No Place Like Home Texas Region 3 Evaluation Training.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Human Subjects Protections, Concepts, and Procedures Office of Research and Sponsored Programs Tom Lombardo, Ph.D., Director, Research Integrity & Compliance.
Advertisements

Omaha Public Schools Behavior Consultation Team Program Supporting Children with Challenging Behaviors Kylee Starmer – Behavior Consultant Omaha Public.
Subsidized Guardianship Permanency Initiative. SG Introduction Focuses on improving permanency outcomes for children in out-of-home care through a comprehensive.
Fundamentals of IRB Review. Regulatory Role of the IRB Authority to approve, require modifications in (to secure approval), or disapprove all research.
Human Subjects & Research Understanding the protection of human subjects, HSRC, and the nature of the process.
FERPA and IRB: Implications for Testing Centers Judith W. Grant, Ph.D.,CIP NCTA Conference San Antonio, Texas August 6, 2009.
DO NO HARM IRRB Presentation Purposes Responsibilities Processes NLU IRRB Home page.
Introduction to the Child & Adolescent Needs and Strengths Assessment (CANS) Our Community. Our Kids. Dr. Gary Buff, Ed.D. President and COO.
Introduction to Research
FOUNDATIONS OF NURSING RESEARCH Sixth Edition CHAPTER Copyright ©2012 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Foundations of Nursing Research,
THE ETHICAL CONDUCT OF RESEARCH Chapter 4. HISTORY OF ETHICAL PROTECTIONS The Nuremberg Code The Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), United.
R ESEARCH P ARTICIPATION History, Informed Consent, Participation, Protection.
Electronic EDI e-EDI. The EDI has been in use since 1999 using a paper-based system and computerized spreadsheets to collect and manage EDI data. Over.
REAL-START : Risk Evaluation of Autism in Latinos (Screening Tools and Referral Training) Assuring No Child Enters Kindergarten With an Undetected Developmental.
Human Subject Research by Students at William Paterson University May 2011.
The Goals and Principles of Human Participant Protection Part 4: Vulnerable Populations.
15 September Development of Nursing Research.
What is your Acronym IQ? ASC DOC DOS FYS SACS NEH NIH OSHA IRB TGIF.
Fundamentals of Evaluation for Public Health Programs ROBERT FOLEY, M.ED. NIHB TRIBAL PUBLIC HEALTH SUMMIT MARCH 31,
No Place Like Home Larimer County Evaluation Training.
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD HISTORY AND ETHICS. 2 Ethical History : Holocaust : Nuremburg Trials 1964: Declaration of Helsinki :
What is your Acronym IQ? ASC DOC DOS FYS SACS NEH NIH OSHA IRB TGIF.
No Place Like Home Cross-Site Evaluation Training.
The Human Subjects Institutional Review Board Workshop Part 1: An Introduction to Human Subjects Research Ethics and the IRB Process Presented by Alena.
IRB Belmont Report Federally mandated Risks -> minimized & reasonable Informed consent rospective Approval Prospective Approval Monitoring for subject.
1 Welcomes You To It’s Those Wonderful Rights! Welcome To read the script that goes with each slide, click on the Notes tab (to the left of this screen).
204: Assessing Safety in Out-of-Home Care Updates.
SUNY Oswego Human Subjects Committee Last Revised 10/28/2011.
University of North Carolina at Greensboro Protecting Research Participants.
Office of Research Integrity and Compliance March 2011.
IRB BASICS: Issues in Ethics and Human Subject Protections Prepared by Ed Merrill Department of Psychology November 12, 2009.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) What is our Purpose and Role for Ethical Research.
Ethics Ethics Applied to Research. Ethics in Nursing Research Scientific Misconduct – a fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practice that.
