1. Child Welfare Partnership for Research and Training (CW-PART) San José State University School of Social Work Funded by the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC)

2.  Partnership between San José State University School of Social Work and two county child welfare agencies: Santa Clara County and Santa Cruz County  The model provides a situated learning environment for IV-E and other interested students in which teams conduct applied research on issues that are of immediate relevance to the county or other partner agencies.

3.  Laurie Drabble, Ph.D., Professor, SJSU School of Social Work  Darlene Da Silva, MSW, Graduate and Research Assistant, SJSU School of Social Work  Barbara Watkins, MSW, Social Work Supervisor, Santa Clara County Social Services Agency’s Department of Family & Children’s Services, Student Internship Program

4. 1. Core elements of the partnered research model  Roles of different stakeholders and benefits of the model (county, student, and faculty perspectives)  Findings from evaluation 2. Illustrations from 2 projects in one county (Differential response and trauma-informed systems change research projects) 3. Lessons learned for adaptation in other contexts; resources for replication

5. Rationale for Model  Need for a workforce that understands the value of research and is capable of using data for evaluation and planning.  Gaps in research and evaluation capacity on organizational level.  Need to strengthen connection between research and practice in social work education.

6. Core Frameworks Community-Engaged Research Model (Teams & Partnership) Adult Learning Theory (Situated, Applied Learning) Implementation Science (Practice-Based Research)

7.  Faculty and community partners work together to identify prospective research topics and questions  Student team members work under the supervision of faculty to conduct reviews of literature, collect and analyze data, and develop written reports.  Students complete research over the academic year and satisfy MSW course requirements in the process. Core Components: Research

8. Key Implementers and Roles  Students: ◦ Volunteer for a team based on their interest in the project topic ◦ Review the research literature, Collect/analyze data, Interpret findings, Identify practice, policy and research implications ◦ Disseminate findings to stakeholders  Field Instructors: ◦ Provide feedback about research topic ◦ Refer students to key informants ◦ Provide guidance on collaborative skills Faculty: ◦ Work with agency advisors on selecting research topics ◦ Supervise research teams and collaborate with agency partners  Leadership Team ◦ Overall planning and coordination (IV-E Coordinator, County & faculty reps).

9.  Project-specific research briefs,  Showcase of student projects at Santa Clara County DFCS  In-person briefings (e.g., Cross-Agency Systems Team and DFCS Manager meetings in Santa Clara County.  Special reports (e.g., evaluation findings for the Mentor Parent Project were shared with the SCC Board of supervisors)

10.  County perspective – Barbara Watkins, DFCS, Santa Clara County  Student perspective – Darlene Da Silva, MSW, Research Assistant  Faculty perspective – Laurie Drabble, SJSU School of Social Work

11. Benefits – County Perspective  Research projects are beneficial to county/agency planning and evaluation.  Leverages resources in support of county initiatives and projects (e.g., faculty consultation).  Minimizes potential burdens of accompany individual projects.

12. Challenges– Student Perspective 1. Conflicting schedules among service providers and students. 2. Challenging to schedule multiple focus groups and interviews. 3. Students may be at their field placement, class or job. 4. Requires research team members to be very flexible.

13. Benefits – Student Perspective 1. Greater possibility of sharing research findings- not just another paper. 2. Opportunity to develop relationships and more opportunities for collaboration. 3. Students complete MSW requirements while contributing to the goals and objectives of the agency. 4. More support and guidance from research lead faculty and team members. 5. Opportunity to learn from other student perspectives and their research findings. 6. Makes research more meaningful-research that contributes to the field.

14. BENEFITS  Effective strategy for teaching  Meaningful projects  Stronger relationships with partner agencies/ practice CHALLENGES  Time investment (partners, students, logistics like IRB)  Timing work to match student and county constraints  Competing demands (e.g., publishable research)

15.  Survey of students (including students in partnered projects and comparison group of MSW students not in partnered teams)  Qualitative focus groups with students  Survey and interviews with county partners

16.  Engagement in collaborative activities (attended meetings, researched problems/issue relevant to agency, presented findings to stakeholders)  Self-efficacy outcomes (perceived that research contributed to the field, more likely to express interest in being a part of research and evaluation in the future).  Focus groups found that teams offered: 1) Increased support and guidance, 2) Learning from different perspectives, 3) Learning new skills

17.  Partners strongly endorsed the value of the collaboration ◦ Relationship. “The partnership has been characterized by a sense of mutual respect” ◦ Resources. “There is an exchange of unique contributions from the partners involved” ◦ Outcomes. “This research partnership is beneficial to the goals and objectives of my agency.”  The model provided a mechanism for more focused and cohesive communication and collaboration between partners.  The leadership team improved collaboration.

