Effective Service Needs for Post Adoptive Families (2010-2018 Peer Review)

Category Archives: Research

Assessment and Exit Musical instrument Tools for IFPS

The National Family Preservation Network recently released a enquiry study that included findings from assessment tools and exit instruments.

The North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS) was originally designed for utilize with a statewide IFPS plan in North Carolina. Information technology includes 5 domains that measure family functioning: Environment, Parental Capabilities, Family Interaction, Safe, and Child Well-Being.

The tool has been proven reliable and valid with dozens of IFPS programs. A later version of this tool, the NCFAS-G, includes the original 5 domains plus 3 additional domains of Social/Community Life, Self-Sufficiency, and Health. Initial reliability and validity for the NCFAS-One thousand was established with a differential response program.

Some IFPS agencies have been reluctant to use the NCFAS-G because information technology had not been tested with an IFPS plan. The inquiry study included apply of the NCFAS-G with 2 IFPS programs and ane differential response plan. The following is a chart showing the reliability of the NCFAS-K as used with these programs:

Reliability of NCFAS-G using Chronbach'south Alpha as the Reliability Statistic:

NCFAS-G Domains	Intake	Closure
Environment	.913	.922
Parental Capabilities	.838	.869
Family unit Interaction	.881	.903
Family Safety	.862	.919
Child Well-Being	.894	.869
Social / Community Life	.833	.822
Cocky-Sufficiency	.920	.887
Family Health	.800	.813
N	181	166

By convention and agreement among psychometric researchers and scale developers, Chronbach's alphas above 0.8 are considered to exist strong, and alphas above 0.9 are considered to exist very stiff.

The NCFAS tools are designed to assist workers with assessing the family'southward needs, prioritizing goals and services, developing a case plan, and measuring the family unit's progress following delivery of services. The NCFAS tools are also used in evaluation and research. In the recent research study, the post-obit chart shows the percent of families performance below baseline (adequate) at intake and at instance closure:

NCFAS-G Domains	Intake	Closure
Environment	16%	half dozen%
Parental Capabilities	thirty%	eight%
Family Interactions	22%	8%
Family Safety	nineteen%	half-dozen%
Kid Well-Being	35%	12%
Social / Customs Life	11%	4%
Cocky-Sufficiency	25%	thirteen%
Family unit Health	28%	8%
N	184	172

The inquiry study also included testing of exit instruments designed by NFPN to align questions for the worker and parent(s) which stand for in general with the NCFAS assessment tools. You lot will annotation from the examples in the following chart that when families completed services, caregiver responses at termination almost mirrored the responses of the worker whereas at that place was more disparity betwixt caregiver and worker when the family unit did not complete services:

Proportion of Responses About "Neutral" and At or Beneath "Neutral"

To read the full research study, visit:
http://nfpn.org/reunification/reunification-research

For more information on the assessment tools, visit:
http://www.nfpn.org/assessment-tools

_______________
Posted past Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network

IFPS and Stride-down Services

From its inception, IFPS has been an all-inclusive service that is completed within 4 to six weeks. Early IFPS programs had no provision for step-downwardly services.  This does not mean that families received no additional services.  IFPS therapists ofttimes refer families to other services prior to the close of the IFPS intervention.  But the question remains:  are IFPS stride-downward services ever justified?  If and so, when is the optimal fourth dimension to offering them?

I undertook a study of this event in 2000 in the state of Northward Carolina.  What I discovered was a "window of vulnerability" that is depicted in the following chart by means of placement rates following the IFPS intervention:

Annotation "window of vulnerability" from 120 days to 270 days mail service.

The placement dynamics evident suggested that secondary interventions or additional services should be offered to families in the outset 6 months following termination of the IFPS intervention.

Showtime in 2004, IFPS programs in North Carolina were required to track families for half-dozen months after receiving IFPS services:

• Contact families monthly, inquire nearly functioning & needs.
• Conduct a more than comprehensive cess of families during the contacts at 3 months and vi months.
• Verify that families were receiving the services that they were supposed to receive subsequently IFPS and see if additional in-domicile services are needed.

