The Role of Evaluation and Stakeholder Values in California’s Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project Evaluations Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D. San Jose State University, School of Social Work Evaluation 2011: Values and Valuing in Evaluation November 2, 2011 Anaheim, CA

2 Acknowledgements Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau California Department of Social Services

3 Purpose of the Paper Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Projects: - Children’s Bureau: “generating new knowledge” about innovative and effective practices - State and local stakeholders: means to develop and implement services The paper explores: - this conflict - the sociopolitical contexts - the role of values in evaluation planning and implementation

4 Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Projects Congress granted Health and Human Services authority to approve waivers Waivers give states flexibility in the use of Title IV-E funds (particularly maintenance) Promote safety, permanency, and well-being for children in child protection and foster care

5 Key Features of Waiver One in California Discrete interventions: - Wraparound in five counties - Family Group Decision-Making in two counties Treatment/Comparison with Random Assignment mandated by Children’s Bureau Multiple agencies and community-based organizations

6 Sociopolitical Context of Waiver One in California California’s Child Welfare System has a shared governance structure Seven different evaluations with multiple stakeholders Passage of legislation for “state-eligible” children

7 Key Features of Waiver Two in California Systems-level capped allocation in two counties County child welfare and juvenile probation departments Interrupted time-series with no comparison counties

8 Sociopolitical Context of Waiver Two in California Systems-level stakeholders (e.g., Board of Supervisors) Significant change in how child welfare is financed Significant involvement by child advocacy organizations

9 Discussion of Values Sponsor set the values tone: effectiveness Involving stakeholders was complicated by two factors: - negotiation process - shared governance Criteria/outcomes set by sponsor - first waiver: too distal - second waiver: concern about missing important outcomes Unhappiness with evaluation designs - first waiver: unethical; treatment works - second waiver: not rigorous enough

10 Conclusion Change the timing and the focus of the development process: efficiency to inclusion Keep an open mind about alternatives to the plan Remain flexible with data collection Reserve resources On-going communication/education re: the evaluation

11 Thank you Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D. School of Social Work San Jose State University

12