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

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. There

In Kentucky and New Jersey, we examined a number of subgroups of families to determine whether we could detect differences between experimental and control groups on placement and substantiated allegations subsequent to random assignment within each subgroup. Most of the subgroups were defined in terms of problems of the family, for example, subst

In general, the rates of substantiated allegations of abuse or neglect were quite low. In most of our analyses, there was little difference between the family preservation and control groups in the incidence of reports of maltreatment subsequent to random assignment. An exception was the group of cases in Tennessee with prior allegations of harm w

We are unable to conclude that the family preservation programs in these three states achieve the objective of reducing placement of children in foster care. 3  A summary of various analyses of placement rates at various points in time following random assignment is shown in  Table 9-1.  In none of the three states were there significant diff

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, family preservation programs became a popular response of states to rising rates of foster care placement of children. It was commonly assumed that many children were unnecessarily removed from their parents and that intensive services could prevent those placements while protecting children from harm. Early eval

Information from the caretaker interviews, the caseworker interviews, and the administrative data were analyzed for indications of differences between the experimental and control groups subsequent to the referral to the family preservation program.  Tables 8-15  and  8-16  contain a summary of those outcomes on which we found significant diff

We performed regression analyses on a number of family functioning outcomes measured at the post-treatment interview and at follow-up. The analyses were intended to control for the effects of a number of variables, thereby providing more sensitive tests of the effects of family preservation, and to examine the effects of the variables on the outco

Twelve of the items on the caseworker problem inventory concerned the children. In Kentucky at post-treatment, the percentage of child problems for the experimental group was, on average, 27 percent compared to an average of 25 percent for the control group, a nonsignificant difference. 24  There were no significant differences in change in chi

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