Integrating Research into Practice Through the LAC Assessment and Action Record Bob Flynn Centre for Research on Community Services University of Ottawa (Canada) Looking After Children Symposium ACWA Conference, Sydney, August 16, 2006

For more detailed information on the topic of this presentation, please see the following references: Flynn, R. J., Dudding, P. M., & Barber, J. G. (Eds.) (2006). Promoting resilience in child welfare. Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press. ( Flynn, R. J., & Byrne, B. (2005). Overview and findings to date of research in the Ontario Looking after Children project. OACAS Journal, vol. 49, no. 1 (April), pp ( Flynn, R. J., Ghazal, H., Legault, L., Vandermeulen, G., & Petrick, S. (2004). Using general-population measures and norms to identify resilient outcomes among young people in care. Child and Family Social Work, 9, (

Two broad definitions “Research”: systematic inquiry, including: Basic research Applied research Evaluation, including outcome monitoring “Practice”: service-related action, including: Individual or “clinical” level action Organization or “program” level action System or “policy” level action

Outline: 4 questions Q1: In general, how can we integrate research into practice? Q2: What was original intent of LAC in this regard? Q3: To what extent has this intent been realized? Q4: How can we improve integration of research into practice? 16 lessons from Ontario LAC (“OnLAC”)project

Q1: In general, how can research be integrated into practice? Implement evidence-based practices (e.g., SAMSHA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices [google “NREPP”]) Draw upon relevant theory (e.g., competent- child theory; resilience theory) Base practice approach on research findings from many fields (e.g., education; health; parenting) Incorporate research/evaluation findings on own outcomes into own practice/policy

Q2: What was original intent of LAC re. integration of research into practice? Strong integration intended, as shown by: LAC reader Titles & content of basic LAC books: Parker, R., et al. (1991): Looking After Children: Assessing outcomes in child care (HMSO) Ward, H. (1995): Looking After Children: Research into practice (HMSO)

Q3: To what extent has integration intended by LAC been realized? My own impression is the following: Internationally, LAC seems to have had, to date: Much impact on practice, but With some exceptions, relatively little impact on outcome research within LAC users’ own organizations or jurisdictions Thus: little integration of users’ own LAC research into practice If this is roughly accurate, why? Partly because few jurisdictions using LAC have: Implemented AAR fully and also Constructed AAR data bases, to enable systematic monitoring, analysis, & improvement of outcomes

Q4: How can we improve integration of research into practice? 16 lessons from Ontario LAC (“OnLAC”) project Background: Purposes of OnLAC project (2000-present): Evaluation of implementation of LAC in 53 local CASs Evaluation/monitoring of outcomes associated with LAC Evaluation of costs of foster care (For overview of OnLAC research on implementation, outcomes, and costs: please see my PowerPoint presentation of August 14 at the ACWA2006 conference)

Milestones in implementing LAC in Ontario ( & beyond) 2000: OnLAC project begins; creation of AAR-C2 2001: LAC training & use of AAR-C2 begin 2002: First outcome reports & AAR-C2 revisions 2003: First review of provincial AAR-C2 data 2004: OACAS adopts LAC as official priority & establishes OnLAC Council 2005: LAC made one of six priorities of Ontario CW Transformation 2006: Definitive AAR-C2 version disseminated for use by all 53 CASs 2007: Plans of care (12,000 children) to be based on AAR-C2 2008: AAR-C2 to be part of new Single Information System 2009: Next revision of AAR-C2 planned

Lessons from Ontario LAC project for integrating research into practice Phase 1: Preparing favourable integration context: Lesson 1: Form durable partnership between community & university (and, if possible, include government) Lesson 2: Rally broad support, based on LAC’s attractive emphasis on child development & resilience Lesson 3: Secure ongoing LAC research funds (if possible, with contribution from government) Lesson 4: Seize policy reform initiatives as windows of opportunity

Lessons from OnLAC project (continued) Phase 2: Refining AAR’s relevance for practice: Lesson 5: Focus on AAR as key to shifting focus of practice & research from process to outcome Lesson 6: Adapt AAR as needed & implement fully as key instrument for outcome monitoring Lesson 7: Construct AAR data base, for analyses of outcomes, processes, & trajectories Lesson 8: Use data base to examine & enhance AAR psychometrics (reliability & validity)

Lessons from OnLAC project (continued) Phase 3: Using AAR data to improve practice: Lesson 9: Produce annual confidential reports for local child welfare practitioners & managers Lesson 10: Train local analysts to analyze the AAR data from their own organizations Lesson 11: Produce annual public reports for voluntary & government organizations Lesson 12: Review jurisdiction-wide data to establish key priorities for action in coming year

Lessons from OnLAC project (continued) Phase 4: Diffusing impact of AAR data on practice: Lesson 13: Compare outcomes in AAR and general population, to examine resilience Lesson 14: Seize opportunities to present outcome data to voluntary-sector & government-sector organizations Lesson 15: Have AAR embedded, if possible, within government data-collection systems Lesson 16: Disseminate AAR-based papers at conferences & in journal articles & books data