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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportUsing data and the wraparound process toreform systems for children and families.American Journal of CommunityPsychology, 38, 201-212.Population: Children with severe emotionaldisorders who were involved with childwelfare servicesCarney, M. M, & Butell, F. (2003).Reducingjuvenile recidivism: Evaluating thewraparound services model. Research onSocial Work Practice, 13, 551-568.Population: Delinquent youth (mean age15 years) entering the juvenile justicesystemCrusto, C. A., Lowell, D. I., Paulicin, B.,Reynolds, J., Feinn, R., & Friedman, S. R.et al. (2008). Evaluation of a wraparoundprocess for children exposed to familyviolence. Best Practices in Mental Health, 4,1-18.Population: Children (aged 5 or younger)enrolled in the Child FIRST program whohad been exposed to violence and/orreceived services for family violenceHyde, K. L., Burchard, J. D., & Woodworth,K. (1996). Wrapping services in an urbanplaced into a wraparound process were matched with a comparison group receivingtraditional casework on age, sex, race, current residential placement and severity ofmental health problems.Findings: Youth receiving wraparound services moved to less restrictiveplacements more often than those in the comparison groups after 18 months (82%versus 38%) and more comparison group youth moved to more restrictiveplacements than wraparound group youth (22% versus 6%). The severity andimpact of mental illness were lower for the wraparound group after 6 months thanfor the comparison group.Method: This study utilized an RCT to evaluated the efficacy of the wraparoundprocess on a group of delinquent youth who were entering the juvenile justicesystem. Youth were randomly assigned to the wraparound services (n=73) orconventional services (n=68) conditions.Findings: Youth in the wraparound group had fewer absences and suspensionsfrom school, and fewer incidents of running away from home. They were also lessassaultive and less likely to be picked up by police. No significant differences werefound in arrests or incarceration during the course of the evaluation at 6, 12, and 18months.Method: This exploratory study utilized a pre-test/post-test design to assess theefficacy of wraparound services in a sample of 82 children (aged 5 or younger) whowere enrolled in the Child FIRST program and who had been shown to have beenexposed to violence and/or received services for family violence.Findings: Both family and non-family violence events significantly decreasedfollowing wraparound service receipt, as did overall traumatic events. Childrenshowed significant reductions in post-traumatic stress-intrusive thoughts andavoidance. Parents also reported reductions in total stress, parental distress,parent-child dysfunctional interaction, child difficulty levels. Many of these outcomeswere positively correlated with number of service hours and/or length of time in theprogram.Limitations: This study did not utilize randomization or control groups.Method: This study utilized a controlled design to test the efficacy of thewraparound process in an urban setting. 121 youth who were at risk for out of homeCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 151
EBP in Foster Parent Training and Supportsetting. Journal of Child and Family Studies,5, 67-82.Population: Youth (mean ages 15-20) atrisk for out of home placements and youthdiverted from out-of-state residentialtreatment centersplacements and youth who were diverted from out-of-state residential treatmentcenters participated in the study. Four groups of youth were compared. Two groupsreceived wraparound services. Both groups were diverted from out-of-stateresidential treatment centers. The Wraparound Return (WR) group included youth(mean age 17.5) returning from residential treatment. The Wraparound Diversiongroup included those who were at-risk of residential treatment (mean age 15.6).Two other groups received traditional services. The Pre-Wraparound (PW) grouphad been returned from out-of-state residential programs in the year before theimplementation of wraparound services (mean age 20.1). The Non-Wraparoundgroup returned from residential treatment at the same time as the WR group, butdid not receive wraparound services (mean age 16.9).Findings: Higher percentages of youth in both wraparound groups were rated asGood or Fair (as opposed to Poor) in adjustment than in the other two groups.(Adjustment included restrictiveness of living, school attendance, job/job trainingattendance, and harmful behaviors.) Those in the NR group had the poorestratings, with none achieving a rating of Good and 60% being rated as Poor. Thesame patterns held for ratings of the number of youth with more than 10 days ofcommunity involvement.Myaard, M. J., Crawford, C., Jackson, M., &Alessi, G. (2000). Applying behavior analysiswithin the wraparound process: A multiplebaseline study. Journal of Emotional andBehavioral Disorders, 8, 216-229.Population: Youth (aged 14-16) who hadsevered emotional and behavioral problemsLimitations: The levels of statistical significance for differences were not reported.Also this study utilized a small sample that was predominantly African Americanand the lacked normative data for the measures used.Method: This exploratory study utilized a case study with a multiple baselinedesign to explore the efficacy of wraparound services in a sample of four youth(aged 14-16) with severe emotional and behavioral problems who were referredinto wraparound services.Findings: All 4 youths demonstrated improvement in compliance, peer interaction,reduction of physical aggression, and reduction of alcohol and drug use. (One ofthe participants had no aggressive incidents or alcohol/drug use prior tointroduction of wraparound.)Limitations: Measures were subjective in nature. Additionally, the sample size wassmall, and randomization and control groups were not used.Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 152
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:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 163: 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?