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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

EBP in Foster Parent Training and SupportPopulation: Youth (aged 8-19) who werereferred to the Family Home Program byjuvenile justice, social or mental healthservices, family, or self.Lee, B. R., & Thompson, R. (2008).Comparing outcomes for youth intreatment foster care and family-stylegroup care. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 30, 746-757.Population: Family-based treatment fostercareprogram. 84% of girls and 78% of boys went to their own home or to independent livingfollowing discharge. Boys and girls’ behavioral problems also improved, except forboys’ social problems (as measured by the CBCL). Finally, boys and girls hadsignificantly fewer mental health diagnoses at 12 months than at intake. On the nonstandardizedmeasures, departure success averaged at “somewhat successful” on thescale, and 87% of presenting problems were rated as improved. Results also showedthat youth who completed the program were functioning better at follow-up than thosewho did not and the percentage of youth who had been arrested was significantly lowerat follow-up than it had been prior to intake.Method: This study utilized a controlled design to test the effectiveness of the TeachingFamily Model (TFM) in a family-style group care setting. Data from Girls and BoysTown were used to make comparisons between the TFM (n=716) and TreatmentFoster Care (TFC, n=112) conditions. Groups were propensity-matched to help ensuresimilarity.Findings: TFM youth were more likely to be favorably discharged, more likely to returnhome, and less likely to experience subsequent placement in the first 6 months afterdischarge than standard TFC youth. Legal involvement and residing in a home-likeenvironment at follow-up did not differ.Lewis, R. E. (2005). The effectiveness ofFamilies First services: An experimentalstudy. Children and Youth ServicesReview, 27, 499-509.Population: Families referred by schoolLimitations: Even though groups were matched, random assignment did not occur.Also, youth in the TFC condition were enrolled in programs at Girls and Boys Townonly.Method: 150 families with a child (aged 4-17) who was referred by school or juvenilecourt for problems in functioning participated in an RCT to assess a version of the TFMwhich had been adapted for use in the family’s home. Families were randomly assignedto treatment or control groups. Control groups families had access to services normallyavailable to schools, courts and the community.Findings: Youth in the TFM group showed a significant improvement in concreteservices/physical care, resources, and child behavior problems. There was noCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 79
EBP in Foster Parent Training and Supportor juvenile court due to a child with seriousproblems in functioningSlot, N.W., Jagers, H.D., & Dangel, R.F.(1992). Cross-cultural replication andevaluation of the Teaching Family Model ofcommunity-based residential treatment.Behavioral Residential Treatment, 7(5),341-354.Population: Youth (aged 14-19) who livedin a residential facilityThompson, R. W., Smith, G. L., Osgood,D. W., Dowd, T. P., Friman, P. C., & Daly,D. L. (1996). Residential care: A study ofshort- and long-term educational effects.significant difference across groups for parent effectiveness/parent-child relationships,due to improvement in the control group’s score over time. All group differencesnarrowed over time, largely due to the control group having received some traditionalservices.Method: Three studies were designed to test the efficacy of the TFM across cultures.The first study utilized 58 youth (aged 14-19) and a pre-test/post-test design; thesecond study included 50 treatment youth and 470 comparison youth; and the thirdstudy included 57 treatment and 57 comparison youth (aged 14-18, matched by age).All youth were living in a Dutch residential facility.Findings: Study 1: Youth experienced significant improvements in overall adjustment,family adjustment, relationship with parents, number of offences, social competence,and number of problems at home. Youth also demonstrated significant improvement intheir ability for relationships outside the family. However, their abilities for communityparticipation, and academic and vocational factors did not improve. There was also asignificant increase in drinking post-treatment, but not to levels considered problematicin the Netherlands.Study 2: This study measured levels of juvenile delinquency in youth experiencing theTeaching Family Program (TFP) to a cohort of Canadian youth. The number of youthstaying at the same offending level was lower for the TFP group than the comparisongroup (24% vs. 48%). The number moving toward a less serious offending level washigher for the TFP group (73% versus 20%). The number of youth moving toward amore serious offending level was lower for the TFP group (3% versus 24%).Study 3: This study compared TFP participants with youth in the traditional Dutch stateinstitute. There were no differences between groups on scores for overall problems andabilities for relationships outside the family: both groups improved. However, stateinstitute youth improved on abilities for community participation, while TFP youth didnot. The authors attributed this to greater access to and use of alcohol for TFP youth.In a final analysis, the authors also report that length of stay for TFP youth was anaverage of 240 days versus 573 days for state institute youth.Method: A controlled design was used to study educational outcomes for youth whoparticipated in the Teaching Family Model. Youth admitted to the residential treatmentprogram on referral by social services served as the treatment group (n=497; mean age14.7 years). The comparison group was comprised of youth who applied but were notCenter for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare (CASCW)University of Minnesota School of Social WorkContact: Kristine N. Piescher, Ph.D. kpiesche@umn.edu 80
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: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
Page 91: EBP in Foster Parent Training and S
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?