Objective: Evaluate an experimental model for enhancing child protective service (CPS) investigations by teaming CPS investigators with family preservation services (FPS) caseworkers. Method: Using a posttest-only experimental design, high priority cases referred to a state child welfare agency for abuse or neglect were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group. During the interval between referral and case determination, families in the experimental group were served by a pair of caseworkers—CPS and FPS—who investigated the allegation and prepared a joint recommendation. Results: When compared 7 months later, families in the experimental group (a) had their children home for a greater percentage of time, (b) used a broader array of services, and (c) were more satisfied. Both CPS and FPS caseworkers felt that (a) better decisions were made, (b) families were strengthened, and (c) job satisfaction was greater. Conclusions: The model was effective and should be implemented on a broader scale.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Auclaire, P., & Schwartz, I. M. (1986). An evaluation of the effectiveness of intensive home-based services as an alternative to placement for adolescents and their families. Minneapolis, MN: Hennepin County Community Services Department and the University of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
2.
Barth, R. P., Courtney, M., Berrick, J. D., & Albert, V. (1994). From child abuse to permanency planning: Child welfare services pathways and placements. New York: Aldine.
3.
Berrick, J. D., Needell, B., Barth, R. P., Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). The tender years: Toward developmentally sensitive child welfare services for very young children. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
Carroccio, D. F. (1982). Intensive crisis counseling programs. Tallahassee: Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitation Services, Office of the Inspector General, Office of Evaluation.
5.
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. (1991, May 7). Overview of entitlement programs: 1991 green book: Background material and data on programs within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.
6.
Denby, R. W. (1995). Targeting families for family preservation services. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
7.
Dennis-Small, L., & Washburn, K. (1986). Family-centered, home-based intervention project for protective services clients (Final Report). Austin: Texas Department of Human Services, Protective Services for Families and Children Branch, and Office of Strategic Management, Research, and Development.
8.
Fanshel, D., & Shinn, E. B. (1978). Children in foster care: A longitudinal investigation. New York: Columbia University Press.
9.
Frankel, H. (1988). Family-centered home-based services in child protection: A review of the research. Social Service Review, 62, 137-157.
10.
Fraser, M. W., Pecora, P. J., & Haapala, D. A. (1991). Families in crisis: Findings from the family-based intensive treatment project. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
11.
Gelles, R. (1993). Family reunification/family preservation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 557-562.
12.
Henggeler, S. W., Melton, G. B., & Smith, L. A. (1992). Family preservation using multisystemic therapy: An effective alternative to incarcerating serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 953-961.
13.
Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G., & Galaway, B. (1996). Family group conferences: Perspectives on policy and practice. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
14.
Hudson, W. W. (1982). The Clinical Measurement Package: A field manual. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
15.
Jones, M. A. (1985). A second chance for families: Five years later, follow-up of a program to prevent foster care. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
16.
Kemp, A. (1998). Abuse in the family: An introduction. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
17.
Kinney, J. M., Haapala, D. A., & Booth, C. (1991). Keeping families together: The homebuilders model. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
18.
Magura, S. (1981). Are services to prevent foster care effective?Children and Youth Services Review, 3, 193-212.
19.
Maluccio, A. N., Fein, E., & Olmstead, K. A. (1986). Permanency planning for children: Concepts and methods. New York: Tavistock.
20.
Marsh, P., & Crow, G. (1998). Family group conferences in child welfare. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
21.
Nelson, K. E., & Landsman, M. J. (1992). Alternative models of family preservation: Family-based services in context. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
22.
Pecora, P. J. (1991). Family preservation and home-based services: A select literature review. In M. W. Fraser, P. J. Pecora, & D. A. Haapala, Families in crisis: The impact of intensive family preservation services (pp. 20-55). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine.
23.
Rossi, P. H. (1992). Assessing family preservation programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 77-97.
24.
Schuerman, J. R., Rzepnicki, T. L., & Littell, J. H. (1994). Putting families first. New York: Aldine.
25.
Szykula, S. A., & Fleischman, M. J. (1985). Reducing out-of-home placements of abused children: Two controlled field studies. Child Abuse and Neglect, 9, 277-283.
26.
Tatara, T. (1992). Child substitute care population trends—FY82 through FY91: A summary (VCFS Research Notes, No. 6). Washington, DC: American Public Welfare Association.
27.
Walton, E. (1991). The reunification of children with their families: A test of intensive family treatment following out-of-home placement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
28.
Walton, E. (1994). Intensive in-home family preservation services to enhance child protective investigative and assessment decisions: The evaluation of an experimental model (Final Report, Grant No. 90CW1042/01). Washington, D.C.: Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.
29.
Walton, E. (1997). Enhancing investigative decisions in child welfare: An exploratory use of intensive family preservation services. Child Welfare, 76, 447-461.
30.
Walton, E. (1998). In-home family-focused reunification: A six-year follow-up of a successful experiment. Social Work Research, 22, 205-214.
31.
Walton, E., Fraser, M. W., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1993). In-home, family-focused reunification: An experimental study. Child Welfare, 72, 473-487.
32.
Warsh, R., Pine, B., & Maluccio, A. (1995). The meaning of family preservation: Shared mission, diverse methods. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 76, 625-626.
33.
Wells, K. (1994). A reorientation to knowledge development in family preservation services: A proposal. Child Welfare, 73, 475-488.
34.
Wells, K., & Biegel, D. E. (1992). Intensive family preservation services research: Current status and future agenda. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 28, 21-27.
35.
Wharf, B. (1988). Preventing out of home placements for abused and neglected children.Un-published manuscript, University of Victoria, BC.
36.
Wood, S., Barton, K., & Schroeder, C. (1988). In-home treatment of abusive families: Cost and placement at one year. Psychotherapy, 25, 409-414.
