|
Session Title: Hearing the Family Voice in Evaluation
|
|
Panel Session 964 to be held in Capistrano B on Saturday, Nov 5, 2:20 PM to 3:50 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Social Work TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Madeleine Kimmich, Human Services Research Institute, mkimmich@hsri.org
|
| Abstract:
Social services evaluations typically assess service impact through specifically-defined measures of recipient outcomes, often a mixture of objective and subjective information - for example, whether a problem behavior has ceased as well as professional judgments about how likely the behavior is to reoccur. Research indicates that family success depends not just on the objective merits of a service but also on how the intervention is seen by family members and how actively they engage in the process. It is essential to understand the family's direct experience of services, especially how they view their progress related to the intervention. Panelists present three distinct approaches - interview, survey, and focus group --to learn the perspective of family members. Each discussant describes the intervention being studied, key questions to be answered, how family voice was captured, and the results obtained. Discussion addresses the benefits, challenges, and value of hearing the family voice.
|
|
Using Qualitative Interviews to Increase Understanding of the Kinship Caregiving Experience
|
| Kimberly Firth, Human Services Research Institute, kfirth@hsri.org
|
|
HSRI conducted conversational, qualitative interviews by telephone with over 60 kinship caregivers (relatives or non-relatives caring for a child or children who would otherwise be in foster care), as part of the OHIO Title IV-E waiver demonstration evaluation. These interviews shed light on the impact of waiver-funded kinship supports from the kinship caregiver perspective. Interviewees shared their experiences including interactions with child welfare agency staff and navigating court and service systems. Integrating this information with other study findings is especially revealing; for example, some kinship caregivers were confused by the legal custody process and its implications, an important consideration in light of waiver efforts to increase child permanency rates by giving legal custody to kinship caregivers. Kimberly Firth conducted many of the kinship caregiver interviews and analyzed resulting data; she will share interview findings and discuss the challenges of integrating family voice into other study efforts.
|
|
|
Focus Groups with Families Who Participate in Family Team Meetings
|
| Madeleine Kimmich, Human Services Research Institute, mkimmich@hsri.org
|
|
Family Team Meetings (FTM) is a specific form of case planning that is the centerpiece of Ohio's Title IV-E waiver demonstration. Under the rubric of FTM, a wide range of people known to the family come together on a regular basis to plan for and review progress the family is making to assure the safety and stability of children. The evaluation examines the implementation of FTM across 18 demonstration sites, with special attention to fidelity to the steps in the FTM process. However, researchers have had less success measuring the 'black box', to learn about the nature of the interactions which occur and how participant outcomes are affected. Focus groups conducted with participating families revealed crucial limitations in the FTM process, which enriched the understanding of the intervention's impact and led to modifications to subsequent evaluation design. Madeleine Kimmich, Principal Investigator, has 35 years of experience in social services evaluation.
| |
|
Family Voice Through Mail Surveys: An Example From a Child Welfare Differential Response Program
|
| Linda Newton-Curtis, Human Services Research Institute, lnewton@hsri.org
|
|
Reports of child abuse are typically met by a child welfare investigation, and, if allegations are substantiated, follow-up services will be ordered by the agency or the court - a top-down approach. Differential Response represents a shift in intervention philosophy and practice with some low-risk families, replacing the investigation with a more supportive approach. Workers partner with families to identify services and supports that best fit the needs and characteristics of the family, specifically valuing the family perspective. To understand the difference in family outcomes arising from the traditional and the alternative social work approaches, a randomized control trial methodology was employed. Results from exit surveys conducted among families served in both the traditional and the alternative tracks show marked differences. Linda Newton-Curtis, lead survey researcher for HSRI's evaluation of Differential Response in Ohio, discusses the pros and cons of survey methodology as a way to present 'family voice'.
| |