Re: Family Pres/Reunif Studies

[Frank Vandervort <vort@xxxxxxxxx>]

<x-flowed>
You may be interested in looking at an article from the Fall 2000 issue of 
Family Law Quarterly, Family Preservation and Reunification Programs in 
Child Protection Cases: Effectiveness, Best Practices, and Implications for 
Legal Representation, authored by Robert F. Kelly. While the intended 
audience is lawyers rather than researchers, the article summarizes many 
research studies.

At 12:20 PM 03/18/2002 +0000, you wrote:
>Hi Brandon and others,
>
>The most recent, rigorous evaluation in this area is a large, multi-site
>study conducted by Westat and the Chapin Hall Center for Children under
>contract with the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human services. The study was
>conducted in NYC, NJ, KY, TN, and Philadelphia. Ronna Cook (at Westat) and
>John Schuerman (Chapin Hall) are Principal Investigators.
>
>Findings for the NYC HomeRebuilder's program (a reunification effort) can
>be found at:
>http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/NYC-HomeRebuilders99/index.htm
>
>Findings for family preservation programs in three sites (NJ, KY, TN) are at:
>http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/fampres94/index.htm
>
>Findings for the Philadelphia site are in preparation.
>
>A review of previous studies of FPS and reunification programs is available
>at:
>http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/hsp/cyp/fplitrev.htm
>
>Controlled studies continue to suggest that substantial reductions in
>out-of-home placement and subsequent child maltreatment are not achieved
>via intensive in-home services. In fact, under the close scrutiny provided
>by these programs, maltreatment reports and placement rates often increase
>(slightly). Although it can be argued that the detection of ongoing
>maltreatment (or real risks of harm to children) and renewed efforts to
>protect children (via placement) are "good" outcomes, it must be remembered
>that these are not the outcomes that are typically promised by "family
>preservation" and "reunification" programs.
>
>I have been arguing that in-home services ought drop the "family
>preservation/reunification" rhetoric for two reasons 1) there is no
>convincing evidence that these programs achieve those goals across the
>board and 2) under ASFA, family preservation/reunification are subordinate
>to the safety and permanence of children's living situations. In other
>words, family preservation/reunification are not sensible goals for *all*
>of the families in these programs.
>
>Perhaps most disappointing are the rather consistent findings across
>controlled studies in this area that intensive in-home services do not
>result in substantial and sustained improvements in caregiver and family
>functioning. While the measures of individual and family functioning that
>have been used in these studies are not particularly potent, one would hope
>to see some improvements in these areas. It is possible that the lack of
>consistent aftercare and adequate supportive services for these families
>(in mental health, substance abuse, and welfare) makes is quite difficult
>to achieve lasting improvements in parent and family functioning via
>short-term interventions, no matter how intense.
>
>The intensity and time-limits of these programs may be problematic. As one
>public child welfare agency administrator in Philadelphia says, it may not
>be reasonable to expect multiproblem families to adjust to the rather
>arbitrary timetables imposed on them by these programs. Many aren't ready
>for 5-10 hours of contact at the point of referral; nor are they ready to
>quit at 3 months. There has been quite a bit of discussion about more
>flexible use of in-home services in terms of their intensity and duration.
>
>There has also been some talk about the use of intensive in-home services
>for rapid assessment purposes. Elaine Walton has conducted a small study on
>this.
>
>Our recent research in Philadelphia looks at caregivers' readiness for
>change and the alliance formation (working relationships) between
>caregivers and caseworkers in home-based services as moderators of
>outcomes. We have some evidence that caregiver readiness and alliance
>formation are affected by certain service delivery processes and predict
>some outcomes, but these predictions are not consistent across outcome
>measures.
>
>Hope that's helpful.
>Julia
>
>
>At 09:53 AM 3/18/2002 -0700, you wrote:
> >Gentlepeople,
> >
> >A while back there was a thread that I've lost pertaining to the
> >impact of family preservation/reunifcation programs.  In that thread
> >I believe some studies were identified that were more recent than
> >Pecora and the evaluation of Illinois' Family First.  I seemed to
> >remember Julia Littell identifying studies suggesting that while
> >greater preservation/reunification was not always the outcome, other
> >effects occasionally resulted from these programs?  Any help with
> >those references would be appreciated.  Julia?
> >
> >Thanks in advance.
> >bfgreene
> >--
> >Brandon F. Greene, Ph.D.
> >Professor, Behavior Analysis & Therapy
> >Coordinator, Project 12-Ways
> >Southern Illinois University
> >Carbondale, IL  62901
> >Ph: (618)453-2434
> >Fax: (618)453-2450
> >EMail: bfgreene@siu.edu
> >
> >
>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

Program Manager
Michigan Child Welfare Law Resource Center
611 Church Street, Suite 4C
Ann Arbor, Michigan  48104-3000
P: (734) 998-9191
F: (734) 998-9190

</x-flowed>