Family team conferencing: results and implications from an experimental study in Florida.

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q4 FAMILY STUDIES Child Welfare Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Robin Perry, Jane Yoo, Toni Spoliansky, Pebbles Edelman
{"title":"Family team conferencing: results and implications from an experimental study in Florida.","authors":"Robin Perry,&nbsp;Jane Yoo,&nbsp;Toni Spoliansky,&nbsp;Pebbles Edelman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article reports the outcome evaluation findings of an experimental study conducted with families in the child welfare system in Florida. Families were randomly assigned to one of three Family Team Conferencing (FTC) models. In Pathway 1, the comparison model, FTCs were facilitated by case-workers. In Pathway 2, one of two experimental models, FTCs were cofacilitated by caseworkers and a designated/trained facilitator, and included expedited family engagement as well as the provision of FTCs throughout the life of a case. Pathway 3, also an experimental model, had the same components of Pathway 2 but also included family alone time. In approximately three years of the project period, 623 families agreed to participate in the study. Study findings showed no statistically significant change observed for families participating in Pathway 1 FTCs in terms of protective factors, achieving family-defined service and plan-of-care goals, and emotional and behavioral symptomology of children. Cases in Pathway 2 demonstrated significant improvement in family functioning and resiliency, nurturing and attachment, and increasing parents' knowledge about \"what to do as a parent.\" Caregivers and teens in Pathway 3 reported significant improvement in expression of emotional symptomology/problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and a measure of total difficulties. However, foster care re-entry rates were significantly higher for Pathway 3 than Pathway 2 (but not Pathway 1). Moreover, Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 FTCs had a significant effect on moving the family toward agreed upon service goals. Taken together, these findings suggest that the experimental FTC models in which facilitators were used and family engagement was expedited and sustained through subsequent FTCs demonstrated moderate, yet mixed benefits to children, youth, and families.</p>","PeriodicalId":9796,"journal":{"name":"Child Welfare","volume":"92 6","pages":"63-96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article reports the outcome evaluation findings of an experimental study conducted with families in the child welfare system in Florida. Families were randomly assigned to one of three Family Team Conferencing (FTC) models. In Pathway 1, the comparison model, FTCs were facilitated by case-workers. In Pathway 2, one of two experimental models, FTCs were cofacilitated by caseworkers and a designated/trained facilitator, and included expedited family engagement as well as the provision of FTCs throughout the life of a case. Pathway 3, also an experimental model, had the same components of Pathway 2 but also included family alone time. In approximately three years of the project period, 623 families agreed to participate in the study. Study findings showed no statistically significant change observed for families participating in Pathway 1 FTCs in terms of protective factors, achieving family-defined service and plan-of-care goals, and emotional and behavioral symptomology of children. Cases in Pathway 2 demonstrated significant improvement in family functioning and resiliency, nurturing and attachment, and increasing parents' knowledge about "what to do as a parent." Caregivers and teens in Pathway 3 reported significant improvement in expression of emotional symptomology/problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity, peer problems, and a measure of total difficulties. However, foster care re-entry rates were significantly higher for Pathway 3 than Pathway 2 (but not Pathway 1). Moreover, Pathway 2 and Pathway 3 FTCs had a significant effect on moving the family toward agreed upon service goals. Taken together, these findings suggest that the experimental FTC models in which facilitators were used and family engagement was expedited and sustained through subsequent FTCs demonstrated moderate, yet mixed benefits to children, youth, and families.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
家庭小组会议:佛罗里达一项实验研究的结果和影响。
本文报告了对佛罗里达州儿童福利系统中的家庭进行的一项实验研究的结果评估结果。家庭被随机分配到三种家庭小组会议(FTC)模式中的一种。在途径1的比较模型中,案例工作者促进了FTCs的发展。途径2是两种实验模式之一,该模式由个案工作者和一名指定/训练有素的调解人共同促进家庭参与,并在个案的整个生命周期内提供家庭参与。途径3也是一个实验模型,具有与途径2相同的成分,但也包括家庭独处时间。在大约三年的项目期间,623个家庭同意参加这项研究。研究结果显示,参与Pathway 1 FTCs的家庭在保护因素、实现家庭定义的服务和护理计划目标以及儿童的情绪和行为症状方面没有统计学上的显著变化。途径2的案例在家庭功能和弹性、养育和依恋方面有了显著的改善,并增加了父母对“作为父母该做什么”的认识。途径3的护理人员和青少年报告在情绪症状/问题的表达、行为问题、多动、同伴问题和总困难的测量方面有显著改善。然而,途径3的寄养再入率明显高于途径2(但不是途径1)。此外,途径2和途径3的FTCs对推动家庭实现商定的服务目标有显著影响。综上所述,这些发现表明,使用促进者并通过后续的FTC加速和维持家庭参与的实验性FTC模型对儿童、青少年和家庭表现出适度但混合的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Child Welfare
Child Welfare Multiple-
自引率
14.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Knowledge, Training, and Support Needs for Identification and Appropriate Care of Children with Prenatal Alcohol and Other Drug Exposures in the Child Welfare System. Preserving Families of Children in Child Welfare with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders: Challenges and Opportunities. Exploring Child Welfare Practices to Care for Children with Prenatal Substance Exposure. "The Problem's Bigger than We Are": Understanding How Local Factors Influence Child Welfare Responses to Substance Use in Pregnancy, A Qualitative Study. Family Care Plans for Infants with Prenatal Substance Exposure.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1