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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportPopulation: Families of preadolescentswho had concerns about their child’sbehavior and their parenting skillsZubrick, S. R., Ward, K. A., Silburn, S. R.,Lawrence, D., Williams, A. A., Blair, E.,Robertson, D., & Sanders, M. R. (2005).Prevention of child behavior problemsthrough universal implementation of agroup behavioral family intervention.Prevention Science, 6, 287-304.Findings: Parents attending group PPP reported a decrease in rates of problem childbehavior and less reliance on some dysfunctional verbal parenting practices such asoverly long reprimands and talking rather than taking action. No difference was seen onparental over-reactivity (e.g., authoritarian discipline, displays of anger) orpermissiveness. Effects were primarily maintained over 6 months.Method: This study utilized a controlled design to assess the efficacy of the PPP. 1610participants were recruited through media and professional referral. The interventiongroup received training through a group version of the PPP, followed by telephonesupport sessions once a week for four weeks. Children were aged 3-4 years.Findings: Treatment was associated with significant reductions in parent-reportedlevels of child behavior problems and self-reported levels of dysfunctional parentingover the 2-year follow-up. Positive effects were also found on parent mental health,marital adjustment, and levels of child-rearing conflict.Population: Families with children aged 3- Limitations: There were significant differences between groups in this study. The4comparison group children were somewhat older, more likely to come from blendedfamilies, and more likely to have mothers with no higher education. However,comparison group children entered the study with lower average levels of behaviorproblems.Teaching Family Model (TFM) Promising PracticeBedlington, M. M., Braukman, C. J., Ramp,K. A., & Wolfe, M. M. (1988). A comparisonof treatment environments in communitybasedgroup homes for adolescentoffenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior,15, 349-363.Population: Court-adjudicated youth(aged 11-18) who were assigned to grouphomes.Method: This study utilized a controlled design to assess the efficacy of the TeachingFamily Model. 185 youth (aged 11-17) who were court-adjudicated to a group homewere randomly assigned to either the TFM or control group.The Teaching Family Model is characterized by clearly defined goals, integratedsupport systems, and a set of essential elements. The model uses a married couple orother “teaching parents” to offer a family-like environment in the residence. Theteaching parents help with learning living skills and positive interpersonal interactionskills.Findings: Teaching-Family homes were rated as having significantly higher levels ofadult/youth communication and instances of adults teaching youth.Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 77
EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportJones, R. J., & Timbers, G. D. (2003).Minimizing the need for physical restraintand seclusion in residential youth carethrough skill-based treatmentprogramming. Families in Society, 84, 21-29.Population: Youth (aged 8-18) inresidential programs for behavioral andemotional problemsKirigin, K. A., Braukman, C. J., Atwater, J.D., & Wolf, M. M. (1982). An evaluation ofTeaching-Family (Achievement Place)group homes for juvenile offenders.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15,1-16.Population: Youth (aged 14-15 at entry)who were assigned to residential programsby the court.Larzelere, R.E., Daly, D.L., Davis, J.L.,Chmelka, M.B. & Handwerk, M.L. (2004).Outcome evaluation of Girls and BoysTown’s Family Home Program. Educationand Treatment of Children, 27, 130-149Method: This study utilized a pre-test/post-test design to assess the efficacy of theTeaching Family Model (TFM) for youth with behavioral and emotional problems in tworesidential programs.Findings: For the Barium Springs program, restraints were reduced by 40% andsignificant negative incident reports were reduced by 80% after the introduction of theTFP. At the Bridgehouse program, there was a 75% reduction in restraints, a similardecline in secluding clients in a locked, quiet room, and close to elimination of the useof the time out room. With the exception of the Barium Springs restraint level, all ofthese reductions reached statistical significance.Method: This study utilized a controlled design to assess the efficacy of the TFM modelfor reducing criminal offenses for youth (aged 14-15 at entry) who were assigned toresidential programs by the court. Youths in group homes using the TFM werecompared to youths in group homes chosen by state agencies to be representativeresidential programs.Findings: For girls, a higher percentage of TFM participants had offenses pretreatment,but a significantly lower percentage had offenses during treatment. Duringthe post-treatment year, a lower percentage of both boys and girls in the program hadoffenses, but this was not statistically significant. Looking at rate of offences, TFM boyssignificantly decreased their number of offences during treatment, while the rate fornon-Teaching-Family boys increased. For girls, the number of offenses wassignificantly reduced during treatment, but they did not differ significantly from thecomparison group during that time. For both boys and girls, groups did not differ in rateof offenses during the follow-up period.Method: A pre-test/post-test design was used to study the restrictiveness of living, childbehavior, and mental health of 440 youth (aged 8-19) who were referred to the FamilyHome Program by juvenile justice, social or mental health services, family, or self.Findings: Both boys and girls were found to have improved on all outcome variables.They were discharged to less restrictive environments than they were in before theCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 78
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: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 89: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Evidence-Based Practice in Foster P
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185:
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?