19. Illustrations of research project operations and findings

20. Examples – Research Projects  PROJECT EXAMPLES  Differential Response (Faculty Lead: Kathy Lemon).  Trauma Informed Systems Change Initiative Evaluation in Santa Clara County (Faculty Leads: Laurie Drabble/Ed Cohen)  OVERALL STRUCTURE  One “team” with students taking the lead with different research questions or project components  Projects evolved over more than one year (multi- year)  Implemented in partnership with specific stakeholder groups in the county agency

21. Example 1: Differential Response in Santa Clara County  Differential Response Qualitative Findings: Factors Influencing Outcomes and Promising Practices Student Team: Darlene Da Silva, Jessica Richardson, Anjali Srivatsa, Hannah J. Toy, Marixa Zamora  Differential Response Quantitative Findings: Latino Disproportionality and Re-referral Outcomes Student Team: Darlene Da Silva, Kathy Grajeda, Jessica Richardson and Marixa Zamora  Family Development Matrix Implementation

22. Differential Response: Research Questions Qualitative  What practice approaches are most effective in engaging immigrant Latino families involved in DR services?  What are some of the challenges that caseworkers encounter when engaging immigrant Latino families into DR services? Quantitative  It was hypothesized that there would be differences in the mean number of days from the child welfare referral to the CBO between racial/ethnic groups (White, Asian American, Latino and African American).

23. Methods  Qualitative Portion: Interviewed 13 child welfare professionals working with Santa Clara County’s child welfare system and the community-based agencies providing DR services.  Quantitative Portion: The sample included secondary de-identified data of families participating in voluntary services. Administrative data on 1,674 families who began services between Jan. 1 2010 to Dec. 31 2011 were included.

24. Research Findings: Qualitative  It is important for caseworkers to clarify the purpose of the agency and the role of the service provider during the initial contact with the family.  Services for immigrant families should be sensitive to their linguistic needs.  Immigrant Latino families need to feel that they are fundamental to the decision making process in order to develop a trusting relationship.  It is important to encourage the participation of the biological father or father figure of the child given the relatively high number of fathers who are present in immigrant households.

25. Research Findings: Quantitative  For Path 2 families, average days from referral to the CBO is longer than for Latino (32) and White (30) families, then it is for API (27) or African American (24) families.  Since the services are voluntary, engagement in services is important to outcomes.

26. Example 2: Trauma-Informed Systems Change Initiative  Process Evaluation of Trauma Informed Systems Change Initiative ◦ Student Team: Yesenia Salinas and Lillybeth Solorio  Opportunities and Barriers in Use of Data to Inform Trauma Informed Services and Systems Change (interviews; analysis of baseline data in 3 systems – DFCS, Juvenile Probation, Dependency Court)  Trauma-Informed Practices across systems (DFCS, Juvenile Probation, Community Agencies)

27. Process Evaluation of Trauma Informed Systems Change Initiative  What successes and challenges have emerged in the process of developing a common foundation for trauma informed practice across systems in Santa Clara County?  What are the anticipated outcomes of trauma informed systems change efforts and what strategies are important to achieve these outcomes?

28. Methods  Observed CAST meetings  Interviewed 11 CAST members  Individuals included: ◦ Public Health Nurse ◦ Leaders from DFCS ◦ Probation ◦ District Attorney’s Office ◦ Community Organizations ◦ DADS ◦ First 5

29. Overarching ThemesSpecific Ideas Related to Theme Developing a shared vision and strengthening a commitment to better address trauma within and across systems.  Dialogue and discussions have helped to create a shared vision for broad systems change  Key leaders across systems have a shared commitment to improving systems to better serve families  Commitment to avoid re-traumatizing families.  Enthusiasm in working together Common language regarding trauma.  Training and discussion to create a common “trauma” language  Opportunity for dialogue from various agencies Building on existing relationships with each other and across systems.  CAST/trauma work is grounded in relationships and trust from working together on previous county wide projects  Meetings create access to each other, builds momentum, and helps create opportunities to leverage resources Helping break down system “silos” and increase collaboration.  Working collaboratively is critical; each system perspectives, resources, and services are important to addressing trauma.  Created opportunities for communication Leadership driven and buy-in is necessary in all levels of the system.  Buy-in from the leadership across systems is critical  In many systems, staff were characterized as ready, interested, or “hungry” for concrete opportunities to become more trauma-informed (healing/recovery oriented).

32. CW-PART Lessons Learned 1. Support of leadership in both the agency and university contexts is critical 2. Liaisons in each system are essential for managing the overall partnership, brokering resources, and serving as conduits between systems 3. A structured and facilitated process is helpful for identification of research questions 4. Multi-year projects centered on key county initiatives are more feasible and meaningful than multiple smaller projects.

