Content by Keyword: Child Abuse, Neglect, and Family Preservation

Caseworkers were asked a number of questions about problems experienced by children, caretakers, or other adult household members (question 19 on the initial caseworker interview, question 17 on the post-treatment caseworker interview). Twenty-one of these problems concerned the caretakers.

As in the caretaker interview, we asked caseworkers about conditions in the home. Caseworkers were asked 13 yes-no questions, some positive and some negative. These items were combined in a scale which indicated that in Kentucky and New Jersey at post-treatment, control group families had, on average, a significantly better household condition tha

Caseworkers were asked nine questions tapping various aspects of caretaker functioning on a five-point scale from 0 for not adequate to 4 for very adequate.  Table 8-12  provides a list of these nine questions and a summary of the results from the initial and post-treatment interviews.

The caseworker interviews also contained questions regarding child and family functioning, in an effort to provide another perspective on these issues. In interpreting caseworker reports, it should be noted that experimental group caseworkers were Homebuilders workers, while control group respondents were the public agency workers responsible for

In the post-treatment interview, caretakers were asked about general changes in their families' lives since entering the study. Results are shown in  Table 8-10  and  8-11 . At post-treatment, in Kentucky and New Jersey, relative to control group caretakers, a significantly larger proportion of experimental group caretakers generally thought th

In all three interviews, we asked 35 questions about specific child behaviors, both positive and negative. Questions were phrased in terms of "any of the children" and some questions were age specific. Responses to these questions were used to form various scales: aggression (3 items), school problems (5 items), positive child behaviors (10 items)

In both the initial and post-treatment interviews we administered the SCL-90 19  depression scale to measure the level of depression of the caretaker. 20  In none of the three states were there significant differences between the groups in scores on this scale at the post-treatment or follow-up interviews or in changes over time (see Tables�

Caretakers were asked a series of yes-no questions about child care practices at the end of treatment and in the last three months at follow-up (both positive and negative). The results from these questions are shown in  Table 8-8  and  8-9.  In addition, three scales were formed using these items: positive child care practices (5 items), nega

Caretakers were asked 10 questions about problematic conditions in the home (e.g., nonfunctioning heating, plumbing, or electrical systems; peeling paint; broken windows or doors).

In addition to the general item in the problem inventory on not having enough money for food, rent, or clothing, we asked four specific questions about difficulties in paying for the essentials of living (rent, electric service and heating, food, and clothes) (see  Tables 8-6  and  8-7 ). These items were examined individually and were combined

In the second and third interviews, caretakers were again asked questions about problems in the family. These questions paralleled those asked in the first interview, except this time caretakers were asked to respond to questions with regard to the time "since we last spoke to you" (see Tables 8-6  and  8-7 ). We analyze each of these problem it

In the caretaker interviews, there was a 15 item "life events" inventory asking about the occurrence of both positive and negative events in the last 3 months in the initial interview or since the previous interview in the post-treatment and follow-up interviews ( Appendix K , Initial Caretaker Interview, p. 7). We formed three scales from this in

Family preservation services are intended to result in improved functioning of children and families. This goal is sought both for its own intrinsic value as well as an intermediate objective in the prevention of subsequent maltreatment and placement; parents who are functioning better and better parent-child relationships should result in lower r

Family preservation services are sometimes thought to lead to quicker case closings in the public agency and less frequent subsequent involvement with the child welfare agency. Administrative data on case closings and subsequent case openings were examined to determine the effects of these services on case closings and subsequent reopenings.

In Kentucky and New Jersey, we examined a number of subgroups of cases to determine whether we could detect differences between experimental and control groups on placement and substantiated allegations subsequent to random assignment within each subgroup. The number of cases in Tennessee was not sufficient to support subgroup analysis. The result

Subsequent maltreatment of children is a second important outcome to be examined. Family preservation programs are intended to lower the risk of harm to children while keeping them at home, and subsequent maltreatment is an indicator of such risk. Furthermore, the justification for family preservation programs rests on the belief that the safety o

Hazard analyses permit the examination of the effects of multiple independent variables (in addition to experimental group membership) on rates of placement. They also provide somewhat more precise estimates of the effect of experimental group membership, since they control for the effects of the other variables in examining experimental-control g

A principal goal of family preservation services is the prevention of placement into substitute care, so that must be the first (though not the last) outcome examined. Placement included foster care, institutions and residential treatment programs, group homes, and adoptive placements. 1  We are initially concerned with the character and timing

The outcomes we examined were the placement of children in substitute care following random assignment to the experimental or control group, subsequent reports of maltreatment and a number of measures of child and family functioning. The focus is on comparisons between the experimental and control groups. Analyses we have designated as "primary" w

When caretakers were interviewed a year after random assignment, they were asked some of the same questions about services received, this time since the last interview (since the end of family preservation services for the experimental group and during a comparable period for the control group).  Tables 7-9 ,  7-10 , and  7-11  show analyses o