The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare

The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare
Chris will open

University of Louisville Consultant, NRCOI and NCIC
Who We Are Kentucky Washington Florida New Hampshire New York City Kansas Oklahoma North Carolina Virginia Indiana Anita P. Barbee, M.S.S.W., Ph.D. Professor University of Louisville Consultant, NRCOI and NCIC Academic Worked with collaborated with

Deputy Project Director Child Welfare Information Gateway
Who We Are Information service for the Children’s Bureau Experienced child welfare content and customer services team Provide the information you need, when you need it Christine Tappan Deputy Project Director Child Welfare Information Gateway Purpose/goals Child Welfare Information Gateway is a service of the Children’s Bureau. As part of our responsibility to provide knowledge management and knowledge transfer to our target audience, our charge then becomes providing the right information to the right people at the right time. Includes information on juvenile justice Chris will start introductions

www.childwelfare.gov Chris
We Launched a Redesigned Child Welfare Information Gateway Website-- Our primary information channel offers easy navigation, access to popular content from the homepage, and new interactive features. Main site search is in the upper right corner along with a child welfare glossary, FAQs, and a site map. Thumb Drives in Bags

Mission Promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, youth, and families by connecting professionals and the public to practical, timely, and essential information on: Programs Research Statistics Laws & policies Management & supervision Training resources Chris As a service of the Children’s Bureau, Information Gateway’s mission and goals are the same as theirs: Supporting CB’s mission to achieve safety, permanency, and well-being Helping CW professionals connect with Programs that work Research that translates to practice Statistics that describe the issues and the scope of services Laws and policies across the States, organized by topic Training resources that enhance day-to-day practice Key themes: Partnering across the CB T&TA network, with other Federal agencies, and major organizations across the country to build capacity and support systems change User-centered services Translating knowledge to practice in dynamic ways

Children’s Bureau’s Support of Practice Models
Reference how to find information on Information Gateway Child Welfare Information Gateway hosts and refers to pieces written about PMs: State Guides and Manuals The CalSWEC paper CITE Barbee, et al (2011) paper the Antle and Barbee research on PM effectiveness NRCOI has written “Understanding and Developing Child Welfare Practice Models” posted in 2008 and sponsored several webinars on the topic between 2008 and 2012 NRCPFC has written “Family Centered Practice and Practice Models” in 2011? CB Implementation Centers such as NCIC, APWIC, MPCWIC have conducted projects with several states to install PMs

Goals of Our Presentation
To be practical in how we share our experiences with you To help you know how you can choose and create a Practice Model To offer a roadmap to help you install and maintain a Practice Model Chris – I’ll put graphics on this slide Start with motorcycle video – in 10 years this is child welfare across california Practice model is a journey PM stimulate organizational development and inspirational Be really clear on what your goals are, what you want the PM to accomplish before you get going Very clear on values and theories and how those relate to practice – meaning you operationalize how the Vs & Ps across the life of the case and across the organization Like SBC – enhanced with Well choregraphed Everyone new what they should be doing

Four Key Questions

We will take you … From “A” to “A” Academic to Applied
Through our primary message, which is… Be clear on what theories, values, and principles you want to guide practice Make sure those theories, values, and principles are fully fleshed out across casework practice, the entire organization, and the system Understand the complexity of implementing a Practice Model and the role that fidelity checking can have in installing and maintaining desired practice Be clear on what the goals for your Practice Model are and what you want to accomplish before you begin the rollout

“Start with the end in mind”
First lesson learned – start with the end in mind!! What do you want the child welfare system across California to look like in 10 years? PM is a dance that takes a long time to choreograph, learn, and practice until some improvisation is possible and outcomes are achieved during the performance Embed motorcycle youtube video here Planned choreography is “when a choreographer dictates motion and form in detail, leaving little or no opportunity for the dancer to exercise personal interpretation.” Improvisation occurs “when the choreographer provides dancers with a score (i.e., generalized directives) that serves as guidelines for improvised movement and form. Improvisational scores typically offer wide latitude for personal interpretation by the dancer.” Tie to PM in Child Welfare- Chris will review what the motorcycle video means for choosing, installing and maintaining a practice model in child welfare with a focus on how to “choreograph”, “improvise” and “practice” until everyone is ready for the “performance”

The Academic lens on Practice Models
Theory, research and evidence The Academic lens on Practice Models

What Is a Practice Model?
A practice model for casework management in child welfare should be theoretically and values based, as well as capable of being fully integrated into and supported by a child welfare system. The model should clearly articulate and operationalize specific casework skills and practices that child welfare workers must perform through all stages and aspects of child welfare casework in order to optimize the safety, permanency and well being of children who enter, move through and exit the child welfare system. Refresh from webinar Child Welfare Casework Practice Model Definition (Barbee, Christensen, Antle, Wandersman & Cahn, 2011)

Keys to Intervention Success
A theoretical base, including a theory of change A fully articulated set of actions and skills that can be observed for presence and strength System supports Evaluation results, including data benchmarks to monitor the efficacy of the model As discussed in the CALSWEC Webinar in June… 1) Delineates how to think about or conceptualize the practice with the population of focus. The theoretical foundation can respond to four areas: The conceptualization of the problem (e.g., child maltreatment is embedded in the stage of a family’s life development) The change theory that informs how that problem can be remediated (e.g., self efficacy theory) The theory that guides the critical contribution and influence of the relationship alliance or partnership (e.g., solution focused theory) The core practice values that underlie the approach to clients and the problem (e.g. family centered or strengths based). 2) A casework practice model should specify the practice skills that are to be carried out and measured for fidelity and implementation adherence. These include: Core practice skills that guide practice across the life of a case (e.g., engagement, assessment, planning, decision making) so that even when there is no direction about a specific type of encounter, the theory and meta-skills together can guide practice Clearly specified and distinct practice skills for each stage of a child welfare case including intake, investigation, in-home services, placement into and monitoring of progress in out of home care (reunification, foster care recruitment and certification, adoption) This is where incorporating “techniques” particular to different stages of the case can be useful as long as they align with the values and theoretical orientation of the overarching PM Specific skills for dealing with distinct family issues as child sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence involvement. 3) The third component involves the ability to create a system infrastructure that supports and reinforces the theoretical orientation and practice skills that are a part of the practice model. This would include: Policy, training, documentation requirements and forms, a SACWIS System (IT) Supervision and worker performance evaluations that align with the casework practice model Quality Assurance (QA) and continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes that align with and evaluate adherence to the casework practice model (measuring fidelity and linking to outcomes). The importance of systems alignment and a list of drivers of systems change has been supported by research in other fields of practice, collected in the NIRN model (Fixsen,et al, 2005) and by research on implementation in child welfare (Cahn, 2010). The fourth component involves development of data points to monitor fidelity to the model and, once fidelity is achieved, to evaluate the impact on outcomes, in this case for children and families in the child welfare system. Process or Implementation Evaluation assessing fidelity to the model is essential before embarking on outcome evaluation Benchmarks important in child welfare would include the federal Child and Family Services Review outcomes of safety, permanency and well-being as well as other intervening or process measures that may be relevant (e.g. employee retention, engagement of community partners, and so on). Wandersman (2009)

