Evaluation of Michigan's Foster Care Case Management System

Abstract

Objective: In 1997, Michigan's Family Independence Agency piloted casemanagement procedures designed to expedite permanency and improve services to children in foster care. Method: A 3-year evaluation examined outcomes in nine pilot and nine comparison counties to determine if children in the pilot counties achieved permanency, either returned home or another permanent arrangement, more rapidly than those in the comparison counties. Preceding implementation, pilot and comparison counties employed the same case management procedures and had similar records of achieving permanency for children entering foster care. Results: After implementation, pilot counties attained permanency for a significantly greater proportion of children entering foster care than did comparison counties. This difference was observed for subgroups defined by child ethnicity, initial placement type, and child age, although the differences were not always significant. Conclusion: Pilot counties were more likely to reunify children postimplementation than were comparison counties, and these children were no more likely to reenter foster care.

Keywords

foster care structured decision making case management permanency

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baird, C. , & Wagner, D. (2000). The relative validity of actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment systems. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 839-871.

Baird, C. , Wagner, D. , Caskey, R. ,& Neuenfeldt, D. (1995). The Michigan Department of Social Services Structured Decision Making System: An evaluation of its impact on child protection services. Madison, WI: Childrens Research Center.

Courtney, M. (1994). Factors associated with the reunification of foster children with their families. Social Service Review, 68, 81-108.

Courtney, M. (1995). Reentry to foster care of children returned to their families. Social Service Review, 69, 226-241.

Davis, I. , Lansverk, J. , & Newton, R. (1997). Duration of foster care for children reunifiedwithin the first year of care. In R. P. Barth , J.D. Berrick ,& N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review (Vol. 2, pp. 272-293). New York: Columbia University Press.

Fanshel, D. (1975). Parental visiting of children in foster care: Key to discharge. Social Service Review, 49, 493-514.

Gambrill, E. ,& Shlonsky, A. (2001). The need for comprehensive risk management systems in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 79-107.

Gillespie, J. , Byrne, B. , & Workman, L. (1995). An intensive reunification program for children in foster care. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 12, 213-228.

Kirk, R. (2002). Tailoring intensive family preservation services for family reunification cases: Phase 2 field testing and validation of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for Reunification (A Project Report to the National Family Preservation Network and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation). Available at www.nfpn.org/tools/articles/files/fieldtest.doc

10.

Larner, M. B. , Stevenson, C. S. , & Behrman, R. E. (1998). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Analysis and recommendations. Future of Children, 8, 4-22.

11.

Lewis, J. (1998). Building an evidence-based approach to social interventions. Children and Society, 12, 136-140.

12.

Maluccio, A. , Fein, E. , & Olmstead, K. (1986). Using service agreements. In Permanency planning for children: Concepts and methods (pp. 120-140). New York: Tavistock.

13.

Mohr, L. (1992). Impact analysis for program evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

Perkins, D. F. , & Ansay, S. J. (1998). The effectiveness of a visitation program in fostering visits with noncustodial parents. Family Relations, 47, 253-258.

15.

Petit, M. R. ,& Curtis, P. A. (1997). Child abuse and neglect: A look at the states, 1997 CWLA statistics book. Washington DC: CWLA Press.

16.

Potter, C. , & Klein-Rothschild, S. (2002). Getting home on time: Predicting timely permanence for young children. Child Welfare, 81, 123-150.

17.

Rossi, P. , & Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: A systematic approach (5th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

18.

Rzepnicki, T. L. , Schuerman, J. S. , & Johnson, P. R. (1997). Facing uncertainty: Reuniting high-risk families. In R. P. Barth , J. D. Berrick ,& N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review (Vol. 2, pp. 229-251). New York: Columbia University Press.

19.

Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective in socialwork practice: Extensions and cautions. Social Work, 41, 296-305.

20.

Stein, T. J. , Gambrill, E. D. , & Wiltse, K. T. (1978). Children in foster homes: Achieving continuity of care. New York: Praeger.

21.

Terling, T. (1999). The efficacy of family reunification practices: Reentry rates and correlates of reentry for abused and neglected children reunited with their families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23, 1359-1370.

22.

Wells, K. , & Guo, S. (1999). Reunification and reentry of foster children. Children and Youth Service Review, 21, 273-294.

23.

White, M. , Albers, E. ,& Bitonti, C. (1996). Factors in length of foster care: Worker activities and parent-child visitation. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23, 75-84.

24.

Wulczyn, F. ,& Goerge, R. M. (1994). Foster care in New York and Illinois: The challenge of rapid change. Social Services Review, 66, 278-294.

25.

Wulczyn, F. , Zeidman, D. , & Svirsky, A. (1997). Home Rebuilders: A family reunification demonstration program. In R. P. Barth , J. D. Berrick ,& N. Gilbert (Eds.), Child welfare research review (Vol. 2, pp. 252-271). New York: Columbia University Press.