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 charlie.ferguson@sjsu.edu Evaluation 2011: Values and Valuing in Evaluation November 2, 2011 Anaheim, CA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

San Jose State University Thank you Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D. School of Social Work San Jose State University charlie.ferguson@sjsu.edu 510-846-7158