Theory of Practice Delineates how to think about or conceptualize the practice with the population of focus. The theoretical foundation can respond to four areas: The conceptualization of the problem (e.g., child maltreatment is embedded in the stage of a family’s life development) The change theory that informs how that problem can be remediated (e.g., self-efficacy theory) The theory that guides the critical contribution and influence of the relationship alliance or partnership (e.g., solution-focused theory) The core practice values that underlie the approach to clients and the problem (e.g., family-centered or strengths-based)

Integrated Framework from:
Family Life Cycle Theory (Carter & McGoldrick, 1999) Family Life Cycle Theory Relapse Prevention (Cognitive Behavioral Theory) (Marlatt & Gordon, 1985; Pithers, 1990; Beck, 1993) Cognitive Behavior Therapy Solution-Focused Therapy (Berg, 1994; DeShazer, 1988) All three models have their own well-documented evidence base. Solution Focused Interviewing A. What is interesting about family life cycle theory is that it simultaneously: 1) Situates the abuse and neglect in normal child and family development This normalizes the struggles of families in the child welfare system- and gives hope that there are ways to manage these common challenges Also includes family configuration (e.g. single mother or father with absent second parent due to incarceration, not knowing who they are, abandonment; blended family with children mothered or fathered by former partners; multi-generational families with grandmother having primary responsibility for child rearing) and shows that we have thought through the challenges of each types of family configuration 3) The expertise the family brings to the table around family life cycle theory is how members of their particular race, culture, religion or other special group affects thinking about and solutions for these various developmental challenges B. Solution focused interviewing comes out of the social constructivist theory that all individuals and families have value, worth, the need to be empowered and expertise in their own family. The worker partners with the family in helping problem solve to reach mutually agreed upon goals to keep children safe and home In addition solution focused theory focuses on family strengths and the times that the family does well. Out of solution focused work came the notion of focusing on exceptions to negative situations, the times the family gets it right, building on those successes, the miracle question, appreciative inquiry and focusing on the positive versus dysfunction. This theory and practice helps flesh out family centered, strengths based and social justice values C) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy which is based on cognitive and behavioral theories of change. Relapse Prevention is based on understanding of change in those with compulsions- violent reactions to being out of control, addictions, problems with impulse control This part is critical to recognizing that something did go wrong in the family, helping everyone understand what leads to maltreatment, and in understanding the circumstances, thoughts and feelings that precede maltreatment a parent and the family system can take control of themselves and can take steps to prevent future situations that lead to maltreatment, take steps to step away when in danger of losing control, take steps to put the child in the care of others if those factors are likely to be present… thus there is accountability for the maltreatment but again hope that is can be avoided, prevented, etc. in the future- see next slide Current Trauma research shows us that having a trauma history is now one of those preceding factors that makes people vulnerable to emotional regulation issues, addiction, violence in the face of losing control and avoidance leading to neglect.

High Risk Situations for Abuse and Neglect
Justification Denial Guilt and shame Wild promises Triggering Events Early Buildup Negative thoughts “Poor me” Blaming others High Risk Situations for Abuse and Neglect Harmful Incident Physical abuse Sexual abuse Substance use Lack of action Late Buildup Physical signs Using fantasy Building excuses

What a Practice Model Is Not…
Simply a philosophy of practice or a series of philosophies or principles Untethered from theory A technique; thus, only focused on one piece of practice such as intake, assessments, or working with particular types of challenges Executed without regard to organizational culture and climate Family-Centered, Strengths-Based, Culturally Competent

Getting to Outcomes (GTO)
This framework is embedded in empowerment evaluation theory (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005) and uses a social cognitive theory of behavioral change (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977; Bandura, 2004). It has the advantage of being a results-based accountability approach to change that has been used in smaller organizations to aid them in reaching desired outcomes for clients in such areas as preventing alcohol and substance abuse among teens as well as developing assets for youth (Fisher, et al., 2007) and preventing teen pregnancy (Lesesne et al., 2008).

GTO Effectiveness Using a longitudinal, quasi-experimental design, Chinman et al. (2008) examined the impact of using GTO on (1) improvements in individual capacity to implement substance abuse interventions with fidelity and on (2) overall program performance in programs that did and did not utilize a GTO approach. They found that the programs utilizing a GTO approach performed significantly better at both the individual and program levels than those that did not utilize the GTO approach. Using a longitudinal, quasi-experimental design, Chinman et al (2008) examined the impact of using GTO on improvements in individual capacity to implement substance abuse interventions with fidelity and on overall program performance in programs that did and did not utilize a GTO approach. They found the programs utilizing a GTO approach performed significantly better at both the individual and program levels than those that did not utilize the GTO approach.

Steps in GTO Identifying needs and resources
Setting goals to meet the identified needs Determining what science-based or evidence-based practices (EBPs) or evidence-informed practices or casework practice models exist to meet the needs Assessing actions that need to be taken to ensure that the EBP fits the organizational or community context Assessing what organizational capacities are needed to implement the practice or program

Creating and implementing a plan to develop organizational capacities in the current organizational and environmental context Conducting a process evaluation to determine if the program is being implemented with fidelity Conducting an outcome evaluation to determine if the program is working and producing the desired outcomes Determining, through a continuous quality improvement (CQI) process, how the program can be improved Taking steps to ensure sustainability of the program

GTO Support System Model
Achieve Desired Outcomes Actual Outcomes Achieved Training + QI/QA + Tools + TA + Current Level of Capacity #1 Needs/ Resources Assessment #2 Goals #3 Best Practices #9 Improve/ CQI #8 Outcome Evaluation #7 Implementation & Process #4 Fit #5 Capacities #6 Plan #10 Sustain = +