IFPS workers were authorized to re-open services to the family for a maximum of 2 weeks and a maximum of two times during the six month follow-up period.

• Between 2004 and 2008, 999 families received follow-up contacts
• 593 received 3-month comprehensive assessment
• 381 received 6-month assessment
• Families had option to turn down being contacted in the time to come; some families could not be located

 Family contacts during 6 months post-obit case closure

	Month 1	Month 2	Month iii	Calendar month 4	Month 5	Calendar month six
Number of Families Contacted	999	791	662	535	471	407
Boilerplate Hours of Phone Contacts	ane.07	.92	.92	.77	.73	.78
Average Hours of In-Person Contacts	one.89	1.33	ane.28	one.19	1.11	1.xx
Boilerplate # Worker Initiated Contacts	one.66	ane.43	i.42	1.39	1.35	1.32
Average # Family unit Initiated Contacts	1.55	1.35	ane.32	1.02	.92	.95
Number of Case Re-Openings	17	ten	8	7	7	5

During the flow 2000–2004, prior to implementation of follow-up contacts and possible additional services, the mail service service placement rate (attrition rate) during the first half-dozen months was approximately 7%, based on AFCARS information.

Among families receiving follow-up services betwixt 2004 and 2008, post-IFPS service placement rate was:

• 3.0% during beginning 3 months,
• 1.five% during months 4–6.

Determination

Follow-up services during first half-dozen months post-IFPS services announced to reduce the placement (attrition) rate past near one-tertiary.

_______________
Posted by Ray Kirk, Researcher
Dr. Kirk's inquiry on the child welfare arrangement includes assessment tools, IFPS, reunification, and prevention.

IFPS and Disproportionality

Racial/indigenous disproportionality in kid welfare has been a topic of interest and controversy amid child welfare researchers and administrators since data became available that permitted its investigation.

These findings from a Casey written report in 2007 [1] highlight the over- and nether-representation of ethnic groups in foster care:

• Black children are overrepresented in foster care by a ratio of ii:ane
• Native Americans are overrepresented in foster intendance by a ratio of two:1
• Whites are underrepresented by a ratio of 0.7:ane
• Hispanics are underrepresented past a ratio of 0.nine:1
• Asians are underrepresented in foster care by a ratio of 0.25:1

Disproportionate Need or Discriminatory Practices

Citing Hill (2006) [ii], Casey Family Programs states that three national incidence studies revealed no meaning differences between the base maltreatment rates of Black and White families.

This lack of differences in base rates suggests that disproportionality in the kid welfare system is not due to disproportionate need, but rather to discriminatory practices in society (reports of abuse and neglect) or within the child welfare organisation (investigations, substantiations, placements, permanency outcomes).

Addressing Disproportionality

In order to determine effective strategies for reducing disproportionality, I undertook a study to examine an effort to address disproportionality with a policy and practice initiative utilizing Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). [3] The study was based on information from the state of Due north Carolina:

IFPS is available in 70 of the state's 100 counties, although IFPS is not available in sufficient quantity in any canton to respond to all eligible families.

• Families eligible for but that did non receive IFPS received traditional public and contract bureau services, such as, counseling, skill training, protective supervision, day care, etc.
• The report employed a retrospective, population-based pattern that permitted the selection of all high-risk abuse and fail cases.
• Data were merged from various statewide (NCCANDS, AFCARS) and plan-specific (IFPS) databases.
• The study included two,056 high-risk families that received IFPS, and the comparison group included 28,004 loftier-hazard families.
• About three-fifths of the treatment population was White, a fiddling more than than one-third was Blackness, and the remainder comprised American Indians, Hispanics, and Asian/Southeast Asian families.
• At that place were no differences on placement rates between Blacks and non-Black minorities, so these groups were combined.
• White and non-White racial groups inside the IFPS treatment status were essentially equivalent with the exception of not-Whites having slightly more substantiated prior reports. Theoretically, any increased overall take chances associated with this departure would be likely to diminish, rather than raise the handling outcome beingness investigated.
• Independent variables: race, risk, IFPS versus non-IFPS
• Dependent variable: cumulative risk of placement

The Results

• High-risk minority children receiving traditional services were at higher chance of placement than White children, but minority children receiving IFPS were less likely to be placed than White children.
• When only minority children were examined, those receiving IFPS were less likely to be placed than those receiving traditional services.
  

