Child Abuse, Neglect, and Family Preservation

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 3.3.1 Description of State Family Preservation Program Model

According to Kentucky policy, "Family Preservation and Program Responsibilities," 3 the Family Preservation Program (FPP) is a short-term, intensive, crisis-intervention resource intended to prevent the unnecessary placement of children at imminent risk of placement.

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 3.3 History of Family Preservation in Kentucky

Family preservation programs began in Kentucky in 1985 with pilot projects funded by the Edna McConnell Clark foundation. These pilot studies, initiated through local efforts, were the impetus for three 1989 state grants to pilot family preservation programs in Louisville, Lexington, and western Kentucky. The pilot projects were replications of th

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 3.2 Characteristics of Kentucky's Children and Families

This section provides demographic statistics on Kentucky's children and families. Child welfare statistics are presented for Jefferson County (Louisville), which was the focus of the family preservation study in Kentucky. There are approximately 1,000,000 children under age 18 in Kentucky, with the majority being white (89 percent), and nearly t

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 3.1 Introduction

In Kentucky the Family Preservation Program (FPP) is a resource within the state's Department of Community Based Services (DCBS), a division of the Kentucky Cabinet for Families and Children. 1 The 120 Kentucky counties are grouped into 16 regions for purposes of FPP administration. There is a family services specialist in Frankfort who has re

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. Chapter 3: Kentucky

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.7 Maintaining Study Integrity

It was through the site coordinator activities that many aspects of the study integrity were controlled. This was accomplished in a variety of ways. The site coordinators served as the points of contact between the home office and agency liaisons. They monitored performance by the participating agencies, alerted the home office to problems, and be

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.6 Administrative Data

We attempted to gather administrative data on foster care placements and reports of maltreatment both before and after assignment into the study on all of the net study cases. This administrative data also contained other information such as case opening dates, types of maltreatment, and some demographic data. In Kentucky, of the 358 randomly assi

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.5 Lengths of Time from Random Assignment to the Interviews

Table 2-7 shows lengths of time between random assignment and each interview--initial, post-treatment, and follow-up--as well as the length of time between the initial and post-treatment interviews.

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.4 Data Collection Activities

Data collection began with a baseline interview as soon as possible after families were randomly assigned to either group. At that time, we attempted to interview the investigating worker handling the case (if the case originated from an investigator), the caretaker, and the caseworker assigned to the case. The caseworker was also asked to report

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.3 Random Assignment and Case Enrollment Status

Random assignment. Individual referral and random assignment procedures were developed for each site. These procedures built upon existing agency referral procedures to family preservation. In both Kentucky and New Jersey, the screener made random assignment referrals. Random assignment began in May 1996 in Kentucky and in November 1996 in New

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.2 Negotiations

Negotiations began during the initial site visits. Discussions with staff focused on obtaining information on the state program and system while providing information to the state about the study. Site visitors needed to determine, as quickly as possible, if states were not interested in participating. Also, we had to establish site flexibility in

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 2.1 Site Selection and Recruitment

The site selection process began with a discussion with personnel in potential sites of the issues and criteria surrounding site selection. The task of applying these criteria to real programs began a process of reconciling the differences between our hope of finding optimal sites and program and practice realities. We initially identified potenti

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. Chapter 2: Implemention

Designing a rigorous experimental study is only the first step; its implementation is a formidable task. Convincing administrators to subject their staff and programs to intense scrutiny is the first challenge, followed by implementing the evaluation in an ongoing service delivery environment. Negotiations required repeated meetings with administr

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. References

Barth, Richard P. “Theories Guiding Home-Based Intensive Family Preservation Services.” In Reaching High-Risk Families, Eds., Whittaker et al. Aldine de Gruyter, New York: 1990. James Bell Associates. (1997). “Interim Report: The Family Preservation and Family Support Services (FP/FS) Implementation Study Volume I,” submitted to DHHS, A

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.4 Data Sources

To obtain these measures, we used multiple data sources, including administrative data, interviews with workers and caretakers, and qualitative data collection on program operation and context.

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.3 Data Elements and Measures

Outcome measures relate to the goals of the programs and require multiple measures, including placement, subsequent maltreatment, family problems, and child and family functioning. Outcome measures are the heart of the experiment, but other types of measures were also needed in order to carry out the study and to more fully understand the observed

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.2.2 Sample Size

Each site was evaluated separately. To detect a difference of 15 percentage points between the experimental and control groups in such characteristics as placement rates with a probability of .8, we set a goal of 500 cases in each site, about 250 in each group. Even with this sample size, our ability to detect small differences is limited. Initial

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.2.1 Site Selection and Recruitment

Site selection was based on a number of criteria, including selecting programs which were based on well-articulated theories, in place long enough to operate in the way expected by program managers, consistently implemented, and with sufficient numbers of families to provide adequate sample sizes. It was also important that programs have a primary

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.2 Study Objectives

The Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification is intended to estimate the impact of family preservation and reunification services. The design of the evaluation was guided by the following objectives:

Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Interim Report. 1.1 Background

In 1980, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-272) required states to make “reasonable efforts” to prevent children from entering foster care and to reunify children who were placed out of the home with their families. A major focus of policy and planning in state child welfare systems was the development of family pr

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