The ethical conduct of research with human participants Nancy E. Kass, ScD Department of Health Policy and Management Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of.
INTRODUCTIONS A TIME FOR SHARING Hello and Welcome back !
Human Subject Protection Research Imperatives. History World War II - Nuremberg Tuskegee Study Belmont Report Modern Problems - Inadequacy of “Good Intentions”
Chapter 5 Conducting & Reading Research Baumgartner et al Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework. THEORY Theory is: a generalized abstraction about the relationship between two or more concepts a systematic abstract.
Practice Area 1: Arrest, Identification, & Detention Practice Area 2: Decision Making Regarding Charges Practice Area 3: Case Assignment, Assessment &
Dustin Yocum, MA Institutional Review Board University of Illinois HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH.
Ethics Ethics Applied to Research Back to Class 2.
Project KEEP: San Diego 1. Evidenced Based Practice  Best Research Evidence  Best Clinical Experience  Consistent with Family/Client Values  “The.
NAVIGATING THE IRB PROCESS University Institutional Review Board California State University, Stanislaus.
IRB Process Overview Ling Wang IRB Representative Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences.
Intersection of Fostering Connections and McKinney-Vento What is the connection? How do we connect? Susie Greenfelder, Education Planner MI Department.
What Institutional Researchers Should Know about the IRB Susan Thompson Senior Research Analyst Office of Institutional Research Presented at the Texas.
Objective 9/23/15 Today we will be completing our research methods unit & begin reviewing for the upcoming unit assessment 9/25. Agenda: -Turn in all homework.
WELCOME to the TULANE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION OFFICE WORKSHOP for SOCIAL/BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH (March 2, 2010) Tulane University HRPO Uptown.
No Place Like Home Rapid City Evaluation Training.
Introduction to Research. Purpose of Research Evidence-based practice Validate clinical practice through scientific inquiry Scientific rational must exist.
Annie McLaughlin, M.T. Carol Davis, Ed.D. University of Washington
HEALTHY YOUTH SURVEY 2016 SURVEY COORDINATOR TRAINING.
Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research. Historical Perspective on Ethics Nazi Experimentation in WWII –“medical experiments” –Nuremberg War Crime Trials.
Principles for the Protection of Human Rights Beneficence Primary goal of health care as doing good for clients under our care. Good care requires that.
Chapter 2: Ethical Issues in Program Evaluation. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Federal mandate for IRBs –Concern during 1970s about unethical research.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subject Protections: Working with the IRB Erin A McClure, PhD Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
Protecting Human Subjects Overview of the Issues Applications to Educational Research The IRB Process.
[Presentation location] [Presentation date] (Confirm ABT logo) Building Bridges and Bonds (B3): An introduction.
Exceptional Children Program “Serving Today’s Students” Student Assistance Team.
No Place Like Home Cross-Site Evaluation Training.
A FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PRESCRIPTION PROGRAM
Los Angeles Unified School District
Ethics in Social Psychology
No Place Like HOME Texas Kick Off Meeting
Texas Region 3 Evaluation Training
No Place Like Home Pilot Tester Discussion and Consent Training
Child Welfare Demonstration Project (CWDP)
ETHICAL ASPECTS OF HEALTH RESEARCH
Ethics Review Morals: Rules that define what is right and wrong Ethics: process of examining moral standards and looking at how we should interpret and.
Human Participants Research
Presentation transcript:

No Place Like Home Texas Region 3 Evaluation Training

General Staff Survey Please open your browser to: Read the informational page, and if you agree to take the survey, please click “Next” to begin All of your responses are CONFIDENTIAL It should take approximately 15 minutes to complete

NPLH Summary Evaluation of three child welfare agencies’ use of family meetings with families receiving in-home services –Process What does practice look like? Tools: focus groups, observations, surveys –Outcomes Child welfare placements (number and type), re- reports, recurrence of maltreatment, etc. Family functioning and protective factors Satisfaction and service provision Tools: administrative data, surveys

Your role… Is critical! To provide data and feedback about your experience working in child welfare and with family meetings –As part of a federally-funded study that will be disseminated nationally To recruit families to participate, so that they can provide data and feedback about their experience To participate in the feedback loop – ongoing communication

WhoWhat is the value? …the fieldResearch is mixed and the evidence-base of FGDM is moderate—more research is needed Additional research can support the national spread of family meetings or suggest the need for alternative practices …familiesFamilies receive interventions with known effectiveness Opportunity for families to provide input about their experiences with CPS What’s in it for…?

WhoWhat is the value? …CPS Staff and Agencies (You!) Accountability. Opportunity to get input from staff who know the most about the families (You!) Knowledge of effectiveness of family meetings can increase investment in the practice Visibility and respect for advancing the field and systematically examining internal practices Increased knowledge about the use and potential of evaluation Results can impact system and practice change What’s in it for…?

Human Subjects Overview –History of human subjects research –Historical laws and documents protecting human subjects –Your role in protecting the rights of participants*

Human Subjects History Before there were human subjects protections: Nuremberg (1930’s – 1940’s) –Concentration camp prisoners, twins Willowbrook Hepatitis Study (1956) –Mentally retarded, institutionalized children Brooklyn Jewish Chronic Disease Cancer Study (1963) –Poor, eldery San Antonio Contraception Study (1971) –Mostly poor, women Tuskegee Syphilis Study ( ) –Poor, black males

Human Subjects History Attempts to protect human subjects: The Nuremberg Code (1947) –Informed consent. Benefits outweigh risks. Voluntary participation. Declaration of Helsinki (1964…2000) –“Concern for the interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science & society” National Research Act (1974) –Tuskegee  Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval required if getting U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services funds The Belmont Report (1979) –“Justice, beneficence, respect for persons”

Our Role Our Role in Protecting Participants Rights Give participants all the information that they may need to make an informed decision. Ensure that participants understand the information Give participants an opportunity to consider involvement in the project on an initial and ongoing basis (can stop at any time).

News You Can Use What’s important to know: –Risks to you personally are minimal –There are potential benefits to children, families, and to staff in the agency –Your participation is voluntary Privacy and Confidentiality –All survey information is confidential and used only for the study –Survey data is maintained by Kempe Center NPLH evaluation team –Individually identifiable information will NOT be shared outside of the Kempe Center evaluation team

Evaluation Terms Evidence-Based Practice Confidentiality vs. Anonymity Experimental research design –Random assignment Bias Fidelity Validity Process vs. Outcome evaluation –How vs. What Qualitative vs. Quantitative methods –Depth vs. Breadth

Evaluation Design - TX General Staff Survey Families meet eligibility criteria and notified about the study; Parent Survey Random Group Assignment Meeting participants notified about the study; Fidelity Survey Follow Up Survey Case-Specific Questionnaire Right now FBSS worker makes FGC referral* FGC 1-2 months post-FGC FBSS Case closure/transfer to CVS *Your unit becomes eligible for a monthly incentive based on FGC referrals.

NPLH Surveys 1.General Staff Survey 2.Parent Survey 3.Meeting Fidelity Survey a)Participant b)Facilitator/Coordinator 4.Case-Specific Questionnaire 5.Follow-Up Survey a)Parent – Intervention b)Parent – Control c)Meeting Participant

Surveys that are distributed TO you General Staff Survey –All staff who have a role in the evaluation (case workers, coordinators/facilitators, supervisors) Coordinator-Facilitator Meeting Fidelity Survey –Coordinators/Facilitators only Case-Specific Questionnaire –Case-workers only

General Staff Survey Purpose: –To understand more about: Who utilizes family meetings in CPS How much experience staff have with family meetings How staff perceive family meetings The context in which meetings are happening. –We can use this information to inform our process and outcome evaluations

General Staff Survey Who? You! –FBSS Case workers providing in-home services –Family meeting facilitators/coordinators –Supervisors of both When? Now How? Via Survey Monkey

Coordinator-Facilitator Fidelity Survey Purpose: –To understand more about: How, why, and when family meetings are used Who is invited to and who attends family meetings Other characteristics of family meetings –Fidelity –Logistics –Meeting fidelity is part of our process evaluation

Coordinator-Facilitator Fidelity Survey Who? Meeting coordinator/facilitator When? After the Family Group Conference (FGC) –Once back at your desk/computer (same day or day after) How? Via Survey Monkey

Case-Specific Questionnaire Purpose: –To understand more about: What services in-home families receive Are services provided impacted by family meetings? –Services provided is one of our outcome evaluation variables

