[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New version of OVC Treatment Guidelines available
Interesting comments. You may want to also look at the Community
Partnership for the Protection of Children Project that has been taking
place in Jacksonville Florida. I think you will fine that it also validates
your information regarding the strength of relationships having an impact
upon the prevention of abuse.
Regards,
Glenn Brown
Technical Assistance and Analysis Coordinator
Children's Board of Hillsborough County
1205 E. 8th Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33605
813.229.2884
fax 813.228.8122
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julia H. Littell [mailto:jlittell@brynmawr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:31 AM
> To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
> Subject: RE: New version of OVC Treatment Guidelines available
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> There is no evidence (that I know of) that one model of IFPS
> works better
> than another, but then there have been no head-to-head comparisons of
> different models. Programs using the Homebuilders model and a family
> systems approach have been evaluated--with similar results (I
> don't think
> Henggeler's MST model has been tested in a child welfare
> setting and there
> is some question about whether MST belongs the IFPS category).
>
> Several studies have looked at whether certain characteristics of IFPS
> (intensity, duration, and types of service) matter. It
> appears that these
> "hallmarks" of IFPS are not related to outcomes.
>
> Similarly, studies have looked at whether various case characteristics
> (e.g., reported substance abuse, chronic neglect vs. physical abuse,
> parental age, parental mental health, etc.) relate to program
> effectiveness. None of the case characteristics that have
> been studied thus
> far emerge as consistent predictors of the prevention of placement or
> maltreatment.
>
> I still believe that in-home services are valuable and could serve
> important functions in child welfare. However, reliance on
> in-home services
> to prevent placements appears to be misguided.
>
> In many places IFPS have come to be used for many purposes.
> In essence, the
> families coming into these programs are those who need concrete and
> clinical services--and referring workers find that nothing else is
> available for them. The majority of these families do not a
> child/children
> headed for placement. So IFPS fail to prevent placements
> because we can't
> prevent something that wouldn't have happened!
>
> Many people have argued that placement prevention is the
> wrong goal, that
> it doesn't always apply. When IFPS uncovers evidence that a
> child is in
> danger, IMO, that is not a "failure."
>
> It is more troubling to me that IFPS don't prevent further
> maltreatment. It
> is possible that the goals and methods of IFPS (all models)
> are too diffuse
> to provide workers with good, theoretically-grounded guidance
> on how to
> work with parents to change their behavior and living conditions. The
> reliance of IFPS on multiple theories, some of which are
> usually irrelevant
> (e.g., crisis intervention), may be a problem.
>
> In our current research in Philadelphia County, we are looking at
> caregiver's readiness for change and the quality of the relationship
> (alliance) between caseworkers and caregivers as predictors
> of reductions
> in further maltreatment. It appears that a good working
> relationship is
> central to effective practice--but this is based on only one study.
>
> Some people have argued that in-home services ought to serve
> an assessment
> function, or that they ought to be provided over the long haul in some
> cases. These suggestions seem reasonable to me, but have not
> been tested.
>
> Hope that helps.
> Julia
>
> At 08:57 AM 4/17/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >Ms. Littell, could you elaborate on some of the possible
> variables that have
> >mitigated the effectiveness of IFPS? I've worked closely
> with CPS here in
> >Indiana for many years in various home-based programs and I know that
> >home-based services have a great deal of appeal to a wide range of
> >professionals working in the area of child welfare. I also
> can appreciate
> >the unintended outcomes that you mention below on both an
> experiential and
> >conceptual level. Are there trends in the research you
> listed that suggest
> >reasons why IFPS are not effective in reducing the
> occurrence of abuse or
> >reducing the likelihood that children will end up in
> placement? I would
> >also be interested if there is any variance in effectiveness
> based upon the
> >theoretical approach that underlies various models of IFPS.
> For example, is
> >a Home-builders model of IFPS more or less effective than an
> IFPS that uses
> >a family systems approach?
> >
> >
> >John Polstra, MSW, LCSW
> >YES Supervisor
> >Jpolstra@kidwrap.org
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >From: Julia H. Littell [mailto:jlittell@brynmawr.edu]
> >Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 11:33 AM
> >To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
> >Subject: Re: New version of OVC Treatment Guidelines available
> >
> >Dear Ben,
> >
> >This is a terrific and valuable report! But...
> >
> >I want to call your attention to some serious omissions of
> evidence on
> >intensive family preservation services (IFPS). The studies
> cited are highly
> >selective and do not include any of the randomized trials in
> this area, all
> >of which raise serious questions about the effectiveness of
> these services.
> >Controlled trials have been conducted in California (by
> Walter MacDonald
> >and Associates, 1991), New Jersey (1990), and Illinois (Schuerman,
> >Rzepnicki, & Littell, 1994). Findings of a national
> evaluation (conducted
> >in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Kentucky, and
> Tennesee) are being
> >released now. All of these experiments show that IFPS does not reduce
> >out-of-home placements or the recurrence of maltreatment. There were
> >short-term effects in New Jersey that washed out within a
> year. In Illinois
> >IFPS actually increased the risk of placement and
> maltreatment in some
> >cases (perhaps because of greater surveillance). See:
> >
> >http://www.aspe.dhhs.gov/hsp/fampres94/index.htm
> >
> >http://www.aspe.dhhs.gov/hsp/NYC-HomeRebuilders99/index.htm
> >
> >http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/cyp/fplitrev.htm
> >
> >Thank you, again, for a very helpful report.
> >Julia Littell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Julia H. Littell, Ph.D.
> >Associate Professor
> >Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research
> >Bryn Mawr College
> >300 Airdale Rd.
> >Bryn Mawr, PA 19010
> >610/520-2619
> >FAX 610/520-2655
> >jlittell@brynmawr.edu
> >
> >
>