1 Evidence-Based Practices and Promising Approaches in Child Welfare The Service Array Process National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement A Service of the Children’s Bureau, U.S.D.H.H.S. Developed by Sheila Pires in partnership with Katherine J. Lazear and Lisa Conlan (see last slide for credits) April 28, 2008

2 Evidence-Based Practices   Show evidence of effectiveness through carefully controlled scientific studies, including random clinical trials Practice-Based Evidence/Promising Approaches   Show evidence of effectiveness through experience of key stakeholders (e.g., families, youth, providers, administrators) and outcomes data Pires, S. (2002). Building systems of care: A primer. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative. Evidence-Based Practices And Promising Approaches

3 Examples Examples of Evidence-Based Practices   Multisystemic Therapy (MST)   Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MDTFC)   Functional Family Therapy (FFT)   Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (various models)   Intensive Case Management (various models) Examples of Promising Practices   Family Support and Education   Wraparound Service Approaches   Mobile Response and Stabilization Services   Family Group Decision Making Source: Burns & Hoagwood. (2002). Community treatment for youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Oxford University Press and State of New Jersey BH Partnership (

4   Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT)   Abuse Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT)   Parent Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Contact: California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare Contact: Pires, S. (2006). Primer Hands On – Child Welfare. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative. Kauffman Foundation Best Practices Project/ National Child Traumatic Stress Network Evidenced-Based Practices for Children in Child Welfare

5 Effectiveness Research (Burns & Hoagwood, 2002)  Most evidence of efficacy: Intensive case management, in-home services, therapeutic foster care  Less evidence (because not much research done): Crisis services, respite, mentoring, family education and support  Least evidence (and lots of research): Inpatient, residential treatment, therapeutic group home Burns & Hoagwood. (2002). Community Treatment for Youth. New York: Oxford University Press

6 Shared Characteristics of Evidence-Based (and Promising) Interventions  Function as service components within systems of care  Provided in the community  Utilize natural supports, partner with parents, with training and supervision provided by those with formal training  Operate under the auspices of all child-serving systems, not just child welfare  Studied in the field with “real world” children and families  Less expensive than institutional care (e.g., residential treatment, hospitals) (when the full continuum is in place) Burns, B. and Hoagwood, K.( 2002). Community treatment for youth. New York: Oxford University Press.

7 Acknowledgement  This mini-module is taken from Primer Hands On—Child Welfare, The Skill Building Curriculum.  This mini-module is taken from Primer Hands On—Child Welfare, The Skill Building Curriculum. (Go to website:  Developed by Sheila A. Pires, Human Service Collaborative, Washington, DC.  In partnership with: Katherine J. Lazear, Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL., and Lisa Conlan, Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, Washington, DC.