Organizational supports used by private child and family serving agencies to facilitate evidence use: a mixed methods study protocol

Abstract

BackgroundChallenges to evidence use are well documented. Less well understood are the formal supports—e.g., technical infrastructure, inter-organizational relationships—organizations may put in place to help overcome these challenges. This study will identify supports for evidence use currently used by private child and family serving agencies delivering publicly funded behavioral health and/or human services; examine contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with use of such supports; and determine how identified supports affect evidence use by staff at multiple levels of the organization.MethodsWe will use a sequential explanatory mixed methods design, with study activities occurring in two sequential phases: In phase 1, quantitative survey data collected from managers of private child and family serving agencies in six states (CA, IN, KY, MO, PA, and WI) and analyzed using both regression and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) will identify organizational supports currently being used to facilitate evidence use and examine the contextual, organizational, and managerial factors associated with the use of such supports. In phase 2, data from phase 1 will be used to select a purposive sample of 12 agencies for in-depth case studies. In those 12 agencies, semi-structured interviews with key informants and managers, focus groups with frontline staff, and document analysis will provide further insight into agencies’ motivation for investing in organizational supports for evidence use and the facilitators and barriers encountered in doing so. Semi-structured interviews with managers and focus groups with frontline staff will also assess whether and how identified supports affect evidence use at different levels of the organization (senior executives, middle managers, frontline supervisors, and frontline staff). Within- and between-case analyses supplemented by QCA will identify combinations of factors associated with the highest and lowest levels of staff evidence use.DiscussionThis study will inform efforts to improve sustainment, scale-up, and spread of evidence by providing insight into organizational and managerial strategies that facilitate evidence use, the contexts in which these strategies are most effective, and their effect on evidence use by staff at different levels of the organization.

Accreditation in Public Child Welfare: Exploring the Relationship between the Council on Accreditation (COA) and Structural Factors

“…Regarding macrosystem engagement, more participation in Title IV-E waiver demonstration projects by accredited agencies may signal their investment in performance improvement as reflected in COA's PQI standards. Regarding agency size, this study's finding was different from previous research that showed larger organizations with more FTEs were more likely to be accredited (Chuang, McBeath, Collins-Camargo, Lauzus, & Jolles-Perez, 2021), but it could be specific to the LADI sample. Considering COA's standards regarding service array, the finding that non-accredited agencies may collaborate to a greater extent with substance abuse treatment providers than accredited agencies was unexpected.…”

“…COA's (2021c) standards on human resources state that organizations should assess its workforce and have a workforce development plan aligned with its strategic plan to meet current and future workforce needs. Larger private child welfare organizations, as indicated by more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees, were more likely to be accredited (Chuang, McBeath, Collins-Camargo, Lauzus, & Jolles-Perez, 2021). In a multiple case study with private child and family service organizations, undergoing COA accreditation led to hiring additional staff (Lee, 2014a).…”

Organizational supports for knowledge translation in paediatric health centres and research institutes: insights from a Canadian environmental scan

“…A second U.S. study protocol in the child and family services sector described aims to examine a limited number of KT support strategies (i.e. linkages to external knowledge brokers, technology infrastructure, personnel and training and organizational strategic planning [11]; however, results have not been published. An environmental scan can generate an overview of existing organization-based EIHC and KT supports.…”

Building Knowledge to Support Human Service Organizational and Management Practice: An Agenda to Address the Research-to-Practice Gap

“…Research suggests that HSOs where social workers generally practice lack access to or underuse different types of research, including the generic use of evidence regarding practice (Dill & Shera, 2015), the use of agency outcome data for impact evaluation and performance improvement (Kroll, 2015), and the use of research evidence in managerial decision making (Palinkas, Saldana, Chou, & Chamberlain, 2017). Other studies have found that few HSOs in prominent social work fields of practice -such as child welfare, mental health, and substance abuse treatment, including the allied health professions-use evidence-based practices despite growing demands to do so (Chuang, Collins-Camargo, & McBeath, 2017;Guerrero, He, Kim, & Aarons, 2014). Similarly, social work scholars have identified challenges to the development and support of research infrastructure pipelines within schools of social work (Guerrero, Moore & Pitt-Catsouphes, 2018), with HSOs, and with adjacent professions and institutions (for example, medical schools and hospitals) (Howard & Garland, 2015;McDermott & Bawden, 2017;Orme & Powell, 2008).…”