1 / 21

Hasbro Early Assessment Project

Hasbro Early Assessment Project. Supported by: Hasbro Children’s Foundation—intervention component University of Michigan Office of the Vice-President for Research—evaluation component. Conducted by: Family Assessment Clinic—started in 1985 Child Protection Team—started in 1971. Auspices.

Télécharger la présentation

Hasbro Early Assessment Project

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.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Hasbro Early Assessment Project University of Michigan

  2. Supported by: Hasbro Children’s Foundation—intervention component University of Michigan Office of the Vice-President for Research—evaluation component Conducted by: Family Assessment Clinic—started in 1985 Child Protection Team—started in 1971 Auspices University of Michigan

  3. Target Population for Early Multidisciplinary Assessments • Families with at least one child 7 or younger (Hasbro Children’s Foundation) • First time substantiated CPS cases • Serious cases—because assessments are intrusive on families and labor intensive for staff • Court intervention required • CPS cooperation required University of Michigan

  4. Hypotheses related to safety & permanency • Multidisciplinary assessments of first time substantiated CPS cases will lead to better case outcomes. • Children whose families receive this service will be in less restrictive placements. • Permanent plans will be made sooner in cases that receive this service. • Families that receive this service will have fewer re-referrals & fewer terminations of parental rights. University of Michigan

  5. Research Design • Pilot was conducted in 2 counties with manageable social problems & resources • Target population—50 children • Comparison cases--50 children from families matched on type of maltreatment, family composition, race. University of Michigan

  6. Research Design • Outcomes from: • MIS system—safety & permanency • Worker of record appraisal • Caretakers of children—child wellbeing University of Michigan

  7. Primary outcome measures • MIS data • Placement at follow-up • Time to permanent plan • Re-reports • TPR • Worker of record information • Whether recommendations carried out • Worker satisfaction with services University of Michigan

  8. Outcome measures from caretakers • Child functioning • Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist -CBCL • Friedrich Child Sexual Behavior Inventory-CSBI • Briere’s Trauma Symptom Checklist for Young Children-TSC-YC University of Michigan

  9. Intervention • Review all background information. • Interview all parties: children, caretakers. • Children receive at least 2 interviews. • Medical exams on all children 7 & under & older children as indicated. • Psychological testing/consultation when indicated. • Parent-child interactions when indicated. • Psychiatric consultation when indicated. • Medical consultation & medical specialties. University of Michigan

  10. Intervention, continued. • Substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal history assessed. • Educational consultation when indicated. • Collateral contacts when indicated. • Consultation meeting to address questions and make additional recommendations. • Feedback given to the family. • Follow-up consultation available to referring agency. • Court testimony when needed. University of Michigan

  11. Placement Status at Follow-up University of Michigan

  12. Permanency of placement University of Michigan

  13. Other system findings • Case open at follow-up. • Early assessment=33% Comparison=33% • Court involvement at follow-up. • Early assessment=33% Comparison=33% • Termination of parental rights. • Early assessment=30.1% Comparison=52.1% • Chi square(1,N=91.)=4.5; p=.035 • Re-reports to CPS • Early assessment=44% Comparison=68.8% University of Michigan

  14. Worker Appraisal of Early Assessments • Very satisfied=32% • Satisfied=24% • Neutral=8% • Unsatisfied=20% • Very unsatisfied=0% • Unsatisfied cases were almost all ones with children under four with allegations of sexual abuse. • 218 phone calls to get worker responses on 25 cases (range 2-28) University of Michigan

  15. Recommendations • 101 recommendations on 25 families • Carried out=45 (45%) • Not carried out=29 (29%) • Don’t know/uncertain=27 (27%) • Reasons for not carrying out: • Disagreed with recommendation. • Family circumstances changed. • Reason for not knowing • High worker turnover. • Records incomplete. University of Michigan

  16. Conclusions • Early assessment holds promise for serious reports to CPS. • Need to replicate findings. • Importance of the early assessment seen as genuinely useful by the public child welfare workers. • Need to adapt the early assessment to the child welfare system. University of Michigan

  17. Federally Funded Comprehensive Family Assessment Projects A Model for Comprehensive Family Assessments in the Alabama Department of Human Resources https://www.childwelfare.gov/management/funding/funding_sources/sitevisits/alabama.cfm#page=summary A Model for Comprehensive Family Assessments in the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services https://www.childwelfare.gov/management/funding/funding_sources/sitevisits/illinois.cfm#page=summary A Model for Comprehensive Family Assessments, Ramsey County, MN https://www.childwelfare.gov/management/funding/funding_sources/sitevisits/minnesota.cfm#page=summary University of Michigan

  18. Federally Funded Projects, contd. • Contra Costa County (CA) Child and Family Services Bureau Comprehensive Family Assessments for Positive Family Outcomes • Almance County (NC) Department of Social Services Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating Comprehensive Family Assessments University of Michigan

  19. Federally Funded Projects, contd. • Funded 2007-2012. • These federally funded projects represent different models for CFAs. • The public child welfare case worker plays a key role in all. • All involve partnering with a university-based research unit, mostly in schools of social work. • Process and outcome evaluations. • So far, little in terms of outcomes. University of Michigan

  20. Resources • Comprehensive Family Assessment Guidelines for Child Welfare • http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/family_assessment.pdf • Children’s Bureau website on CFA https://www.childwelfare.gov/management/funding/funding_sources/familyassessment.cfm • Faller, K.C., Ortega, M.B., & Pomeranz, E. (2008). Can Early Assessment Make a Difference in Child Protection? Results from a Pilot Study. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2(1), 71-90. University of Michigan

  21. Questions & Answers University of Michigan

More Related