Choosing a Practice model
GTO Steps 1-3: Formation of an Implementation team to do the GTO work Step 1 of GTO: Assessing Needs “What are the underlying needs and conditions that must be addressed by the casework practice model?” This is a process of defining and framing the issue, problem or condition. Usually, public child welfare agencies are faced with failures in outcomes of safety, permanency and well-being among children who come into contact with the child welfare agency. Step 2 of GTO: Setting Goals “What are the goals and objectives that, if realized, will address the needs and change the underlying conditions?” This, of course, is the process of identifying goals and objectives for meeting the identified need and can quickly lead to the search for information prescribed in the third GTO step. Many states include these goals in their Program Improvement Plan (PIP) or bi-annual Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) or IV-B Plan or through a Consent Decree. This is where values of how to practice with families begin to emerge. NH used a learning organization and solution focused lens to approach changes in their child welfare system. Step 3 of GTO: Choosing an evidence informed practice model “Which science- based, evidence -based or evidence- informed casework practice models or best-practice programs can be used to reach our goals?” To choose which casework practice model is best for the state and the workforce that the state can afford, a review of the literature may yield casework practice models that have evidence of positive impact for client families. Ideally in this step, multiple models would be available to be studied and a model could be chosen to address the identified needs and goals for improvement. Consultants, national technical assistance providers from federal, private, or philanthropic initiatives, and university partners may provide assistance in identification of a practice model or a specific practice for a specific issue. Choosing a Practice model

Break into a couple of slides?
The question the next two days is? Can CA come to agreement: Do you want a PM that every county will use to guide practice? Has CA wrestled with pros and cons Has CA examined pilot results and used that data to inform the discussion to see if any consensus is possible? Decided to allow a “statewide” model take precedence over individual county autonomy? Has CA delineated the values and theories that will underlie your PM? Perhaps see value in SBC including trauma-informed care theory and restorative justice as the configuration you can live with It is very important for states, counties, cities (whatever level of organization has ultimate responsibility for child welfare practice) to move beyond values and principles of practice (which tend to be vague and are not easily or often operationalized) and identify theories of change that can help guide practice, especially in situations that are outside the norm. Virtually all “practice models” just focus on principles and do not articulate or rely on theories. Jurisdictions run into trouble when the “practice model” they adopt does not actually focus on outcomes and all aspects of casework practice (e.g. safety, permanency and well-being, assessment, case planning, family intervention, etc). Does CA have an idea of how to operationalize those values and theories in observable daily practice behaviors? Have a head start if adopt SBC as part of your model, but also need to add how will incorporate cultural differences and practice restorative justice in a child welfare setting Jurisdictions tend to adopt a number of useful “techniques” or strategies that address specific aspects of practice (e.g., structural decision making as a tool to aid the assessment process, differential response, family group decision making, family finding, market segmentation). This works best when the jurisdiction adopts an overarching practice model and there is an effort to: Practice these strategies with fidelity (e.g., with the appropriate populations, following protocols) Reconcile existing strategies with the practice model by ensuring that the theoretical approaches and values are compatible and deliberately articulating how all of these techniques fit together in practice. Choose additional strategies that are compatible with the overarching practice model. Modify or eliminate practices that contradict and are incompatible with the practice model. Find a way to fit all of the pieces together and articulate the total schema so that all staff understand the whole picture. In order to do these first 4 steps, the leadership and a cross sectional team need to do the work of sitting down, talking through and putting pen to paper to articulate how these techniques do and do not fit with the overarching practice model, examining alternate techniques to see if something else may work better, making decisions about what to keep, what to modify and what to abandon and then finding a way to visually and verbally articulate not only the overarching practice model, but also exactly how each technique fits. (See NH work as a great example). Is CA willing to change systems to accommodate and support the new PM (change policy, training, SACWIS system, forms, case consultation model of supervisors, QA/CQI to incorporate measure of fidelity to PM and evaluate outcomes) in every county? Does CA realize they may need an organizational structure like GTO to help them imbed the PM in the agency in order to reach outcomes? They need to leave the meeting with a conceptual roadmap for practice