Figure 1—Chance of Placement Later on CPS Study for Children Receiving Traditional CW Services by Race

Figure 2—Risk of Placement Later on Referral to IFPS for Children Receiving IFPS past Race

Effigy iii—Risk of Placement After CPS Written report/Referral to IFPS for Non-White Children

Decision

IFPS is associated with a reduction in racial disproportionality of out-of-habitation placement amidst high-risk families. Within-race assay suggests that IFPS may mitigate racial disparity in out-of-home placement existing in the remainder of the kid welfare population that receives traditional services.

References

ane. Casey Family Programs. (2007). Fact Sheet: Disproportionality in the Kid Welfare Arrangement: The Asymmetric Representation of Children of Color in Foster Care.

2. Hill, R.B. (2006). Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in Kid Welfare: An Update. Washington, DC: Casey/Center for the Study of Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity.

three. Kirk, R.S. & Griffith, D.P. (2008). Touch on of intensive family preservation services on disproportionality of out-of-domicile placement of children of color in one country'due south child welfare system. Kid Welfare, 87 (v), 87–105.

_______________
Posted past Ray Kirk, Researcher
Dr. Kirk's inquiry on the child welfare system includes cess tools, IFPS, reunification, and prevention.

Celebrating xl Years of IFPS – Function 2

In this postal service we await at the target populations with which IFPS has been found to exist effective and an assessment tool for use with IFPS.

IFPS is Effective with High-Risk Families

Dr. Ray Kirk from the Academy of Due north Carolina-Chapel Hill conducted a retrospective written report (NC DSS, 2001) of more than one,200 children who had received IFPS services in North Carolina and compared them with over 110,000 children who had non received these services.

IFPS outperformed traditional child welfare services in every case by reducing the number of placements or delaying placements. IFPS interventions improved family functioning and were nigh effective with the highest take chances families.

IFPS Reduces Disproportionality

In this written report, high-gamble minority children receiving traditional services were at college risk of placement than white children, but minority children receiving IFPS were less likely to be placed than white children.

Note: a hereafter blog post volition provide details of this study.

IFPS is Constructive with Older Youth

A study showed that IFPS services resulted in a 92% placement prevention rate for older youth (ages 12-17) in comparison to an 88% placement prevention rate for younger children (ages 0-xi). For more details of this report, visit:
http://ifpscoasttocoast.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/ifps-is-effective-with-older-youth/

IFPS is Effective with Juvenile Offenders

HOMEBUILDERS® received funding from the U.S. Administration for Children, Youth and Families to provide services to youth and families referred from the Pierce County Juvenile Courtroom.

Twelve months after intake, 73% of youth served were not placed in out-of abode intendance. Data from the overflow comparing grouping showed that but 28% of the comparison youth avoided placement. For the full written report, visit:
http://ifpscoasttocoast.wordpress.com/2013/11/thirteen/ifps-with-juvenile-justice/

IFPS is Effective with Children with Mental Health Challenges

HOMEBUILDERS® was originally developed to prevent the psychiatric hospitalization of severely behaviorally disturbed children. From January 2009 through April 2013 the plan served 3014 children at gamble of placement, 383 of whom were reported to take serious mental health symptoms.

In the entire population, 97.five% of children successfully avoided placement at termination of services. 90-six percent of the 383 youth with serious mental health bug avoided out of home placement at termination of services. For additional studies involving IFPS and mental health visit:
http://ifpscoasttocoast.wordpress.com/category/mental-wellness/

IFPS is Effective with Adoptive Families

Dr. Marianne Berry and NFPN conducted a study on the use of IFPS with post-adoptive families in Missouri. 83% of the adoptive families studied were preserved by the stop of IFPS. At a vi-calendar month follow-upwards point, 76% remained intact. No families contacted at the vi or 12-month follow-upwards checks had legally disrupted. To view the complete report, visit:
http://nfpn.org/articles/ifps-with-post-adoptive-families

IFPS is Constructive with Reunifying Families

The earliest study of the employ of IFPS with reunifying families was conducted in Utah in 1995.

