Development and Validation of a Wraparound Parent Partner Fidelity Tool

Abstract

Parent partners are parents or caregivers such as foster parents who have had success in dealing with a difficult child in a child welfare, mental health, or probation system and who become key players on Wraparound teams for families with youths with emotional or behavioral disabilities who are in out-of-home care. Although many studies have been conducted on the Wraparound model, none of them have described the parent partner's role and fidelity to the model. The Parent Partner Fidelity Tool (PPFT) was developed to address this gap in Wraparound research; it is the first tool designed to measure parent partner adherence to the Wraparound model and identify parent partner training and support needs. The 28-item PPFT captures parent partner activities related to the four Wraparound phases designated by the National Wraparound Initiative: engagement, planning, implementation, and transition. Similar PPFT versions are completed by Wraparound facilitators, parent partners, and parents/caregivers to provide multiple perspectives on the parent partner's work. The PPFT pilot testing project was conducted with 14 California Wraparound programs. Analyses of the 585 responses showed good reliability and validity for the PPFT, indicating that it is a psychometrically sound tool. KEY WORDS: model fidelity; parent partner; validation study; Wraparound W raparound, a comprehensive, teambased focus for engaging families with youths with emotional or behavioral disabilities who are in higher levels of out-of-home care, is one of the most important approaches to strengthening families that has been introduced in systems that serve families (Bruns, Burchard, Suter, Leverentz-Brady, & Force, 2004;Mears, Yaffe, & Harris, 2009;Walker & Bruns, 2006a, 2006b). Wraparound helps families prepare for the emancipation or return home of the youth. In California, families qualify for Wraparound through recommendations by a child welfare, mental health, or probation worker to their county's intersystem committee (members from all three systems) that reviews the recommendations and refers the family to a Wraparound program close to where they live. Much of the effectiveness of Wraparound may be due to the team process that embodies collective activity and collective identity (Walker & Schutte, 2004). In addition to a youth, a facilitator (staff person), a parent (or other child caregiver), and other key family members and service providers, California Wraparound teams often include a parent partner. A parent partner is a parent or caregiver such as a foster parent who has had success in the child welfare system and ideally has successfully engaged in a Wraparound program and thus, with appropriate supervision and training, can provide help and guidance to other families in a Wraparound program (Bruns, 2009;Mitchell & Hawkins, 2008). Although the Wraparound approach in general has been found to be effective in improving family functioning, especially when fidelity to the model has been demonstrated (Bruns, 2009;Bruns, Rast, Peterson, Walker, ...

Outcomes of the Iowa Parent Partner program evaluation: Stability of reunification and re-entry into foster care

“…Parent partners work to validate parents' experiences and perspectives while helping to hold parents accountable to making the behavioral changes necessary for reunification (Layzer, Goodson, Bernstein, & Price, 2001). Parent partners serve as role models, demonstrate effective communication, promote self-advocacy, provide individualized support to the parents they are assigned, and often collaborate with or train agency staff on how to more successfully interface with parents (Cohen & Canan, 2006;Frame, Conley, & Berrick, 2006;Leake et al, 2012;Lothridge, McCroskey, Pecora, Chambers, & Fatemi, 2012;Oates et al, 2016;Polinsky, Levine, Pion-Berlin, Torres, & Garibay, 2013). Additionally, parent partners network within communities and collaborate with case workers and providers to meet the needs of families, facilitate trainings and learning opportunities, assist in policy and program development, and change community perceptions about the system of child welfare (Cohen & Canan, 2006).…”

“…While the fidelity measures used by the agency did indicate high levels of fidelity, these measures were preliminary. Future studies should examine these child outcomes in relation to program fidelity as fidelity is a key element in being able to identify a program as evidence-informed and evidenced-based (Aarons, Sommerfeld, Hecht, Silovsky, & Chaffin, 2009;Polinsky et al, 2013). Additionally, studies should carefully examine how differences in service provision and parental engagement influence treatment outcomes.…”