33. 5. Organizational assets are critical, including  Faculty with backgrounds in conducting research in child welfare and/or relevant methodologies;  Relevant courses in the curriculum for accommodating a year-long research project;  Adequate numbers of interns/students for creating research teams; and  Funding to pilot the model (in this case, through CalSWEC). Lessons Learned

34. 6. Importance of orientation for students, field instructors, and other partners 7. Course assignments may require adaptation 8. Coordination is important to maximize the “team” experience 9. Flexibility and maintaining communication, through key identified liaisons are critical to problem solving about timing issues, data, and other challenges that may arise 10. Attending to the partnership and efforts to build social capital are as important as the research products.

35.  Partnered research model offers and engaged way for students to master competencies related to connecting research and practice.  The model is compatible with integration of learning across foundation and advanced years and with competency based education.  Partnered models engage and support capacity-building for the workforce.  Working in teams fosters valued skills, such as collaboration, problem-solving, and project management.

36. Next Steps for SJSU…  Continued sustainability planning, including: ◦ Integration into IV-E program and new Field Instruction Initiative ◦ Integration into the MSW course structure  Development of online training modules for student teams and other partners  Continued development of agreements, timelines, and productive working partnerships with current counties  Pilot partnered research in other contexts (new county and in behavioral health)

37.  Embedded model. High level of involvement and consultation from faculty (e.g., participation on planning groups; ongoing consultation)  Consultation model. Consultation on identification of multi-year projects currently in progress; match to faculty interest.  County-centered. County identify “menu” of projects for students. Faculty consult as needed; supervise students. (Ideal with group consultation)

38.  Resources from Recent Field Instruction Initiative Institute:  http://calswec.berkeley.edu/2014-title-iv-e- summer-field-institute-program http://calswec.berkeley.edu/2014-title-iv-e- summer-field-institute-program ◦ Readiness assessment checklist ◦ Logic model draft

39. Readiness Domain and Questions Assessment in Your Organization YesNoComments 1. Do local partners perceive value in collaborative models for investigating local questions? Discussions about potential benefits and challenges of partnered research have been conducted with key stakeholders in child welfare and the university. Reasons for changing the status quo and advancing the partnered model specific to the local context have been documented. 2. Is there leadership support for this effort? Leadership support has been assessed in both child welfare and university contexts If needed, efforts are underway to foster leadership support. 3. Are partners in both systems aligned in views of the “ problem ” and solution? Partners in both systems generally share a common view problem(s), such as need for practice-based research and/or teaching research that is linked to practice contexts. Partners in both systems endorse development of a partnered model as a strategy to address perceived gaps or needs. Consideration has been given to benefits to different stakeholders (e.g., identification of “ WIFM – what ’ s in it for me? – for students, county agency staff, and faculty)

40. Readiness Domain and Questions Assessment in Your Organization 4. Is the model feasible at this time? Partners have discussed advancing the project in the context of competing demands, such as other initiatives or other challenges partner organizations are facing. The university has faculty with appropriate content or methodological expertise The county agency has staff with appropriate expertise for collaborative research planning and implementation. County agencies are ready and/or able to share data and (if appropriate to research goals) integrate separate databases 5. Have resources required to create and sustain the project been identified? A preliminary list of human and material resources has been identified. Partners have identified existing resources (such as research courses, IV-E seminars, field instruction) that may be leveraged for sustainability. If needed, partners are able to pursue/ obtain new resources 6. Are there are individuals in both (all) systems who are able to take ownership of this effort? A leadership team has been identified to advance and sustain the effort. (e.g., team with faculty, IV-E coordinator, county field coordinator) Key contact liaisons for brokering communication and problem solving have been identified in both the county agency and the School/Dept of Social Work.

41. Readiness QuestionsAssessment in Your Organization 7. Is the current climate supportive ? There is a culture of support for applied research and evaluation in both organizations The partners have a history of working together and have generally developed a sense of mutual respect and trust. Collaborative research is perceived as aligned with organizational mission(s) and/or organizations are able to adapt the model to match their mission(s). 8. Do the organizatio ns have the collaborativ e capacity to implement and sustain the project? Partner organizations are willing to be flexible and to problem-solve as needed to address the demands of each system (e.g. responsive to deadlines of the county and the academic year calendar). There are organizational structures in place in both the county and the university that would allow for communication and planning, in addition to the leadership team There is generally support from key stakeholders in each organization (e.g., Field Instructors in child welfare, faculty and students in the university - evidenced by data from discussions, focus groups, and or surveys

42.  Materials available on CalSWEC web site: ◦ http://calswec.berkeley.edu/field-instruction- initiative http://calswec.berkeley.edu/field-instruction- initiative ◦ Click on Mutual Partnership Activities ◦ Click on Supplemental Materials  FUTURE: Web site with resources through SJSU pending: Institute for Community Partnered Research (ICPR)  Observations from a student perspective. Yesenia Salinas & Lillybeth Solorio, IV-E Students, graduated 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbjZQv8AHI&feature=youtu.be

43. Laurie Drabble SJSU School of Social Work laurie.drabble@sjsu.edu