The IFPS intervention lasted 90 days and children were returned to the families within 15 days of referral. Following IFPS services, 92% of the children were at dwelling house vs. 28% of the control group. For boosted information, view the IFPS ToolKit (chapters 10 and 11) here:
http://www.nfpn.org/preservation/ifps-toolkit

Assessment Tool Created for Utilize with IFPS

Development of the North Carolina Family Assessment Calibration (NCFAS) for employ with IFPS services provided an opportunity to measure a family's progress post-obit an IFPS intervention. The family's progress is besides closely tied to successfully remaining intact. Here's a chart with typical pre/post ratings from research on use of the NCFAS with IFPS families (the percentages refer to the families that are at baseline or above, meaning that no intervention is required in that domain):

The NCFAS tools proceed to demonstrate strong reliability and validity with IFPS programs. For a more detailed report, visit:
http://www.nfpn.org/assessment-tools/ncfases-scale-development-written report

_______________
Posted past Charlotte Booth, Executive Managing director, Constitute for Family Evolution
and Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family unit Preservation Network

IFPS is Constructive with Older Youth

Several years ago, the National Family unit Preservation Network, in association with Dr. Ray Kirk and the National Alliance to Stop Homelessness, conducted inquiry on the use of IFPS with older youth.

Ii agencies provided information on IFPS services to older youth with one of the agencies providing comparative data for younger children. Older youth were defined as ages 12–17 while younger children were defined as ages 0–eleven.

The major findings of the study:

• IFPS services were highly effective with older youth for both placement prevention services and reunification. The difference in outcomes for older youth vs. younger children was very small:
  

  	Younger Children	Older Youth
  Placement Prevention Success Rate	88%	92%
  Reunification Rate	97%	92%

• Older youth were more than likely to be female person and had significantly higher rates of physical and sexual abuse than younger children, also equally family conflict. Other issues much more prevalent in older youth than younger children included adoption disruption, behavior bug, delinquency, child-centered violence, schoolhouse problems, mental wellness problems, and substance corruption. All of these issues were effectively addressed in terms of preserving the placement or reunifying the older youth with their families.
• The NCFAS and the NCFAS-R assessment tools were constitute to exist reliable for use with both the older youth and younger children. This is critical because the tools measure out over forty factors of family functioning that touch on youth and their families and are used in a wide variety of youth- and family-serving systems.
• Despite having many more presenting problems than younger children, older youth and their families made just as much progress as younger children and their families on all measures of family functioning with 1 exception. That exception was the area of child well-existence which includes the factors of mental health, child'southward behavior, school operation, relationship with caregivers, human relationship with siblings, and relationship with peers. Since these factors are child-focused, rather than parent-focused, and tend to reverberate the older youth's desire for independence and ability to make choices, including bad choices, less progress in this area is perhaps understandable. In whatever event, somewhat less progress in the area of child well-being did not adversely bear upon the overall positive outcomes for older youth.
• Early on IFPS programs served primarily older youth and we are now coming full circle to realizing that IFPS is notwithstanding an excellent resource for adolescents.

To view the Older Youth Research Study, visit:
http://nfpn.org/preservation/186-older-youth.html

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, NFPN Executive Director

IFPS with Adoptive Families

The National Family Preservation Network, in clan with Dr. Marianne Berry, conducted research on the use of IFPS with post-adoptive families in a project funded by a grant from the Annie Due east. Casey Foundation. Data on IFPS were provided past the state of Missouri.

The published enquiry included these primal findings:

• Services focused primarily on parent/kid conflict, communication issues, the child's emotional problems, and school issues.