Installation of a Practice Model
GTO Steps 4-10: While your questions focused on buy in and fidelity- notice that other steps are necessary to install PM properly and maintain implementation over time in order to reach desired outcomes Step 4 in GTO: Assessing the fit of a model to the agency culture This expressed commitment is facilitated by firsthand experience with understanding the model from the beginning. Leadership support is one of the first aspects of fit. In order to adopt a casework practice model, agency leadership must make a clear commitment to the model and express that commitment both inside the organization and outside with external community partners (e.g., Martin, et al, 2002). “What actions need to be taken so that the selected program, practice, or set of interventions fits our child welfare agency?” For example Solution Based Casework was developed in Kentucky, a state without any recognized tribes. When Washington state adopted the SBC practice model, tribal input was included in the process of implementation. For example, the team may find a name that brands the model for that state or jurisdiction, while still acknowledging the original source, (e.g., SBC was called Family Solutions for a while in Kentucky) or changing aspects of the existing model to accommodate cultural groups which are particular to the state. At this point, the organization has to assess adoption (fit) issues and possible adaptations of parts of the model that are not core components (Fixsen, et al, 2005). NH also is incorporating Family Team Meetings into their new practice model (as we did in Kentucky) – Known now as “Solution-Based Family Meetings”. In every state, there has been a naturally occurring tension between the need for infrastructure change (information systems, policy, supervision, quality assurance), and the desire to train the personnel who provide the direct practice. Many of these systems cannot be changed before those who would change the systems fully understand the new practice and its implications. A significant challenge of this step is the stakeholder’s progressive realization that in order to change practice in the field, so many aspects of the system's infrastructure must change to facilitate the new practice. Training typically occurs first because 1) often the degree of system change is at first underestimated, Infrastructure change is more challenging due to costs, past financial investment in old systems, and past administrative investment. 2) training is easier to accomplish quickly and improves worker acceptance of infrastructure change, and 3 This includes assessing the organizational capacity for change in two major areas: Step 5 of GTO: Assessing Organizational Capacities The organizational capacity (facilitators of change, and barriers to change), referred to by other models (Fixsen, et al, 2001) as ‘infrastructure’ changes. The human capacity (identifying potential champions for the change, as well as clinical skills of staff, as well as where resistance may lie) and In addition, the assessment of human resource capacity should include an assessment of the clinical skills of workers and their ability to implement the casework model as designed. Early adopters can be trained in the model to spread the “good news” about SBC and serve as coaches Some providers have the characteristics of self efficacy, openness to change, and readiness to implement a practice model and some do not, thus an assessment of readiness/openness to EBP (Aarons, 2004) and a readiness to learn (Coetsee, 1998) should be conducted as a part of the early organizational culture and climate check. Organizational capacity must be assessed for the ability to support the casework model. It is in this phase that the stakeholder team may need to work on ways to help the agency enhance agency and system leadership, particularly help leaders create a vision and support is open to and ready for change, assess and help to change the organizational culture so that it is a learning environment that for the change effort, approaches such as appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider, 1996) and empowerment evaluation (Fetterman & Wandersman, 2005) to achieve the support needed for transformational change, engage, train, and retain a more qualified and motivated workforce using participatory identify the resources and other infrastructure to bring about the change on top of day to process, and personnel, build cross-functional and cross-organizational teams to achieve change in policy, practice, communicate results of quality improvement and change efforts to continue the momentum of these efforts. day duties, and Step 5: Assessing Organizational Capacities in NH Design Team application and selection process Design Team members responsible for local facilitation of change Supervisors – Supervisor Training Communication Team, WorkForce Development Committee, Organizational Learning and Training Team, Evaluation Team Project Team members assigned areas of responsibility for change, i.e. “Organizational Readiness” Survey Everyone is a potential leader of change “Leadership” – authorized change - and asked for it to be owned at all levels! All staff “Readiness for Change” training Set expectations Everyone needs to be prepared to envision change and understand their role Another part of assessing capacity is to find the organizational resources that will be needed to implement the plan. It is here that the child welfare organization will need to study how to adapt systemically to the needs of the new practice model by making progress on the time-consuming infrastructure changes. Some of the issues that typically emerge are the Resources Explored Challenges to change a) financial and personnel resources to support the new practice, d) model- specific training for administrators, managers, and front line supervisors. c) criteria revisions for quality assurance and CQI procedures, and b) rewriting of policy, Planning 1) a plan to train and maintain staff competency in the new practice model, and The assessments will lead the implementation team to the development and implementation of two specific and long range plans: Step 6 of GTO: Implementation Planning Steps 2) a plan for infrastructure change to support the new practice model. infrastructure changes necessary to support the practice model (e.g. changes in policy, equally important (and more difficult) to develop and implement a plan for the related agency Typically, jurisdictions quickly recognize the need for the first (training staff). However, it is information systems, quality assurance, and staff evaluation). NH created both plans. Stages of Training the Model Across the System A training of trainers (TOT) and/or a training of key experts who will provide mentoring on the use of the model, reinforce key concepts in the model and trouble-shoot where questions and concerns are raised must be conducted to insure that internal expertise is developed. These can be supervisors, managers, workers and trainers 2) Development of a comprehensive transfer of training program 1) Train Leadership 3) A pilot group of front line supervisors needs to be trained so they can become coaches to Training (continued) In NH these consist of trainers, supervisors and administrators 4) Train the pilot front line workers in the practice model and reinforce through case other supervisors and workers In NH, training of both supervisors and staff occurred statewide, and then more certification is occurring first in PIP designated “Advanced Practice Sites”. consultation with their pilot supervisors model as well as the front line workers 5) Train the remainder of the supervisors in both the practice model and the case consultation That is what NH did once everyone was trained. They also are aligning their training evaluation across trainings with an emphasis on assessing knowledge and skill development in the model and transfer of learning to the field At this point the new worker training and other support trainings need to be revised to incorporate the practice model Training of and giving presentations to community partners to engage them in the new As noted before, NH is expanding their training evaluation to align with the new model and its implementation Evaluate the training and case consultation to ensure learning and transfer are occurring. This helps in establishing fidelity to the model. Plans for Changing the Infrastructure NH involved CASA, Resource Parent Training, the Courts and Juvenile Justice practice. Use outside funds, reallocate existing funds, ask for additional funds to ensure that the financial and personnel resources that are needed can be put into place Conduct evaluation Increase and modify the curriculum and delivery mode of training (provide materials for learning, coaching and mentoring) Re-write policy Educate other organizational partners. New forms, assessment tools, case planning tools (e.g. prevention plans, safety plans, in home treatment plans, out of home care plans, aftercare plans), case monitoring or progress tracking tools, and closure tools need to be modified or added and old tools need to be deleted so that the new ways of practice are not competing with the old ways. Computer and paper systems that support practice need to change to accommodate the new practice model. Change the Computer System It is better to change the form to be conceptually consistent with the practice model than to expect to train the worker to resist the structuring pull of the old form. It has been our experience that forms play an underestimated role in shaping worker behavior in the field. Workers tend to gravitate their sequencing of questions based upon the order of the form they are filling out, or will have to fill out once back in the office. CFSR tool, but also with the new casework practice model components. The CQI/QA system needs to align the case review tool, not only with the The new practice model components should be incorporated into the case review tool. This is essential for measurement of: a) the fidelity of daily practice to the model, which will, in turn, aid in determining training and supervision needs, and c) the levels of adherence to the model statewide and by area, county, team, and individual b) the impact of adherence to the model on outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being, In order to have enough data to track adherence and outcomes, some states may need to conduct CQI case reviews more frequently in order to have enough data to make judgments about how the process is going. An inexpensive way to do this is to involve front line supervisors and specialists as well as quality assurance personnel in a randomized case review process. d) the impact of the model on outcomes. A study of caseload including creation of a complex formula to assess caseload (for example taking into consideration the number of front line workers that are on leave or out for disciplinary measures) and workload sizes (for example assessing the number of out of home care cases workers are carrying as well as number of additional tasks a worker is executing above those in their caseload) may need to be enacted in order to assure that each worker meets the standards that produce the best outcomes in their state or the CWLA standards for caseload size (CWLA, 2008). A final but critical infrastructure issue that must be considered is worker caseload size and overall workload. Process or Implementation Evaluation Is the practice model being implemented with fidelity? “Is the practice model being implemented as it was intended? Step 7 of GTO: Process Evaluation. While the practice model is being piloted and rolled out across the state, there needs to be a process evaluation to answer questions such as, Who adheres to the practice model and who does not adhere? The organization may need to go back to Step 5 if there are problems at this step. Is the difference based on something about the situation such as supervisor support, caseload size, team support, or lack of resources in the agency or community?” Do those who adhere differ in any significant way from those that do not adhere? How do they differ? Is the difference based on something inherent in the worker such as intelligence, motivation, personality or general skills (e.g., interpersonal skills)? NH began the process evaluation immediately and is expanding it to assess fidelity to the model Outcome Evaluation The outcome evaluation can answer “How well is the practice model working? The agency must invest in an outcome evaluation to confirm the expectation of improved positive outcomes when the practice model is adhered to in each case with high levels of fidelity (setting a cut off of 70% adherence on the fidelity measure). Step 8 of GTO: Outcome Evaluation. What is the impact of the practice model on worker retention? NH is developing their outcome evaluation research design now and will begin to implement the study once fidelity is assessed What is the impact of the pm on child safety, permanency and well-being, family preservation and self sufficiency? Step 9 of GTO: Continuous Quality Improvement Continuous Quality Improvement How can the implementation of and adherence to the practice model be improved?” Stakeholders should be asking at this step, “How can the practice model be improved? Process and outcome evaluation, along with the CQI process of case reviews, can help the agency engage in continuous improvement of the model (e.g., Deming, 1986). The results of the CQI can be used to answer these questions if the results are fed back to all stakeholders. Finally, the stakeholder committees must plan for sustainability, particularly in light of the fact that child welfare agency leaders turn over on average every two years. Step 10 of GTO: Sustaining the practice. Sustaining the Practice Good measurement at steps 7, 8 and 9 help to ensure sustainability If the practice model and its execution are successful, how will the initiative, and use of the practice model be sustained? Engagement of other stakeholders imperative Installation of a Practice Model

Assessing “Fit” and Capacity and Initiating Buy-in
In Step 4 of GTO, leadership support for the Practice Model (PM) is one of the first aspects of fit. In order to adopt a casework practice model, agency leadership must make a clear commitment to the model and express that commitment both inside the organization and outside with external community partners (e.g., Martin, et al., 2002). In Step 5 of GTO, assessing organizational capacity for change and adoption of a PM is key. This includes identifying champions of change and engaging them to help build buy-in among staff and identify the resistors to change. Implementation Team Training & Coaching First need to get it – build towards change – “Lens of Change” – every person is a part of the change – then plant builders, listen to naysayers, talk, talk, talk Making it a part of everything – SJD, training, policies, SACWIS, coaches in the office, certifications – make it “water on a rock” Got to have cheerleaders at every level – in every office – on every team – need to keep them up to speed on the evolving vision and implementation processes We have seen it work best when there is agreement at the top leadership level about which practice model they are going to adopt. Then it works best when a cadres of coaches learn the model inside and out so that they can give “on the ground” consultation and coaching on the model as it is rolled out. Then front line supervisors who are the keepers of policy and practice in the agency are engaged next. Once supervisors understand the model and learn a case consultation method to direct the practice of their workers, then training front line workers and having the coaches and supervisors reinforce the training he level of front line supervisors and workers. Simultaneous with training, it works best and buy in is achieved and maintained when the leadership ensures that the practice model is supported in the agency infrastructure- e.g., woven into policy, the forms and SACWIS system, training for new workers, the performance evaluation system and the CQI case review tool. In New York we have some buy in at the top, but mostly this came from private providers adopting a model and finding success which got the attention of the city agency, and interest among middle managers and front line on the city side. We don’t know how this order will work.

Establishing and Maintaining Fidelity
In Step 7 of GTO, part of the process or implementation evaluation should include creating and using several measures of fidelity, including: A supervisor case consultation tool that guides discussion of practice on a regular basis, reinforcing key behaviors in the PM and serving as a measure to check implementation of the PM in daily work with children and families An observational and case review measure to be used by a third-party evaluator to assess fidelity to the PM. The third-party evaluator could be: The training evaluator to check on training transfer of PM skills covered in training A coach checking on fidelity to help shape behavior to improve fidelity Part of CQI or QA Certification for aspects of practice Case Practice Reviews Supervision (KEY) – the one on one with staff on a day to day basis – they set the tone and they set the culture Management has to be willing to follow through demonstrate their commitment to the PM and hold the supervisory line Professional Development activities that all emphasize the Practice Model - Recruitment As a director – be very clear about what your expectations are – this is what we are doing – if you can’t agree – then maybe this isn’t the place for you Conversations – meetings, inter/extra agency – PM was touchpoints for all decisions, prioritizing budget Go through a particular sequence- Train leadership Train cadre of coaches who can give continual support Train front line supervisors in the model and in a case consultation method- certify them Hold front line supervisors accountable to using the case consultation method- to shape practice and hold staff accountable for practicing the model with fidelity. Best if make a part of their performance evaluation. Train front line veteran staff in the model and engage them in case consultation until they are executing the model in all cases. Certify them once they have mastered the practice model in daily practice. Do a fidelity check through a case review once everyone is certified to see how many workers and cases are showing high fidelity (at least 70% adherence)- easiest if the CQI tool is changed to incorporate key practice model behaviors or if a supplement is developed to track practice model practices. Eventually integrate the key behaviors in the ongoing CQI process and tie to outcomes. Eventually include practicing with fidelity in worker and supervisor performance evaluations each year.

Evaluating PM Impact In Step 8 of GTO, part of the outcome evaluation includes measuring and ensuring fidelity to the PM; otherwise, outcome effects can be attributed to other variables. Build a chain of evidence by answering: Does training of PM lead to attitude congruence with PM philosophy, values, and theories or attitude change? Does training of PM lead to learning of concepts necessary to engage in the practices? Do supervisors engage in case consultation and other training reinforcement behaviors to ensure fidelity to the PM? Do coaches help staff practice with fidelity to the PM? Do staff transfer what they learned in training about PM to field practice? Do staff continue to improve and practice PM with fidelity? Is there a link between adherence to PM and child outcomes?

Role of Training and Evaluation in Workforce Development
RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION People with best skills, abilities, values B.S.W. students (e.g., PCWCP) M.S.W. students (e.g., stipend) Those with related degrees Use of Realistic Job Previews (RJPs) Use of resumes, interviews Tests Tasks TRAINING/TA Pre-Service In class Online Field placement In-Service Reinforcement On the job (OTJ) Coaching and mentoring SUPERVISION Set expectations before training Reinforce during & after training Model/shadow Observe Coach/feedback Educational supervision Clinical supervision SBC casework CQI/QA Measure observable behaviors using behavioral anchor system while in learning mode to show progress Conduct case reviews Employee evaluation Tie to organizational outcomes Job performance Retention Tie to client outcomes Safety, permanency, and well-being

Using the CQI Process to Track and Ensure Fidelity
In Step 9 of GTO, fidelity measures should be incorporated into the CQI case review process to give additional feedback on individual fidelity and overall agency fidelity. These data can be used to tie adherence to the PM with client outcomes, since both are measured in one tool. The CQI/QA team can give feedback on training to enhance modules where practice in the field is weak. The CQI/QA team can give feedback to leadership about the consequences of being slow in developing the infrastructure to support the PM. The CQI/QA team can give feedback to supervisors about how their workers compare to State averages. In Step 10 of GTO, sustainability can occur only if fidelity is maintained and outcomes affected; otherwise, there will be mutiny. Note here that SBC is only public child welfare PM to have published any evaluation studies- I can just assert instead of putting on slide and refer to articles that will bring for them to read later WA has done some evaluation work- when adherence was high- outcomes were positive (client self report of worker changes, client outcomes) IN did one study +using Alabama model and did get positive outcomes when PM installed SBC shows 1) can be taught and applied to all types of cases- even very difficult ones, 2) changes practice in predictable ways, 3) when taught well and reinforced through coaching leads to knowledge gain, transfer of learning, better practices and better safety and well being outcomes (1 year later). 4) When workers adhered to at least 70% of key behaviors 23/33- led to better outcomes on all CFSR outcomes- reached goals for the state and on most measures exceeded CFSR standards.

Evaluation Research Seven major studies over 12 years
Study 1: Chart File Review (Martin, Barbee, Antle & Sar, 2002, Child Welfare) To explore issues with implementation and short-term outcomes Study 2: Qualitative Interviews With Workers and Clients To explore client and worker experiences with the model (Antle, Christensen, Barbee, & Martin, 2008, Journal of Public Child Welfare) Studies 3 & 4: Training Evaluation (Antle, Barbee, & van Zyl, 2008 Children and Youth Services Review; Antle, Sullivan, Barbee & Christensen, 2010 Child Welfare) To identify the most effective strategies to promote transfer of the model

Evaluation Research (continued)
Study 5: Management Data (van Zyl, Antle, & Barbee, 2010 chapter; Antle, Barbee, Sullivan, & Christensen, 2010, Children and Youth Services Review) To examine the impact of general model use on safety, permanency, and well-being Study 6: Continuous Quality Improvement Data (Antle, Christensen, van Zyl, & Barbee, 2012, Child Abuse and Neglect) To examine the impact of specific model skills at various stages of the casework process on CFSR items and ASFA outcomes Study 7: Particular practice behaviors that had the biggest impact on outcome achievement (van Zyl, Barbee, Antle & Christensen, in preparation)

IMPACT OF Solution based casework (SBC) ON CHILD WELFARE OUTCOMES
Study 5: van Zyl, Antle, & Barbee, 2010, chapter; Antle, Barbee, Sullivan, & Christensen, 2010, Children and Youth Services Review

Overview of Study Research Questions
What is the impact of using SBC on child welfare outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being? Sample Over 1,000 cases tracked for outcome data Design: Experimental-Control Pre-Post Experimental group received training in model Control group received NO training Data were collected 6 months post-training (and equivalent period for control group) and linked CFSR outcomes Procedure Outcome data on child safety, permanency, and well-being obtained through standardized State data reports and the Kentucky Foster Care Census

Outcomes: Child Safety
Positive impact of training on child safety. The SBC group had significantly fewer recidivism referrals for child maltreatment than the control group, F (2,112) = 18.63, p<.0001. SBC: n=350.00 Control: n=538.00 On their thumb drives - “Engaging Families in Case Planning”

Outcomes: Permanency There was no impact of training on permanency outcomes. There is a significant negative correlation between number of placements and number of strengths identified, r (105) = -.199, p<.05.

Outcomes: Well-Being There was a significantly longer period of time since the last dental visit for the control group than the training groups, t (30) = , p<.0001. SBC: x=1.53 Control: x=3.40 There was a significantly longer period of time since the last visit with biological parents, t (30) = -5.48, p<.0001. SBC: x=1.17 Control: x=2.17

Summary of Study 5: Findings
Training had significant positive impact on child safety and well-being. There were fewer recidivism referral reports for the SBC group. The SBC group had more recent visits with biological parents and dental professionals. There was no impact of training on permanency because training did not target these outcomes (although placement outcomes were significantly different in Study 1). Limitations in research design led to the next study, through which implementation of specific elements of the SBC model were linked to Federal measures of outcomes.

LINK BETWEEN MODEL AND CFSR OUTCOMES
Study 6: Statewide Quality Assurance Data (Antle, Christensen, van Zyl, & Barbee, 2012, Child Abuse and Neglect)

Overview of Study Research Questions
What is the relationship between SBC use and performance on CFSR items and outcomes? Sample 4,559 cases over 4 years ( ) Variables and Measurement Solution Based Casework Total, Intake/investigation, Case Planning, Case Management Safety 1 and 2 Permanency 1 and 2 Well Being 1, 2, and 3 Procedure CQI Review Process Merged data across 4 years Extracted SBC items from review tool CFSR items and outcomes mapped onto CQI tool by CFSR/PIP team in KY

SBC Items Intake/Investigation
Is the documentation of the Sequence of Events thorough and rated correctly? Is the documentation of the Family Development Stages, including strengths, thorough and rated correctly? Is the documentation of the Family Choice of Discipline (including strengths) thorough and rated correctly? Is the documentation of Individual Adult Patterns of Behavior, including strengths, thorough and rated correctly? Is the documentation of Child/Youth Development (including strengths) thorough and rated correctly? Is the documentation of Family Support or Systems of Support, including strengths, thorough and rated correctly? Ongoing Same as above Was the parent involved when changes were made to any of the following: visitation plan, case plan, or placement?

SBC Items Case Planning
Does the case plan reflect the needs identified in the assessment to protect family members and prevent maltreatment? Were the individuals/family, child/ren, and foster parents/relatives/kinship caregivers engaged in the case planning and decision-making process? Were noncustodial parents involved in the case planning process, if appropriate? Were the community partners and/or others invited by the family engaged in the case planning process, or was there documentation that all efforts were made to engage the family in accepting community partners? Are the primary Family Level Objective/s and Tasks appropriate and specific to the Maltreatment/Presenting Problem? Have services been provided related to the primary Family Level Objective/s and Tasks? Do the secondary Family Level Objective and Tasks address all well-being risk factors identified in the current CQA? Have services been provided related to the secondary Family Level Objective and Tasks? Are the Individual Level Objectives (ILO) based on the issues identified in the CQA? Do the Individual(s) Level Objective and tasks address the perpetrator’s or status offender’s individual pattern of high-risk behavior? Have services been provided related to the Individual Level Objective and Tasks?

SBC Items Case Management
Is there documentation that the FSW has engaged the family and community partners in the decision-making process? Is there ongoing documentation that comprehensive services were offered, provided, or arranged to reduce the overall risks to the children and family? Is the progress or lack of progress toward achieving EACH objective (every FLO, ILO, and CYA objective) documented in contacts? Is the need for continued comprehensive services documented at least monthly? Has the SSW made home visits to both parents, including the noncustodial parent? Did the SSW make the parental visits in the parents’ home, as defined by SOP 7E 3.3? Prior to case closure, was an Aftercare Plan completed with the family/community partners? Was the decision to close the case mutually agreed upon?

Relationship Between SBC and Outcomes/Review Items
There is a significant positive correlation between SBC scores (Total, Intake/Investigation, Ongoing, Case Planning, and Case Management) and all ASFA outcomes/CFSR items: The higher the SBC score (greater degree of implementation), the better were the safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes for each case.

Impact of SBC on Compliance with Federal Standards for Safety
There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for all Federal outcomes. There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for SAFETY 1, t (4,417)=-20.20, p< For SAFETY 1, the Federal goal was 83.7%. The mean % for the low SBC group was 76.50%, and the mean % for the high SBC group was 89.98% (exceeding the Federal standard). There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for SAFETY 2, t (4,405)=-23.40, p< For SAFETY 2, the Federal goal was 89%. The mean % for the low SBC group was 80.66%, and the mean % for the high SBC group was 95.53%.

Impact of SBC on Compliance With Federal Standards for Permanency
There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for PERMANENCY 1, t (3,513)=-24.62, p< For PERMANENCY 1, the Federal goal was 32%. The mean % for the low SBC group was 70.07%, and the mean % for the high SBC group was 92.72%. There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for PERMANENCY 2, t (1,533)=-14.54, p< For PERMANENCY 2, the Federal goal was 74%. The mean for the low SBC group was 66.89%, and the mean for the high SBC group was 89.57%.

Impact of SBC on Well-Being
There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for WELL-BEING 1, t (4,336)=-35.22,p< For WELL-BEING 1, the Federal goal was 67%. The mean for the low SBC group was 66.01%, and the mean for the high SBC group was 94.29%. There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for WELL-BEING 2, t (2,988)=-19.5, p< For WELL-BEING 2, the Federal goal was not established in the reports. The mean for the low SBC group was 61.59%, and the mean for the high SBC group was 90.58%. There is a significant difference between high and low SBC groups for WELL-BEING 3, t (3,467)=-23.93,p< For WELL-BEING 3, the federal goal was 78%. The mean for the low SBC group was 60.38%, and the mean for the high SBC group was 88.81%.

Summary of Study 6 Use of the SBC model is associated with significantly better scores on all 23 CFSR review items and the 7 outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being. There are differential effects of SBC on outcomes based upon the stage of the case: The most critical points in a case for SBC use to promote safety outcomes are in the intake/investigation stages. The most critical points in a case for SBC use to promote permanency outcomes are in case management and case planning. The use of SBC during case planning, case management, and ongoing stages is important for well-being outcomes. The SBC scales account for very high percentages of the variance in these outcomes. Higher degree of use of the SBC model (across all stages of the case) results in exceeding Federal standards for each of the key outcomes of safety, permanency, and well-being. When the model is not used or used to a lesser degree, cases fail to meet these Federal standards for most outcomes.

The Applied side of Practice Models
Practical, pragmatic, and poignant The Applied side of Practice Models

Choosing and Installing a Practice Model
Kentucky Washington Florida New York City Kansas New Hampshire Will draw from the experiences of several states and speak with greater specificity about New Hampshire’s experience. Drew information from Utah, Idaho, Iowa Consulted directly with North Carolina, Washington,Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont Recognize extensive support from support from CB Regional I office, NCIC, NRCOI – also mention on slide 63 – with picture

NH’s Experience Benefits of a Practice Model
Reasons to Create a Practice Model Key Components of a Practice Model Theoretical Framework Core Values & Practice Principles Casework Components Practice Elements and Behaviors Organization and System Standards Lessons Learned Buy in Fidelity

Benefits Promotes alignment
Statewide consistency in families’ experiences with child welfare With Juvenile Justice With Stakeholders Addresses all aspects of the agency Systemwide undertaking Guides daily interactions without prescribing a specific program “Super” clarity and articulation of beliefs and principles Describes behaviors, activities, and strategies in significant detail Sets the expectation for quality – a higher bar Defines outcomes Aligned with CFSR, CFSP/APSR Address “initiative” fatigue Creating a Practice Model MUST BE different As was presented in the webinar Proactive leadership – link to penguins

“This is not a new initiative…it will be our way of life”
Maggie Bishop, NH DCYF Director, May 2009 40

Reasons to Do a Practice Model
Reform Legal mandates Improvement effort Address an identified problem Proactive leadership Something was missing Go from good to great Improve agency image True planning for better services Sustain improvements in practice

Guiding Statement “New Hampshire’s Practice Model outlines the Division for Children, Youth and Families’ beliefs and guiding principles and creates a framework for decision making and a practice structure to guide work within all levels of the agency. The Practice Model does not dictate what our jobs are, rather it influences the way individuals do their jobs. It serves as a foundation designed to inspire the Divisions’ work and keep the focus on providing services that are consistent. Furthermore, this impact reaches far beyond the limits of DCYF. It extends to influence the work that is done by providers and others who offer services for children, youth, and families throughout the State of New Hampshire.” NH Practice Model Design Team February 2010 Goals – Design Team

Beliefs and Guiding Principles
Prevention reduces child abuse and neglect. All children/youth should be safe. Everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect. All children/youth need and deserve permanency. All children, youth, and families deserve a life of well-being. All families have strengths. House – selected as the logo – “installation of PM” Prevention reduces child abuse and neglect. All children/youth should be safe. Everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and respect. All children/youth need and deserve permanency. All children, youth and families deserve a life of well-being. All families have strengths.

Theoretical Framework
“New Hampshire has based our Practice Model on four theories. These theories are anchors that ground our Practice Model in a research-based framework. These theories are: Family Development Theory Solution Focused Theory Restorative Justice Theory Parallel Process Theory” NH Implementation Team, December 2010 Got it backwards – did V’s and B’s first Didn’t know we were missing it til saw Anita’s presentation Having a hard time anchoring Vs and Bs 1 ½ years into the process Important to staff and stakeholders Aha moment!

Bringing It All Together
Casework Components Practice Elements Family Engagement Toolkit Structured Decision-Making SBC Family Meetings Engagement Assessment Service Planning Monitoring and Adapting Transitioning SBC was evidence based Pulled all theories together Parent Partners Youth Action Pool Trauma Informed

Organization and System Standards
Organizational Development Systemic alignment Becoming a learning organization Viewing training as a system intervention Developing the capacity for change Assessing and measuring organizational readiness Adjusting supervisory standards Using Appreciative Inquiry to strengthen capacity Modifying organizational and practice policies and standards Assessing workforce development approaches Considering the impact on Information Technology Reassessing budget priorities Clarifying impact on contracting for services Progressing to Continuous Quality Improvement

Sustainability Implementation plus Sustained Coaching
Exploration & Installation Leadership Cross-functional project team Communication Resources Implementation Leadership Communication Cross-functional team Resources Coaching Sustainability Implementation plus Sustained Coaching Communication & “Ownership” Culture & climate monitoring Support & Resources Frequent monitoring and evaluation NIRN – Big concepts

