Re: Family Pres/Reunif Studies

[NCCPR@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 3/18/02 1:11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
jlittell@brynmawr.edu writes:

> 
>  Findings for family preservation programs in three sites (NJ, KY, TN) are 
at:
> 
>  http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/fampres94/index.htm

A rigorous critique of this study -- and of the general conclusion that IFPS 
programs do not prevent placement, by Prof. Ray Kirk of the Jordan Institute 
for Families, University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill can be found at the 
website of the National Family Preservation Network, 
http://nfpn.org/resources/articles/critique.html  

In another study, included in the list below, Prof. Kirk concludes that 
"there is a growing body of evidence that IFPS works, in that it is more 
effective than traditional services in preventing out-of-home placements of 
children in high-risk families."

An examination of the safety and effectiveness of IFPS also should include 
the following studies:

 . Carol Berquist, et. al., Evaluation of Michigan's Families First Program 
(Lansing Mich: University Associates, March, 1993).
  Betty J. Blythe, Ph.D., Srinika Jayaratne, Ph.D, Michigan Families First 
Effectiveness Study: A Summary of Findings, Sept. 28, 1999, p.18.
  . Mark W. Fraser, et. al., Families in Crisis: The Impact of Intensive 
Family Preservation Services (New York: Aldine De Gruyter, 1991), p.168.
 . S. Wood, S., K. Barton, C. Schroeder, "In-Home Treatment of Abusive 
Families: Cost and Placement at One Year." Psychotherapy Vol. 25 (1988) pp. 
409-14, cited in Howard Bath and David Haapala, "Family Preservation 
Services: What Does the Outcome Research Really Tell Us," Social Services 
Review, September, 1994, Table A1, p.400. 
  R.S. Kirk, Tailoring Intensive Family Preservation Services for Family 
Reunification Cases: Research, Evaluation and Assessment, 
(www.nfpn.org/resourcess/articles/tailoring.html).
 . I.M. Schwartz, et. al., "Family Preservation Services as an Alternative to 
Out-of-Home Placement of Adolescents," in K. Wells and D.E. Biegel, eds., 
Family Preservation Services: Research and Evaluation (Newbury Park, CA: 
Sage, 1991) pp.33-46, cited in Bath and Happala, note 3, supra.
  R.E. Lewis, et. al., "Examining family reunification services: A process 
analysis of a successful experiment," Research on Social Work Practice, 5, 
(3), 259-282, cited in Kirk, supra.
   A. Heneghan, et. al., Evaluating Intensive Family Preservation Services: A 
methodological review.  Pediatrics, 97(4), 535-542, cited in Prof. Kirk's 
critique.

 2) under ASFA, family preservation/reunification are subordinate
>  to the safety and permanence of children's living situations. 

ASFA says that the child's safety is the "paramount" goal.  Family 
preservation is "subordinate" only if one assumes that attempting an IFPS 
intervention is a less safe option than removing the child to substitute care 
before attempting such an intervention.  In some cases, of course, that is 
true.  But I am aware of no study, not even those that claim IFPS is 
ineffective, that claims it is also unsafe.  And there are some data on the 
rate of abuse in substitute care that are alarming.  A good case can be made, 
therefore, that in most cases attempting an IFPS intervention is a *safer* 
option than moving immediately to placement, and therefore more in keeping 
with the ASFA mandate.  

Richard Wexler
Executive Director
National Coalition for Child Protection Reform
53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202)
Alexandria VA 22314
Phone/fax: (703) 212-2006
www.nccpr.org