Case-Specific Questionnaire Who? Case workers When? At case closure OR transfer from in-home services to out-of-home services (i.e. from FBSS to CVS) –Transfer does NOT mean voluntary placements –It does mean a formal or legal change in custody How? Via Survey Monkey –We will send you a ‘tickler’ or reminder

Surveys that are distributed BY you Parent Survey –By FBSS workers –At face-to-face meetings with family –At point of referral for an FGC Participant Fidelity Survey –By coordinators/facilitators –At FGCs

What you ARE responsible for To distribute: 1.Information Sheet Explains project to participants. Consent is not required but participation is voluntary. What is voluntary? Completion of surveys NOT participation in child welfare services. 2.Distribute Paper and pencil surveys with: –Parent Survey – self-addressed and stamped envelope with a flyer with a phone number to call for assistance –Meeting Participant – large self-addressed, stamped envelope for all surveys in the center of the room/table To pre-fill: -Case ID and FBSS Stage ID fields before distributing Caregiver Surveys or Participant Fidelity Surveys to families/meeting participants.

What you are NOT responsible for Explaining the content of surveys to families Helping families/meeting participants fill out surveys People with questions can call the number provided on the Information Sheet (have extra copies available for them to keep) Other household members or family supports, etc. can help. In order to maintain confidentiality, it is important that you merely handout surveys and provide no more information than what is included on the information sheets.

Parent Survey Purpose: –To understand more about: The characteristics of families receiving in-home child welfare services (e.g. demographics) The protective capacities of parents The parent-child relationship and child behavior –This information can be linked to outcomes

Parent Survey Who? Parents or legal guardians When? –Face-to-face meeting –At time of referral for FGC How? –Paper and pencil –Self-addressed and stamped envelope –Distributed by FBSS worker –Parents can call the number on the information sheet to take the survey via phone

Participant Fidelity Survey Purpose: –To understand more about: How, why, and when family meetings are used Who is invited to and who attends family meetings Other characteristics of family meetings –Fidelity –Logistics –Meeting fidelity is part of our process evaluation –We want to hear from families and other participants as well as staff.

Participant Fidelity Survey Who? Any meeting participant who agrees to fill it out When? AT the family meeting –Section 1: Before the meeting starts –Section 2: After the meeting ends How? Paper and Pencil –Meeting participants will fill out paper-pencil surveys and place them in a large envelope –The coordinator/facilitator will collect them in a safe spot to be mailed to the evaluation team

Surveys administered by evaluation team How? Paper and pencil; via mail 3 follow-up survey versions with the following components: –Meeting Follow-Up Who? All meeting participants who filled out the initial Meeting Participant Fidelity Survey –Parent Follow-Up Who? All (intervention and control group) parents –Family Satisfaction Who? All (intervention and control group) parents AND meeting participants

Coordinators/Facilitators Meeting Log Facilitators: –You will be asked to fill out information an additional spreadsheet (not unlike what you may be doing now) Ex. Date of referral, meeting type, date of meeting, meeting cancellation reason, etc. –This will be posted on a document sharing website –We will send the link to you before data collection begins

NPLH Survey Summary Case workers: –Complete: General Staff Survey (1 time) Case Specific-Questionnaire (for every study case) –Distribute: Parent Survey (to every study case) Facilitators: –Complete: General Staff Survey (1 time) Facilitator Fidelity Survey (for every study family meeting) Complete meeting log (for every study family meeting) –Distribute: Meeting Participant Fidelity Survey (for every study family meeting)

Where can I find survey materials? Margie Casey, Administrative Assistant 1200 E. Copeland Rd., Suite 400 M/C –You can find extra survey materials here Parent surveys with self-addressed, stamped envelopes Extra information sheets Meeting Participant fidelity surveys and envelopes –Facilitators can drop off survey packets here after meetings for bulk mailing at a later date –When you are running low on materials, we will deliver more

When can I find them? When do we start? October 29th!

THANK YOU! If, throughout the life of this project, you have any questions please contact: Heather Allan, NPLH Project Coordinator Phone: