1 / 20

No Place Like Home (NPLH)

No Place Like Home (NPLH). No Place Like Home (NPLH) Partnership. NPLH: Project Overview. 3 child welfare agencies with mature family group decision making (FGDM) programs

conner
Télécharger la présentation

No Place Like Home (NPLH)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. No Place Like Home (NPLH)

  2. No Place Like Home (NPLH) Partnership

  3. NPLH: Project Overview • 3 child welfare agencies with mature family group decision making (FGDM) programs • Examining the effectiveness of FGDM in safely preventing children from entering or re-entering foster care when they are receiving in-home services. • Various FGDM models across sites • Training and technical assistance plan • Rigorous process and outcome evaluation components

  4. NPLH: Project Goals and Objectives • To improve the safety, permanency and well-being of children through implementation, program enhancement, and rigorous evaluation of FGDM, and to impact local and national child welfare practice/policy and disproportionality rates of African American, Latino and American Indian children. • Rigorously test the effectiveness of FGDM models in preventing children from entering or re-entering foster care • Determine the costs for FGDM implementation • Analyze implementation of multiple FGDM models to provide knowledge on fit, flow and sustainability • Disseminate implementation, cost and outcome findings and products

  5. NPLH: Project Structure • American Humane Association will provide training and technical assistance as well as fulfilling evaluation roles, along with Casey Family Programs • Three implementing sites: -South Dakota, Rapid City and Sioux Falls regions -Texas, Region 3 -Larimer County, Colorado

  6. NPLH: South Dakota Family Group Conferencing • Based on the New Zealand model including private family time • Utilized any time up to 5 months into a case or prior to a placement • Utilized for development of Permanent and Concurrent Plans • Held after the Protective Capacity Assessment is completed, which identifies safety threats and diminished and enhanced protective capacities of the parent

  7. NPLH: South Dakota Team Decision Making Models Safety Planning TDMs • To prevent removal through immediate protective plans • To facilitate safety planning for reunification Placement Team Meetings • To support placement stability • To identify potential kinship resources • To identify child’s needs Concurrent planning meetings • To identify an appropriate concurrent plan for children in placement • To identify actions to achieve the concurrent plan • Utilized only if families decline a Family Group Conference

  8. NPLH: Texas Family Group Decision Making • Began as a pilot in 2003 in 5 areas across the state • Offered statewide at 4 primary points of CPS involvement • Supported & funded by Texas Legislature • Influenced by New Zealand, Hawaii, and Washington DC

  9. NPLH: Texas FGDM Models Family Team Meetings • Offered to families prior to removal when immediate safety concerns have been identified. • Also used to address placement concerns after home removal. Family Group Conferences • Offered to families upon removal and increasingly during Family Based Safety Services (in-home) cases. Circles of Support • Youth-focused and driven meetings • Used to develop transition plans for older youth moving from foster care to adulthood

  10. NPLH: Larimer County, CO Family Group Conferencing • Began implementation in 1998 after witnessing increases of youth in foster care, length of stay in residential treatment centers, number of children aging out of the system, and re-entry rates. • In 2001, created team to facilitate conferencing and family engagement approaches. • In 2004, developed own model of FGC: Family Safety Resource Team (FSRT) to engage families early in their involvement with the agency.

  11. NPLH: Larimer County, CO FGDM Models Family Safety and Resource Team (FSRT) meetings • Held within 72-hours of a case being opened • Safety is priority and goals include keeping youth the home safely, reunification, shortening out-of-home stays, and ensuring network of support for family Family Unity Meetings (FUMs) • Most often held after FSRT meetings • Used for child protection and delinquency cases • Goal of helping families plan for safety, permanency, and well-being of youth Family Group Conferences (FGCs) • Families drive planning process • Goal of helping families plan for safety, permanency, and well-being of youth • More time intensive planning process than FUMs

  12. NPLH: Training & Technical Assistance • Mini-needs assessment for each site conducted within first 3 months • 21-month training plan to be implemented within first 2 years of NPLH project • 15 advanced trainings available, in addition to custom trainings based on site-specific needs • Opportunities for coaching • 24 days of training/TA/coaching per site per year

  13. NPLH: Evaluation Outcome Questions • Are children in families in the focus population who experience FGDM interventions less likely to experience placement compared to children in the control group? • If children are placed out of home, are they more likely to be placed with relatives compared to the control group? • Are families in the population who experience FGDM interventions as likely as families in the control group to experience child maltreatment re-reports or re-reports with substantiation? • Are families who experience FGDM processes more satisfied with their experiences with child welfare compared to children in the control group?

  14. NPLH: Evaluation Outcome Questions • For all of the outcomes (placement, relative placement, reporting, and satisfaction) are families less likely to have disparate experiences based on race or ethnicity compared to families in the control group? • Controlling for time in in-home services, how does the total average cost for the intervention group compare to the control group (including the cost of FGDM services)? • What are the differences in average costs for key outcomes of interest including placement and re-reporting between the intervention and control groups?

  15. NPLH: Site-Specific Evaluation Designs • Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Region 3 • random control trial (RCT) • ~400 participant families • South Dakota Department of Social Services Rapid City • quasi-experimental RCT intent to treat • sample to be determined as program develops • Larimer County Department of Human Services, CO • quasi-experimental, propensity score matching • ~400 participant families

  16. NPLH: Evaluation Approaches & Methods

  17. NPLH: Analysis • Analysis of intervention and comparison groups • Point in time measures - simple ANOVA or repeated measures ANOVA • Longitudinal outcomes - hazards and multivariate hazards models • Explanatory factors analysis (mediator and moderator detection ) • Structural equation modeling with comparison groups • Cost Analysis • Tied to outcome evaluation and based on group comparison • Cost per placements and re-reports

  18. NPLH: Summary • In-home service focus • Training and technical assistance provision to strengthen practice • Multi-site evaluation • Evaluation using random controlled trials and quasi-experimental design • Strategic nationwide dissemination plan

More Related