Matching family problems with specific family preservation services: a study of service effectiveness

Parental problems, case plan requirements, and service targeting in child welfare reunification

“…Research in the area of case plans and service requirements is scant (Ryan & Schuerman, 2004;Smith, 2008). While reference to the general content of case plans was found ("Case plans typically require that parents complete substance abuse treatment, attend parenting classes, consistently attend visitations, meet with caseworkers, complete job training if needed, and have safe and stable housing" [Stromwall et al, 2008, p.99]), no studies were found that examined the details of reunification case plan requirements.…”

Factors Affecting Long-Term Outcomes Following Intensive In-Home Services

“…The next logical step was to conduct a multivariate, multilevel analysis that simultaneously examined the impact of youth, family, program, and organizational characteristics on placement stability, educational progress, and contact with legal authorities at one-year postdischarge. Although multilevel modeling had previously been applied to research questions in the fields of child welfare and children's mental health (Ryan & Schuerman, 2004;Schoenwald, Sheidow et al, 2003;Yoo & Brooks, 2005), the application of this tool to data from a community-based agency (as opposed to university-based clinical trials) was unique.…”

“…Significant concerns exist over the use of out-of-home placement as a primary indicator of program failure. While many studies of family preservation programs define placement of the child out of the family home as the outcome of interest (see, for example, Bagdasaryan, 2005;Bath, Richey, & Haapala, 2006;de Kemp, Veerman, & ten Brink, 2003;Ogden & Halliday-Boykins, 2004;Pecora et al, 1992;Ryan & Schuerman, 2004;Yoo & Brooks, 2005), this practice is potentially problematic, as the outcome can also be considered an intervention. This confluence of intervention and outcome introduces considerable confusion into the determination of program effectiveness (Bitonti, 2002).…”

“…Although some excellent work has been conducted on these questions (Bath & Haapala, 1993), it is likely that a more complete understanding will be generated through the use of sophisticated statistical techniques that allow the thorough dissection of important relationships. Increasingly, researchers have applied tools such as multilevel modeling (Ryan & Schuerman, 2004;Yoo & Brooks, 2005), propensity score matching (Barth et al, 2007b), and event history analysis (Kirk & Griffith, 2004;Unrau & Coleman, 2006), heretofore underutilized in the child welfare arena, to increase their understanding of the predictors and correlates of outcomes in child welfare and children's mental health. Much work remains to be done to discover what needs to be known in order to create more effective services that improve the lives of children and families.…”

“…A potential 'window of vulnerability' was also identified, suggesting that program 'booster shots' may be needed to sustain the positive outcomes over a long period of time. In addition, data from at least one of the large-scale implementations of family preservation services has been re-examined to investigate questions regarding variability in the effectiveness of the intervention across population subgroups (Ryan & Schuerman, 2004) and to describe the relationship between case characteristics and outcomes (Littell, 2001). …”