Re: in-home services to substitute care

["Daniel Fallon" <Psychling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you J. Littell (I'm guessing at your name from your email address) for
offering your clarification.  This raises a useful question.

The target population for MST includes youth with severe antisocial
behaviors.  The studies completed by Hengeller and his associates do
demonstrate significant effective results.  These results are not recognized
in the Chapin Hall / Westat work.  I was surprised at this in my reading (or
understanding?) of the Chapin Hall / Westat document.

Not sure, here, if we're tripping over the efficacy - effective line at this
point.

Comment?

- Dan Fallon

----- Original Message -----
From: <jlittell@brynmawr.edu>
To: "Child Maltreatment Researchers"
<CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu>
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 12:52 PM
Subject: Re: in-home services to substitute care


> To the contrary, the "Chapin Hall work" makes this distinction explicit.
The
> evaluations conducted by Chapin Hall and its associates (esp. Westat)
focus
> explicitly on the outcomes of intensive, in-home services that were aimed
at
> averting out-of-home placements of abused and neglected children. These
> studies did not concern--and never failed to "distinguish"--cases of
> adolescents in the juvenile justice or mental health systems. But, just as
> the "Chapin Hall studies" helped us understand the limitations of
intensive,
> in-home efforts on behalf of families of maltreated children, questions
> remain about the efficacy of treatment foster care and MST. Those
> interventions must continue to be evaluated following the "Chapin Hall
work"
> that seeks unbiased answers to the question of "what works best for whom?"
>
> Daniel Fallon <Psychling@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
> > Chapin Hall work, to my understanding, doesn't distinguish adolescent
youth
> referred from the juvenile justice system to family preservation services
> following the models offered by Patty Chamberlain (Oregon Social Learning
> Center - Treatment Foster Care) and Scott Hengeller, Charles Borduin,
Sonja
> Schoenwald, et alia, from MST Services (Multisystemic Therapy).
> >
> > - Dan Fallon
> >   From: Chaffin, Mark J.
> >   To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
> >   Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 8:27 AM
> >   Subject: RE: in-home services to substitute care
> >
> >
> >   Phillip,
> >
> >   We have been looking at this question among in-home family
preservation
> service recipients in Oklahoma for the last few years.  Not surprisingly,
the
> main predictor of re-referral or future removal is number of past CPS
reports
> on the family.  All other predictors pale in comparison.  Three or more
past
> referrals is especially bad in our data, and families with three or more
past
> refererals are much more likely than not to have a subsequent report
> regardless of service receipt or other factors. You may wish to look at
the
> published work of English and Marshall in Washington state who have done
> extensive studies in this area, and the studies of in-home family
> preservation services outcomes (or lack of outcomes) done by the group at
> Chapin Hall in Chicago.
> >
> >   Mark Chaffin, Ph.D.
> >   Center on Child Abuse and Neglect
> >   P.O. Box 26901; CHO 3406
> >   Oklahoma City, OK  73190
> >   (405) 271-8858; fax 271-2931
> >   mark-chaffin@ouhsc.edu
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>