  Kentucky New Jersey Tennessee
Control Experimental   Control Experimental   Control Experimental  
% % p % % p % % p
Childcare or baby sitting 14 8.5   9.3 7.7   2.1 8.9  
AFDC or other public income (except SSI) 4.3 4.8   4.3 4   4.2 5.6  
SSI for adult or child 6.8 5.5   1.2 0.7   2.1 0  
Food stamps 2.5 6.1   4.3 3.3   4.2 6.7  
Drug treatment 14 4.2   11 5.5 0.05 0 10 0.03
Alcoholism treatment 14 12   8 5.5   0 6.7 0.09
Legal aid 3.7 7.9   1.8 4.8 0.08 0 5.6  
Help with education 28 37   14 26 0.001 4.2 15.6 0.05
Respite care 5 11   5.5 5.5   4.2 4.4  
Parent training 48 67 0.09 28 67 0.0001 31 68 0.001
Health care 12 27 0.02 15 18   8.3 22 0.04
Inpatient mental health 9.3 2.4   2.5 5.1 0.14 2.1 0  
Outpatient mental health/counseling 39 60 0.07 25 37 0.01 17 20  
Health assessment 13 29 0.01 17 21   13 13  
Housing financial assistance 3.7 22 0.02 5.5 4.8   0 5.6  
Other housig services 1.2 15 0.01 1.9 3.7   0 5.6  
W.I.C. 1.9 7.3   3.1 2.6   2.1 3.3  
Emergency financial assistance other than housing 16 38 0.02 18 22   6.3 23 0.01
Job training 5.6 1.8   1.2 2.2   0 5.6  
Emergency shelter 3.7 1.8   6.2 1.5 0.02 2.1 2.2  
Recreational services 12 24 0.08 11 23 0.001 4.2 21 0.008
Family planning 9.9 20 0.1 11 20 0.009 8.3 10  
Self help groups 20 23   4.3 8.8 0.056 2.1 8.9  
Household management 15 32 0.01 12 28 0.0001 17 29  
Homemaker services 3.7 13 0.003 6.8 1.5 0.01 8.3 3.3  
Other 9.3 21 0.06 15 16   17 14  
N 161 165   162 272   48 90  

Kentucky. Caseworkers for the experimental group reported helping their clients with an average of 5.0 of these services, while caseworkers from the control group reported helping their clients with an average of 3.2 of these services (p = .001).7 In the primary analyses, 7 specific services were provided significantly more often to the experimental group than to the control group (significance levels were all at p = .05 or less). These services include health care, health assessment, housing financial assistance, other housing assistance, emergency financial assistance, household management, and homemaker services. A greater proportion of caseworkers from the experimental group also reported providing outpatient mental health counseling (p = .07) and selected the unspecified category of "other"; services provided (p = .06). No services were provided significantly more often to the control group than the experimental group.8

New Jersey. Experimental group caseworkers reported that on average their clients were provided 3.2 of these services, while control group families were provided 2.3, a difference significant at .001.9 When individual services are examined, there were six services that were provided significantly more often to the experimental group (education services, parent training, outpatient mental health, recreational services, family planning, and household management). Three services were provided significantly more often to the control group: drug treatment, emergency shelter, and homemakers.10

Tennessee. Experimental group caseworkers reported providing an average of 3.2 services, compared with 1.6 for the control group, significantly different at .001. Six individual services were significantly more often provided to experimental group families (drug treatment, help with education, parent training, health care, emergency financial assistance, and recreational services).11 No services were significantly more often provided to the control group.


(7) When violations and minimal services cases were excluded, the difference between the groups was even larger (5.8 vs. 3.1, p = .001).[Back To Text]

(8)  In the secondary analyses, excluding violations and minimal service cases, 14 services were provided significantly more often to the experimental group than to the control group (again, significance levels were all at p = .05 or less). In addition to the 9 primary analysis items showing differences in favor of the experimental group (seven significant items plus outpatient mental health counseling and the category of "other";), these were: food stamps (p = .02), parent training (p = .002), and recreational services (p = .002). Again, in the secondary analyses, no services were provided significantly more often to the control group than the experimental group. See Appendix H-5. 

(9) The difference between groups was even larger when violations and minimal service cases were excluded: 3.47 vs. 1.94 (p < .0001).

(10) Excluding violations and minimal service cases, only one service was provided significantly more often to the control group, emergency shelter, while nine services were significantly more often provided to the experimental group, the above six plus legal aid, emergency financial assistance, and self help groups.

(11)  In the secondary analysis, there was one additional service provided significantly more often to the experimental group: household management.