Child Welfare Partnership for Research and Training (CW-PART)

1. Child Welfare Partnership for Research and Training (CW-PART) San Jose State University School of Social Work Implementation years: 2011-2013 New model components: Mutual PartnershipActivities Presenters: Laurie Drabble & Kathy Lemon

2. Problem Statement and Operating Theory of Change • Need for a workforcethat understands the value of research and is capable of using data for evaluation and planning. • Gaps in research and evaluation capacity on organizational level. • Need to strengthen connection between research and practice in social work education.

3. Core Frameworks Community-Engaged Research Model (Teams & Partnership) Implementation Science (Practice-Based Research) Adult Learning Theory (Situated, Applied Learning)

4. Logic Model for the Child Welfare Partnership for Research and Training: Implementation of Evidence-base practices and knowledge utilization Partnered Research Teams Short Term Outcomes Intermediate Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes • Students & professionals: • Motivation to learn research and use it in practice, • A positive attitude toward evidence-based practice. • Partnership: • Completion of pilot projects • Students& professionals: • Research knowledge • Knowledge about priority topics • Partnership: • Increased social capital and collaborative research capacity • Students & professionals: • Use research information is a variety of ways • Partnership: • Institutionalized University/agency partnership for improved research • Dissemination • Teams of students, faculty & agency staff disseminate research to key groups using a variety of multimedia methods • Research • Teams of students, faculty, & agency staff plan and conduct research on agency-defined priorities • Applied training for MSW students in conducting research Contextual Moderators • Learning Organization: • Organizational culture and climate that is supportive of research, critical thinking, creativity, innovation and experimentation. • There is coworker and supervisor’ support for using new skills and innovations • Purveyors or champions of practice/policy changes identified • University-Agency Partnership: • Teams include participation across hierarchical system levels • Sharing of resources, skills, experiences, insights, ideas and knowledge between and within SJSU and child welfare systems • Positive partnership attitudes and mutual trust among SJSU and child welfare professionals

5. Core Components: Community Engagement &Partnership Development • Organizational partnerships between the SJSU School of Social Work and Santa Clara County’s DFCS • Team partnerships between students, faculty, Field Instructors, and county representatives • Collaborative research teams: • Strengthen relational capacity of students, and • Build on cross-systems relationships by “closing the gap” between student/FI, student/faculty, and FFL/faculty/DFCS researcher relationships

6. Core Components: Research • Teams of students, faculty, field instructors and other interested stakeholders focus on research questions defined as priorities by the child welfare agency • Students complete research over the academic year and satisfy MSW course requirements in the process. • FIs support students as part of their supervision

7. Core Activities: Planning Phase • Faculty and community partners work together to identify prospective research topics and questions • Possible projects are evaluated based on several criteria: • Priority for county partner(s); • Availability of faculty team leaders with appropriate expertise (content and/or methodological); • Feasibility (e.g. access to data); and • Availability of interested student team members.

8. Core Activities: Implementation Phase Student team members work under the supervision of faculty to conduct reviews of literature, collect and analyze data, and develop written reports. County partners and faculty work together to coordinate logistics and solve problems as needed.

9. Core Activities: Final Phase Dissemination Activities: Findings are shared with partners through a showcase presentation Faculty and students attend stakeholder groups so that findings and their implications can be discussed County partners, faculty, students, and other stakeholders are invited to provide evaluative feedback about their experiences Research briefs are posted on the web

10. Key Implementers and Roles: Field Instructors Discuss with students their general research area and provide feedback as appropriate Refer students to key informants in the agency/community who may help inform the project Work with students to identify obstacles in the research process and next steps for addressing problems Identify and discuss the types of skills needed for collaboration while working in small groups (i.e. being patient and productive)

11. Key Implementers and Roles: IV-E and Other Students • Students volunteer for a team based on their interest in the project topic • Students work with the faculty-lead and the other students in their team to: • Review the research literature, • Collect/analyze data, • Interpret findings, • Identify practice, policy and research implications and • Disseminate findings to agency partners • Through this process, students complete MSW course requirements

