Evidence-Based Practices and Promising Approaches in Child Welfare

1. Evidence-Based Practices and Promising Approaches in Child Welfare The Service Array Process National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement A Service of the Children’s Bureau, U.S.D.H.H.S. Developed by Sheila Pires in partnership with Katherine J. Lazear and Lisa Conlan (see last slide for credits) April 28, 2008

2. Evidence-Based Practices And Promising Approaches Evidence-Based Practices • Show evidence of effectiveness through carefully controlled scientific studies, including random clinical trials Practice-Based Evidence/Promising Approaches • Show evidence of effectiveness through experience of key stakeholders (e.g., families, youth, providers, administrators) and outcomes data Pires, S. (2002). Building systems of care: A primer. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative.

3. Examples Examples of Evidence-Based Practices • Multisystemic Therapy (MST) • Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MDTFC) • Functional Family Therapy (FFT) • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (various models) • Intensive Case Management (various models) Examples of Promising Practices • Family Support and Education • Wraparound Service Approaches • Mobile Response and Stabilization Services • Family Group Decision Making Source: Burns & Hoagwood. (2002). Community treatment for youth: Evidence-based interventions for severe emotional and behavioral disorders. Oxford University Press and State of New Jersey BH Partnership (www.njkidsoc.org)

4. Kauffman Foundation Best Practices Project/ National Child Traumatic Stress NetworkEvidenced-Based Practicesfor Children in Child Welfare • Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) • Abuse Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (AF-CBT) • Parent Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) Contact: www.kauffmanfoundation.org • California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare Contact: www.cachildwelfareclearinghouse.org Pires, S. (2006). Primer Hands On – Child Welfare. Washington, D.C.: Human Service Collaborative.

5. Effectiveness Research(Burns & Hoagwood, 2002) • Most evidence of efficacy: Intensive case management, in-home services, therapeutic foster care • Less evidence (because not much research done): Crisis services, respite, mentoring, family education and support • Least evidence (and lots of research): Inpatient, residential treatment, therapeutic group home Burns & Hoagwood. (2002). Community Treatment for Youth. New York: Oxford University Press

6. Shared Characteristics of Evidence-Based (and Promising) Interventions • Function as service components within systems of care • Provided in the community • Utilize natural supports, partner with parents, with training and supervision provided by those with formal training • Operate under the auspices of all child-serving systems, not just child welfare • Studied in the field with “real world” children and families • Less expensive than institutional care (e.g., residential treatment, hospitals) (when the full continuum is in place) Burns, B. and Hoagwood, K.( 2002). Community treatment for youth. New York: Oxford University Press.

7. Acknowledgement • This mini-module is taken from Primer Hands On—Child Welfare, The Skill Building Curriculum. (Go to website: www.nrcoi.org.) • Developed by Sheila A. Pires, Human Service Collaborative, Washington, DC. • In partnership with: Katherine J. Lazear, Research and Training Center for Children’s Mental Health, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL., and Lisa Conlan, Federation of Families for Children’s Mental Health, Washington, DC.