Variable (N = 99)	due north	%
Primary Problem Addressed in Adoption IFPS Intervention
Parent/child disharmonize	62	62.6
Communication skills	47	47.five
Parenting skills problems	47	47.v
Emotional issues	22	22.2
Physical abuse	xix	19.1
Mental wellness problems	19	19.1
Pregnancy	thirteen	13.ane
School problems	13	xiii.1
Medical illness/disability	8	viii.0
Concrete violence	8	8.1
Delinquent behavior	7	7.one
Child neglect	four	four.0
Severe fiscal problems	3	3.0
Criminal behavior	ii	ii.0
Sexual abuse	2	2.0
Marital conflict	2	two.0
Runaway	ii	two.0
Drug abuse	1	1.0
Developmental inability	ane	1.0
Shelter	one	one.0
Other	x	10.1

• 83% of the adoptive families studied were preserved by the end of IFPS. At a 6-calendar month follow-upwardly point, 76% remained intact. No families contacted at the 6- or 12-calendar month follow-upwards checks had legally disrupted.

Tabular array nine: Case Outcomes

Variable (Due north = 99)	n	%
Blazon of Placement Originally Anticipated
Foster Home	42	42.iv
Residential	39	39.4
Relative Intendance	seven	7.1
Psychiatric Hospital	five	5.1
Detention	5	five.1
Emergency Shelter	1	1.0
Placement
No placements	82	82.viii
Prior to IFPS services	9	ix.1
During IFPS services	two	two.0
After IFPS services cease	6	6.i

• The adopted children who were most likely to experience placement during or afterwards IFPS were those who were significantly older and IFPS was being used to reunify the family, rather than avert placement. Placement rates were highest for children served for delinquent or criminal beliefs, running abroad, or where the family was experiencing physical violence, astringent financial problems or medical illness or disability.

• The content of training for preservation workers who piece of work with adoptive families is significantly enhanced with information of special importance to adoptive families. These content areas include grief and loss, attachment, parental expectations, and means to enhance the parental characteristics of patience, flexibility, humor and acceptance.

• Findings from this study signal the need for greater availability of IFPS services to adoptive families, given placement prevention rates in the 80% + range, and high parental satisfaction.

Click here to get the full study on IFPS with Postal service-Adoptive Families:
http://nfpn.org/articles/ifps-with-post-adoptive-families

_______________

Posted past Priscilla Martens, NFPN Executive Director

IFPS and Evidence-Based Practice, Role 2

Last week we introduced the topic of evidence-based practise.  This week we wait at how the land of Washington is implementing testify-based practise that includes IFPS.

In 2012 the Legislature passed E2SHB 2536 with the intent that "prevention and intervention services delivered to children and juveniles in the areas of mental health, child welfare, and juvenile justice exist primarily evidence-based and enquiry-based, and it is anticipated that such services will be provided in a mode that is culturally competent."  Washington is one of the few states to have enacted a law for implementation of evidence-based practice. You can view the legislation here:
(PDF, 29Kb) http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Passed%20Legislature/2536-S2.PL.pdf

2 contained research groups were designated to create an inventory of  bear witness-based, research-based, and promising practices and services.

One of these research groups, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP), had previously conducted an all-encompassing review of IFPS.  WSIPP reviewed all rigorous evaluations of IFPS programs that included a comparison group and so sorted the evaluations based on fidelity to the Homebuilders® model. IFPS programs with loftier model fidelity had a significant reduction in out-of-home placements of children and produced $2.59 of benefits for each dollar of toll. IFPS programs that did not adhere to the Homebuilders® model produced no significant effects.  Yous can view the full written report here:
(PDF, 45Kb) http://world wide web.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/06-02-3901.pdf

Because allegiance of IFPS programs to the Homebuilders® model is fundamental to their effectiveness, it'south important for the IFPS field to be informed of the fidelity measures.  The more familiar measures include

• 24/7 availability,
• caseload of 2 families at a time,
• meetings with family 3–v times a week, and
• services provided for iv weeks.

Other measures include

• standards for supervisors,
• comprehensive cess,
• goal setting and service planning,
• engagement and motivation enhancement, and
• cognitive and behavioral approach.

For a consummate list of the Homebuilders® fidelity measurs and accompanying performance measures, see:
(PDF file, 82Kb) http://world wide web.institutefamily.org/pdf/HOMEBUILDERS-FidelityMeasures-Abridged-ii-six.pdf

If your agency is considering implementing or strengthening an IFPS program, you can hands incorporate these standards and functioning measures into the pattern.