12. Key Implementers & Roles: Faculty Work with agency advisors to select research topics and identify data sources Send announcements to students over the summer about team topics and recruit students for teams Over the academic year, faculty supervise students’ research projects and collaborate with agency partners

13. Sustainability & Ongoing Evaluation Integration into IV-E program and into the MSW course structure Integration into FI orientation/training Development of agreements, timelines, and productive working partnership with county child welfare agencies Evaluation is used to inform ongoing planning

14. Evaluation Highlights: Student Outcomes Survey data indicated that students who participated reported: Engaging inapplied and collaborative research activities to a greater degree than other students, including: Researched a problem or issue that is directly relevant to the agency; Presented findings to community and agency stakeholders) More positive learning outcomes than students not in teams: Perceived that research contributed to the field Interested in being a part of research and evaluation in the future

15. Evaluation Highlights: Student Outcomes • Focus groups found that teams offered: • 1) Increased support and guidance, • 2) Learning from different perspectives, • 3) Learning new skills

16. Evaluation Highlights: Partnership Development Outcomes • FII project provided a mechanism for more focused and cohesive communication and collaboration between the partners (Focus Groups) • Partners strongly endorsed the value of the collaboration (Survey) • A supplemental agreement with FIs helped to formalize partnership/involvement

17. Lessons Learned 1. Support of leadership in both the agency and university contexts is critical 2. Liaisons in each system are essential for managing the overall partnership, brokering resources, and serving as conduits between systems 3. A structured and facilitated processis helpful for identification of research questions 4. Multi-year projects centered on key county initiativesare more feasible and meaningful than multiple smaller projects.

18. Lessons Learned 5. Organizational assets are critical, including • Faculty with backgrounds in conducting research in child welfare and/or relevant methodologies; • Relevant courses in the curriculum for accommodating a year-long research project; • Adequate numbers of interns/students for creating research teams; and • Funding to pilot the model (in this case, through CalSWEC).

19. Lessons Learned 6. Importance of orientation for students, field instructors, and other partners 7. Course assignments may require adaptation 8. Coordination is important to maximize the “team” experience 9. Flexibility and maintaining communication, through key identified liaisons are critical to problem solving about timing issues, data, and other challenges that may arise 10. Attending to the partnership and efforts to build social capital are as important as the research products.

20. Project Successes • Observations from a student perspective. Yesenia Salinas & Lillybeth Solorio, IV-E Students, graduated 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbjZQv8AHI&feature=youtu.be • Observations from a county perspective

21. Implementation of 3 year partnered research project grant (CalSWEC) Finalization of replication materials for use in other counties Development of online training modules for student teams and other partners Continued integration with larger FII (e.g., involvement of first year students in research projects). Next Steps

22. Completed Partnered Research Projects:Research Briefs available on CalSWEC’s RTN website Advancing trauma-informed systems change in a drug dependency treatment court context. Laurie Drabble, Shelby Jones, Soveary Chea, Ashley Thomas, & Grace Ivey http://calswec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rtn-report-files/research_brief_-_trauma_informed_systems_change_2012_sjsu_0.pdf Dependency Advocacy Center Mentor Parent Project Evaluation. Laurie Drabble, Armando Chavez, Lisa Haun, Vanessa Kimball, Eva Ortiz, Wil Quintero, & Elise Rockey http://calswec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rtn-report-files/research_brief_-_mentor_parent_project_evaluation_2012_sjsu.pdf Understanding the role of fathers in the child welfare reunification: A secondary data analysis. Amy D’Adrade, Ernesto Bejarano, Lorena Camarena, & Martha Holland http://calswec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rtn-report-files/research_brief_-_fathers_2012_sjsu_2.pdf Differential Response: Service use and outcomes among families using voluntary services. Kathy Lemon Osterling, William Bhader, Lisvet Carrillo‐Herrera, Nancy Castro, & Mary Mbugua http://calswec.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/rtn-report-files/research_brief_-_differential_response.pdf