RE: family preservation

[Joe Ryan <jpryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To state "the independent variable got washed out in that evaluation" is
simply inaccurate.  In New Jersey and Kentucky (two of the three states)
families in the experimental condition received far more services (both
clinical and concrete) compared with families in the control group.  Despite
these differences, participation in the family preservation program did not
result in significantly lower placement rates or significantly lower rates
of child maltreatment.  

Doug - you also note that "many of the programs in the comparison group
actually were providing services with greater fidelity than those in the
Homebuilders group."  I could not find this statement in either the original
evaluation report or the response by Professor Kirk.  

Bill - in response to your original question - the casual dismissal of
rigorous evaluations explains (in part) the  reluctance to look beyond
family preservation programs.      

Joe

 


Joseph P. Ryan
School of Social Work
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
1207 West Oregon Street
Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 244-5235



-----Original Message-----
From: Douglas Truitt [mailto:TruittD@govt.co.charles.md.us] 
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 8:59 AM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: re: family preservation


FP definitely has its problems, but I'm not sure its fair to say "FP doesn't
work".  For example, MST, which is one form of FP for the juvenile justice
population, is as much of a best practice as you can get.  And even other
models of FP if adopted *faithfully* can yield outcomes.

Ray Kirk from UNC-Chapel Hill has written a critique of the latest federal
evaluation of the Homebuilders model.  His point is that there was serious
lack of fidelity in many programs that stated they were doing the
Homebuilders model.  At the same time, many of the programs in the
comparison group actually were providing services with greater fidelity than
those in the Homebuilders group.  Let that sink in for a second...

What Kirk so aptly describes as "the *heart* of the independent variable"
(emphasis added) got washed out in that evaluation.

The real question is:  why aren't there more efforts to make fam. pres.
better, more faithful to a solid effective practice model?

Doug Truitt
Human Services Evaluation Specialist
Charles County Human Services Partnership
P.O. Box 2150 La Plata, MD 20646
(301) 609-9016 (ph)
(301) 609-9023 (fax)

>>> peters-clark@chc-smtp.spc.uchicago.edu 09/27/01 12:22PM >>>
A recent essay by Francine Jacobs, *What to Make of Family Preservation
Services Evaluations*, discusses the special challenges of evaluating FP,
the strengths and weaknesses of evaluations to date, and the paradox of
continued support in light of limited support of its benefits.  She notes
the "overselling" of FP and offers some recommendations for future.  The
essay was a product of a conference held by Chapin Hall and will soon be
downloadable through our web site at www.chapin.uchicago.edu.

Clark



*********************************************************************

Clark Peters
Research Associate
Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago 1313 East 60th
St. Chicago, IL  60637 Direct voice 773-256-5168 Direct fax 773-256-5368

>>> bill higgins <bill_higginsus@yahoo.com> 09/27 10:22 AM >>>
We are reading about in-home services as part of our
agency reading group.  Can anyone answer why states
still use family preservation programs when the
research concludes that they don't prevent placement
or child abuse?  At least when compared with
traditional programs.

Bill


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Listen to your Yahoo! Mail messages from any phone. http://phone.yahoo.com