Washington State is the birthplace of the Homebuilders® program and thus state policy makers had admission to a good example of evidence-based do. Homebuilders® IFPS is included in two places in the electric current country inventory of evidence-based programs. You volition annotation in the inventory chart (see link below) that Intensive Family Preservation Services (Homebuilders) is the fourth item in the kid welfare category and is ranked as an evidence-based program (top ranking). It is likewise listed in the mental health category under "serious emotional disturbance" as a research-based practice, based on a unmarried evaluation. You lot will notice the rankings for many other familiar programs in the chart.

WSIPP Inventory Chart:
(PDF file, 66Kb) http://world wide web.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/E2SHB2536-3i.pdf

We have seen in this serial of posts how evidence-based practice has adult and where IFPS fits in. The field of IFPS is heavily dependent on the Homebuilders® model of IFPS for its inclusion in evidence-based practice. Charlotte Berth and Shelley Leavitt at the Found for Family Evolution (parent agency of Homebuilders®) have spent decades building, maintaining, and training on model fidelity, and contributing data on their program. Yous tin can join me in publicly thanking them by posting a comment beneath.

Give thanks you lot, Charlotte and Shelley and all IFD staff, for your dedication and commitment to make IFPS one of the most effective programs for families!

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, NFPN Executive Director

IFPS and Evidence-Based Do

In that location is mayhap no more oftentimes used term in the child welfare field today than "evidence-based exercise." In this series of posts, we look at the definition and evolution of prove-based practise, why it is of import, where IFPS fits in, and how one country is implementing evidence-based do.

In 2005 the National Association of Public Kid Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) published guidelines for evidence-based exercise. NAPCWA noted the following issues surrounding evidence-based practice:

1. The base of solid empirical research on child welfare practise is notwithstanding developing.
2. Kid welfare practices cannot only be divided into "bear witness-based" and "not-prove based." In that location is a continuum from highly research supported practice at one end to very questionable and concerning practices at the other end.
3. There is no universally accepted definition or classification of evidence-based practise.

NAPCWA adapted a definition of show-based practice from the Institute of Medicine that combines three factors:

1. Best inquiry evidence
2. Best clinical feel
3. Consistent with family unit/client values

In social club to operationalize these factors and provide objective measures, the California Prove-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (CEBC) was established. A practice is rated based on the following criteria:

 1. Well-Supported past Inquiry Evidence

2. Supported by Inquiry Evidence

3. Promising Research Testify

4. Evidence Fails to Demonstrate Effect

5. Concerning Practice

NR. Not able to exist Rated

The CEBC relies on published, peer-reviewed research to determine the rating.

Why is using an Evidence-Based Practice important?

A CEBC advisory commission member's response to that question follows.

Evidence-based practice:

• Ensures that families are referred to the nearly effective and efficacious programs that the community provides.
• Helps child welfare workers and supervisors empower families in crisis to resolve their own conflicts, using well-tested programs.
• Allows child welfare workers to refer families to services that have been scientifically researched and proven constructive, which in turn may cause the families to make a greater commitment to participation.
• Provides child welfare workers with a better understanding of the range of programs available so they can make informed choices when referring families to services.

How does IFPS fare in the CEBC rating system?

Homebuilders® IFPS has been rated by the CEBC in the areas of:

• Interventions for Neglect,
• Mail service-Permanency Services,
• Reunification,
• and Family Stabilization.

The rating assigned to each of these areas is a "two" with a detailed report available. (Click here to view one of these detailed reports.)

The CEBC website ( http://world wide web.cebc4cw.org/ ) is convenient and contains a wealth of information about show-based practice and programs. Because IFPS is an prove-based practice, the IFPS field should be enlightened of and back up other bear witness-based practices. Be sure to check out the CEBC website!

Adjacent time nosotros'll look at how i state has implemented show-based practice that includes IFPS.

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, NFPN Executive Director

russellonewalre.blogspot.com

Source: https://preservingfamiliesblog.wordpress.com/category/research/

Share this post