Evidence-Based Practice in Foster Parent Training and Support ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportPopulation: Youth (aged 13-16) admittedto a state-run re-education residentialtreatment facilityWeinstein, L. (1969). Project Re-Ed schoolsfor emotionally disturbed children:Effectiveness as viewed by referringagencies, parents and teachers.Exceptional Children, 35, 703-711.Population: Youth (aged 10-11 atenrollment) referred to residential treatmentwith the lowest number (28%) remaining at that level 24 months following theintervention. Functioning adequately in each domain was defined as no new illegalactivity (legal); attendance, graduation or obtaining a GED (school); and nounplanned hospitalization or more restrictive level of treatment after discharge(level of care). By the criterion of satisfactory function in at least two domains,between 71% (24 months) and 97% (6 months) reached the required level. Themost successful students tended to be younger, female, have higher IQ andreading skills, have better scores on parent-rated internalizing symptoms, and tohave been discharged more recently.Limitations: Limitations include a lack of comparison group and the use ofsubjective satisfactory ratings across domains. Although this study measuredfunctioning across time (i.e., at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months), each participant wascontacted only once.)Method: This exploratory study utilized a pre-test/post-test design to examine theefficacy of the Re-ED model. 103 youth (aged 10-11 at enrollment) who wereChildren referred by child welfare agencies to residential treatment participated inthe study.Findings: At six months following treatment, youth symptoms and undesirablebehaviors were rated as significantly lower than at pre-treatment, and the parents’and child’s ratings were more in agreement. Students were rated by teachers assignificantly improved on all dimensions after the Re-Ed intervention as well.Limitations: This study lack of a comparison group.Stop-Gap Promising PracticeMcCurdy, B.L., & McIntyre, E.K. (2004). Method: This study utilized a controlled design to examine the efficacy of the Stop-"And what about residential...?" Reconceptualizingresidential treatment as a one of which introduced Stop-Gap after seven months, served as comparisonGap model in changing youth behavior. Two units of a residential treatment center,stop-gap service for youth with emotional groups for this study. Approximately 25 female youth (aged 13-18) were in eachand behavioral disorders. Behavioral group. Groups were matched on population number, gender, and disability.Interventions, 19, 137-158.The Stop-Gap model incorporates evidence-based practices that are environmentbased,intensive, and discharge related to service delivery for residential treatmentCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 137
EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportPopulation: Female adolescents (aged 13-18) in a residential treatment programsettings. The goals of the Stop-Gap model are to interrupt the youth's downwardspiral imposed by increasingly disruptive behavior and prepare the post-dischargeenvironment for the youth's timely re-integration. Youths enter the model at tier I,where they receive environment-based and discharge-related services, The focusat tier I is on the immediate reduction of "barrier" behaviors (i.e., problem behaviorsthat prevent re-integration) through intensive ecological and skill teachinginterventions (e.g., token economy, social and academic skill teaching).Simultaneously, discharge-related interventions commence. To the extent thatproblem behaviors are not reduced at Tier I, intensive Tier II interventions thatinclude function-based behavior support planning are implemented.Findings: At twelve months, the Stop-Gap residence showed a decline intherapeutic holds, while the comparison group showed an increase over the sameperiod.Respite CareBrown, J. G. (1994). Respite care servicesfor foster parents – Six case studies.Department of Health and Human Services,Office of Inspector General.Population: Family-based foster careLimitations: This study used a small sample size in its analyses. A long-termfollow-up and statistical procedures to determine the significance of between groupdifferences at baseline and outcome measurement were also lacking from thisdesignMethod: Six programs were selected from 27 that child welfare experts and publicofficials operating child welfare programs recognized as effective at providingrespite care. Interviewees included program officials and experts at HHS, selectedstate counties, and various organizations that had an interest in foster care. Therespite services provided were analyzed by program. The experts were interviewedon their opinion of the effectiveness of respite care programs on several factors: 1)respite care program longevity, 2) widespread reputation in the child welfare fieldfor excellent respite and foster care, 3) increases in the number of foster carefamilies served by respite care providers since starting a respite care program, andincreases in the number of respite care providers, 4) decreases in turnover of fosterparents and disruption of placements of foster children, and 5) clear policies andprocedures for respite care.Findings: No single model program was found; instead the six programs each haddifferent ways of providing respite care. Some of the differences included: programmanagement, program requirements for respite services, criteria for providingCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 138
Page 3:
EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 149: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 167 and 168: Evidence-Based Practice in Foster P
Page 185: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
show all

Evidence-Based Practice in Foster Parent Training and Support ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?