Evidence-Based Elements of Child Welfare In-Home Services

摘要: Children who are involved in the child welfare system manifest higher rates of behavioral difficulties comparison to youth within general population. According National Survey Child and Adolescent Well-Being, 33-43% whose families were investigated by protective services (90% whom remained at home following investigation) manifested clinical/borderline externalizing difficulties, while comparable estimates for population range from 5-7% (Administration & Families [ACF], 2005; Burns et al., 2004). At same time, their experience substantial barriers accessing engaging mental health services, such as concrete logistical (e.g., lacking money transportation childcare, competing demands mandated receive multiple authorities) (McKay Bannon, 2004; Kemp, Marcenko, Hoagwood, Vesneski, 2009). Additionally, negative perceptions about treatment, including stigma prior experiences with other providers staff, reduces service use (Anderson, 2006; Kerkorian, McKay, McKay Kemp As a result, most children problems do not needed treatment (Burns 2004), those able engage likely terminate before receiving therapeutic benefit (Lau Weisz, 2003). Untreated need among is detrimental entire family, particularly system. increased risk future maltreatment (Black, Heyman, Slep, 2001; Schumacher, 2001), often voluntarily place severe behavior into out-of-home placement (Barth, Wildfire, Green, 2006). Longer-term consequences untreated issues include criminal involvement, substance abuse, risky sexual (Brown, Danovsky, Lourie, DiClemente, Ponton, 1997; Gillmore, Morrison, Lowery, Baker, 1994; Inciardi, Pottieger, Forney, Chitwood, McBride, 1991; Lewis, 2010; Morris, Huscroft, 1992; Schaeffer, Petras, Ialongo, Poduska, Kellam, 2003; Weber, Elfenbein, Richards, Davis, Thomas, 1989). The required address these compounded needs result expenditure increases (up 10 times), making costly public concern (Scott, Knapp, Henderson, Maughan, 2001). Thus, enhancing access high priority, amongst welfare. Peer-delivered offer promise connecting vulnerable resources, care (Acri, Olin, Burton, Herman, 2013; Chinman, Young, Hassell, Davidson 2008; Solomon, In adult fields, peers, themselves have or problem, provide outreach, education, some cases, individuals at-risk (Auslander, Haire-Joshu, Houston, Rhee, Williams, 2002; Chinman 2008). system, peers typically caregivers challenges trained family support, instruction/skill development parenting strategies, anger management stress reduction techniques), emotional instrumental transportation, respite, childcare). Including support part treatments may optimize addressing many family-level caregiver strain health), which could derail engagement outcomes (Barnard McKeganey, Leslie, Aarons, Haine, Hough, 2007; Petterson Albers, Reyno McGrath, 2006). A newer model delivery interventions consists an interdisciplinary team composed professional peer. Team-delivered been associated important including: knowledge enhanced sense self-efficacy, satisfaction social reduced isolation (Hoagwood 2010). A lesser-studied area inquiry involves how perceive co-led peer, if there any additive benefits involving peer interventions. literature, example, shown deliver effectively professionals case managers; 2008) well unique foster empowerment self-care; Hoagwood Whether this true interventions, complex clear. The purpose study describe (i.e. involvement), explore whether utilizing model. current undertaking derives larger effectiveness that examined impact Multiple Family Group (MFG) disruptive disorders families--also known 4Rs 2Ss Strengthening Program (Chacko press; Gopalan 2014; Gopalan, Fuss, Wisdom, Franco, 2009; 2011; Small, Jackson, press). Within model, peer-clinician teams provided low-income, inner-city families, included proportion reporting involvement. Briefly, MFG integrates principles therapy, parent training, group therapy. Weekly sessions involve six eight (including caregivers, identified siblings) over course four months. addresses promotes positive families. study, began October, 2006 concluded 2010, enrolled 320 (n= 225 Experimental group; n= 95 Services Usual group) between seven 11 years age met criteria Oppositional Defiant Disorder Conduct See Chacko al. (in press) (2011) more thorough description project derives. To date, has effective reducing improving skills when compared usual This be beneficial innovative intervention focused on retaining urban minority childhood capacity limitations. Consequently, can tested exclusively understanding respond will identify where modifications, any, necessary.