Sustainability starts from day 1
Leadership must live the Practice Model Practice Model can generate organizational credibility Creating a culture of learning is key Practice Model = PIP = Practice Model Communication: the Practice Model becomes the language of the system Time is a friend and a foe Culture and climate need constant, careful, and inspirational attention It takes time…expect it to take years…don’t heighten expectations – accomplishing TIME Biggest – the investment in conversation, meetings, planning, staying focused Funding can be - but wasn’t in NH due to some luck and creativity Leadership at ALL levels must be “on board” and “stay on message” through political ups and downs and crises Changing positions – turnover (across the organization) – get ahead of the curve and prepare new staff right away when they come in Consider careful the timing to include internal and external stakeholders – don’t jump too quickly (they can take over) – don’t wait too long (they feel left out) Communication planning is always weakest (as social workers – we under estimate the need for constant and consistent communication) from the top – when out and about bringing it up and giving an update EVERYTIME (don’t wait to be asked) – being more proactive in communicating progress – not waiting til something is DONE – but sharing how it’s being built, when along the way – the more you talk about it as the leader, the more people see it as important and NOT GOING AWAY Messaging – Elevator speeches – Getting staff to say “this is our model of practice” – then seeing it play out in practice – in case files, in meetings, hearing staff talk about how their work and interactions with families staff holding each other accountable (respectfully) about does that interaction fit with our PM approach? Chris With SBC, we have worked directly in 4 states (KY, WA, NH, KS now), 1 city (NYC) and with several jurisdictions in FL. We have observed closely the roll out and implementation of other “practice models” in several states (e.g. IN, NJ, OK, WV, VA, NC, VT) and been exposed to another handful of jurisdictions that are struggling with the “practice model” they chose (e.g. Milwaukee). UT, IN, AL (Paul Vincent), NJ

Getting and maintaining buy-in
Communication Clear, established infrastructure that is highly inclusive of staff and stakeholders from across organization/system Cultivating leadership Getting and maintaining buy-in

Transparency Feedback loops More is better Use varying approaches Go to the people Demonstrate passion! Youth, parents, and staff tell the story best Partnerships are critical to success

Establish a strong infrastructure Cross-Functional Project Teams
Communication Team Evaluation Team Members & roles defined Policy Team Sustainability linkages identified from the beginning Training Workgroup 1/3 of agency staff involved Inclusive of people from across the organization Project Team Design Team

Prochaska stages of change

Approach to Practice Model design
Staff from across the agency Application and selection Monthly work sessions and homework in between Commitment to a decision- making process “Spread” leaders Sustained engagement Youth and parent team members Must role model parallel process Adapted North Carolina’s Model Design Team concept

Maintaining fidelity How do you maintain fidelity?
Certification for aspects of practice Case Practice Reviews Supervision (KEY) – the one on one with staff on a day to day basis – they set the tone and they set the culture Management has to be willing to follow through demonstrate their commitment to the PM and hold the supervisory line Professional Development activities that all emphasize the Practice Model – Recruitment, As a director – be very clear about what your expectations are – this is what we are doing – if you can’t agree – then maybe this isn’t the place for you Conversations – meetings, inter/extra agency – PM was touchpoints for all decisions, prioritizing budget Maintaining fidelity

Not understanding the value and importance of theoretical underpinnings
Deciding when and how to engage stakeholders Agency reorganization, merger with juvenile justice Funding can be - but wasn’t in NH Changing positions – turnover – get ahead of the curve and prepare new staff Timing to include internal and external stakeholders Communication planning weakest – when out and about bringing it up and giving an update – being more proactive in communicating progress – not waiting til something is DONE – but sharing how it’s being built, when along the way. Messaging –– Getting staff to say “this is our model of practice” – then seeing it play out in practice – in case files, in meetings, hearing staff talk about how their work and interactions with families staff holding each other accountable (respectfully) about does that interaction fit with our PM approach?

Impact Safety and assessment Family engagement Culture and climate
Practice Model = Program Improvement Plan = Practice Model Identified PIP target areas and matched PM strategies Safety and assessment Family engagement Culture and climate

Most significant gains
Child and Family Well-Being Outcome 1: Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs. Item 17: Needs and Services of Child, Parents, and Foster Parents Item 18: Child and Family Involvement in Case Planning Tem 20: Caseworker visits with parents (s) Safety Outcome 2: Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate. Item 3: Services to Family to Protect Child(ren) in the Home and Prevent Removal or Re-entry Into Foster Care Item 4: Risk Assessment and Safety Management

More effective together…
A couple messages GTO and Practice Model paper – towards end talk about final steps in PM implementation Get on the bus – or on the iceberg or get off? Child welfare is challenging. As a leader, getting everyone on the same iceberg can be the most difficult, yet rewarding part of the journey.

References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude–behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., Christensen, D. N., & Sullivan, D. (2010). The prevention of child maltreatment recidivism through the Solution-Based Casework model of child welfare practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., Sullivan, D. J., & Christensen, D. N. (2008). The effects of training reinforcement on training transfer. Child Welfare, 88, Antle, B. F., Barbee, A. P., & van Zyl, M. A. (2008). A comprehensive model for child welfare training evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, Antle, B. F., Christensen, D., Barbee, A. P., & Martin, M. (2008). Solution-based casework: A p paradigm shift to effective, strengths-based practice for child protection. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 2, Antle, B. F., Christensen, D. J., van Zyl, M.A., & Barbee, A. P. (2012). The impact of the solution based casework (SBC) practice model on federal outcomes in public child welfare. Child Abuse and Neglect, 36,

References Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31, Barbee, A. P., Christensen, D., Antle, B. F., Wandersman, A., Cahn, K. (2011). System, organizational, team and individual changes that need to accompany adoption and implementation of a comprehensive practice model into a public child welfare agency. Children and Youth Services Review, 33, Chinman, M., Hunter, S. B., Ebener, P., Paddock, S. M., Stillman, L., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2008). The Getting to Outcomes demonstration and evaluation: An illustration of the prevention support system. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, Christensen, D. N., Todahl, J., & Barrett, W. G. (1999). Solution-based casework: An introduction to clinical and case management skills in casework practice. New York: Aldine DeGruyter. Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press.

References Fisher, D., Imm, P., Chinman, M., & Wandersman, A. (2007). Getting to outcomes with developmental assets: Ten steps to measuring success in youth programs and communities. Minneapolis: Search Institute. Lesesne, C. A., Lewis, K. M., White, C. P., Green, D. C, Duffy, J. L., & Wandersman, A. (2008). Promoting science-based approaches to teen pregnancy prevention: Proactively engaging the three systems of the interactive systems framework. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, Martin, M. H., Barbee, A. P., Antle, B., Sar, B., & Hanna, S. (2002). Expedited Permanency planning: Evaluation of the Kentucky Adoptions Opportunities Project (KAOP). Child Welfare: Special Issue on Permanency Planning, 81, van Zyl, M. A., Antle, B. F., & Barbee, A. P. (2010). Organizational change in child welfare agencies. In S. Fogel, & M. Roberts-DeGennero (Eds.), Empirically supported interventions for community and organizational change. New York: Lyceum Books. Wandersman, A. (2009). Four keys to success (theory, implementation, evaluation, and resource/system support): High hopes and challenges in participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43, 3-21.

The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "The “Practice” of Practice Models in Child Welfare"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback