RE: Early intervention and prevention of child abuse

["Billings, Peggy" <pbillings@xxxxxxxxx>]

Anne,

Our research team recently completed a program evaluation of a very
effective pilot program.  Children in the treatment group families were the
subject of only 50% as many reports as children in control group families.
The families were identified for eligiblity by using a risk assessment tool
as part of routine TANF intake process.  Eligible families were offered the
services, but they were not required to participate.  Services were provided
in families homes and focused primarily on issues related to economic self
sufficiency.  Program workers responded to the problems the families
themselves identified.  Many had serious dental health problems.  Many had a
virtually empty home without furniture, clothing, or housekeeping
necessities.  Many had no transportation.  With a combination of concrete
services and consistent support this program was very effective for the
families that participated.  On the Magura & Moses Family Risk  Scale,
family well being consistently improved over the time families were involved
in the program.  Twice as many control group children as program children
were reported for abuse or neglect, as well as confirmed for abuse and
neglect.  This occurred in spite of the sometimes daily presence of program
workers in participating families' homes.

Peggy Billings, MSW
Research Assistant
School of Social Welfare
University of Kansas
Lawrence, KS  66045
785 864 3749

-----Original Message-----
From: anne nilsson [mailto:teamconsulting@optusnet.com.au]
Sent: Sunday, September 15, 2002 4:39 PM
To: Child Maltreatment Researchers
Subject: Early intervention and prevention of child abuse




Dear Friends,

A colleague has recently joined a committee looking at funding some pilots
for early intervention and prevention of child abuse and is needing research
outcomes on the following topics:
. do we know what works and what doesn't?
. what selection criteria should we be looking at in choosing these pilot
services from the submissions made?
. with limited funding is it best to concentrate on secondary and tertiary
prevention rather than putting a lot of money into broad primary prevention
services?

many thanks
Anne