Featured IFPS Program: North Carolina

(North Carolina is the third in our series of featured IFPS programs. See more at State Profiles.)

1.How long has your state offered IFPS? Share about the history of IFPS in your state.

IFPS State Administrator:
North Carolina’s Intensive Family Preservation, based on the Homebuilders® model, was first offered in North Carolina in October of 1991. In January 1994 an automated data collection system was incorporated as part of provider reporting. The North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS V. 1.4) was first implemented during the spring of 1995.North Carolina strives to ensure that IFPS services are as effective as possible. During the spring of 1998, a reliability and validity study of the NCFAS 1.4 was conducted which resulted in the development and implementation of the NCFAS 2.0 which is still used in NC, although we will begin the use of the NCFAS+G by the end of State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2014. In SFY 2000 a retrospective study of the effectiveness of IFPS was conducted and that study indicated that IFPS is effective in preventing or delaying out of home placement in comparison to traditional child welfare services.In part due to findings from the retrospective study, North Carolina revised IFPS policies effective 2001 to standardize the definition of “imminent risk” and restrict referrals to only those from County Divisions of Social Services, Mental Health Agencies and Department of Juvenile Justice. NC also began the process of offering services statewide by dividing the state into regions. Agencies were required to serve all counties in their region by SFY 2004–2005, making IFPS services truly available statewide.From SFY 1992 to 2007 the NC Division of Social Services funded Dr. Ray Kirk to conduct evaluations of the IFPS program including an Annual Report and a Cost-Benefit Analysis. The program was consistently shown to be very cost-effective compared with placement costs had children been placed out of the home. Additionally, for those children who were placed out of home following IFPS, those children typically were served in a more appropriate placement and at a lower level of care than they would have required had they not had IFPS.

IFPS Provider A:
Eckerd has been providing IFPS for over 3 years. Our office is in Lumberton, NC and we serve Region 7 that includes: Anson, Hoke, Moore, Montgomery, Scotland, Richmond, Cumberland, and Johnston Counties.IFPS Provider B:
Our agency has been providing IFPS services since 2004. We started with only 2 counties then expanded in 2009/10 to 5 additional counties for a total of 7 counties in our service region.

2. Why does your state/agency offer IFPS?

IFPS State Administrator:
We offer IFPS as part of our federal award for Social Security Title IVB-2 funding. It is primarily offered to “imminent risk” families who have had child protective services involvement, but some referrals are made from mental health and juvenile justice. IFPS is available to all counties in our state.

IFPS Provider A:
The purpose of our program is to prevent unnecessary placement of children away from their families by providing in-home services aimed at restoring families in crisis to an acceptable level of functioning. These services are designed to: stabilize the crisis which put the child at imminent risk, keep the child, family, and community safe by defusing the potential for violence (physical, sexual, emotional/verbal abuse) and help families develop the skills, competencies and resources they need to handle future crisis situations more effectively.Eckerd’s known for “the first name in second chances.” Eckerd believes every child and family deserves a second chance.IFPS Provider B:
The addition of IFPS services to our programming was a natural fit with our agency’s mission of the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect. Our agency started in 1997 and had already established prevention/intervention programs. In 2004 we were in need of a model of service that would allow us to expand into treatment. IFPS was the perfect fit for both our mission and our emphasis on a clinical model that would add to our home visitation specialty.

3. What qualities do you want to see in providers of IFPS, both at the agency and at the therapist level?

IFPS State Administrator:
First and foremost, the ability to provide IFPS with fidelity to the model, which is based on Homebuilders®. In addition, the ability to fulfill documentation and reporting requirements.

IFPS Provider A:
Eckerd hires quality people to work as IFPS workers. Staff is required to have a four year degree in the human service field. The worker must be compassionate, non-judgmental, enjoy working with others, be culturally aware, and be able to work in tough situations in a family’s home.IFPS Provider B:
Someone who is able to take each family and their circumstances on their own individual merits. This person should be:

respectful yet direct quickly due to the short-term nature of the service
able to see the “big picture” and problem solve effectively
able to teach in a way that is not lecturing while still being able to present information that is clinical, compassionate and understanding

We look for someone who understands child abuse and neglect, trauma integration, and can impart this information on to the family in a strengths-based manner. We also look for someone who is passionate about our overall mission of child abuse and neglect prevention.

4. What qualities do you look for in an IFPS therapist?

IFPS State Administrator:
Increased safety and stability, improved family functioning and an increase in protective factors

IFPS Provider A:
Positive changes! Families are able to remain intact. Parents learn tools and resources to help them communicate, reward, interact, and positive reinforcement to better their parenting skills. Families are linked with community resources and support systems.IFPS Provider B:
Again, each family is different. The most positive changes we see are: the parents are able to identify areas that need improvement(s), can set goals, make progress towards those goals and ultimately maintain the children in their home without the need for out-of-home placement. While this may look different from family to family, I believe there is potential with all families to achieve these changes.

5. How do you measure success of IFPS services? How successful are IFPS services in your state?

IFPS State Administrator:
We currently use the NCFAS but will soon transition to the NCFAS-G. We also use the FRIENDS Protective Factors Survey. Statewide, at least 80% of families demonstrate improved functioning using these tools. The providers also conduct follow-up at 6 & 12 months after case closure to determine if the family is still safely intact. We don’t have data for this outcome yet.

IFPS Provider A:
Eckerd measures success in our outcomes. We track data and record family progress by administering client satisfaction surveys, client feedback forms, assess whether the family showed improvement in domains measured by the NCFAS pre/post. Eckerd also measures success if the family actively participated and completed the program, and the face to face time requirement was met. Most importantly, if the family remained intact and the child/children did not re-enter foster care within 12 months of case closure.IFPS Provider B:
Ultimately I believe the measure of success of IFPS services is that the parents are able to make positive parenting choices that prevent their children from being placed outside of the home. We do this by setting goals at the beginning of services, working towards these goals during the service, and then assessing progress/challenges made at the end of the service. We believe a parent’s goal plan that shows “ongoing” rather than “achieved” at the end of services is success because it means that parent is working towards achieving their goals. IFPS is really about starting parents on the “AH HA” journey: recognizing the path that led them to this place of crisis, owning the needed changes that must occur, and beginning the steps of making those positive changes. IFPS sheds a light and helps parents take those first steps on this journey. With work come positive outcomes.

6. What advice and resources can you share with other states that want to establish a strong IFPS program?

IFPS State Administrator:
Get support from Homebuilders® and utilize the NCFAS-G. Our state is divided into regions and there is a community-based agency in each region that provides services to all counties therein. This system has worked well for several years.

IFPS Provider A:
Current and frequent trainings offered by the State, agency, or other local trainings are strongly encouraged. They help a program remain current, learn what changes are being made, collaborate and network with other agencies.IFPS Provider B:
Be patient. Be thorough. BE TRAUMA INFORMED!!! Take each family and their individual set of circumstances on their own individual merit. Do not judge. Do not lecture. Counsel. Show compassion. Show understanding.

Contacts:
IFPS State Administrators
Michelle D. Reines
Program Consultant, Child Welfare Services
N.C. Division of Social Services

Heather Bohanan
Supervisor, Performance Management/Reporting and Evaluation Management
N.C. Department of Health and Human Services

IFPS Providers
Mandy Canzonieri (Provider A)
Manager
Eckerd

Sarah Black (Provider B)
IFPS Supervisor
Exchange Club (SCAN)

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network

North Carolina IFPS Training

Two weeks ago, we looked at the IFPS new worker training offered in New Jersey. (See IFPS in a University Setting.) This week we look at the training provided in North Carolina. Both North Carolina and New Jersey offer six days of training:

North Carolina Training

Family-Centered Practice in Family Preservation Programs is a six-day specialized curriculum designed for family preservation and other home-based services workers, which provides instruction in the skills necessary for a successful in-home intervention.

Day One begins with an introduction to six principles of partnership that enhance a worker’s ability to provide family-centered services. Next is an overview of the training which follows the family preservation and reunification process through the Family Intervention Cycle. This includes seven stages of engaging families:

Joining: screening and intake, relationship-building
Discovery: assessment, reduction of resistance, setting goals
The Change Process: treatment
Celebration
Closure
Reflection: evaluation
Follow-up.

The IFPS model is introduced and its components are defined through reviews of policies and procedures, the history of IFPS in North Carolina, a video of IFPS in action, and outcome data. The role of cultural competency in IFPS is examined, and the day ends with participants practicing with case studies to determine whether or not they meet IFPS, FPS, or RS standards.

Day Two is spent examining the Joining Process, which includes developing relationships and how to get started with a family. The introduction of a “toolbox” on this day offers participants a visual tracking of skills, techniques or tools that will be presented throughout the training. The day ends with an introduction to two “practice” families which the group will track throughout the remainder of the training. One case study focuses on an IFPS/FPS and the other tracks an RS family.

Day Three provides an opportunity for each participant to begin to practice tools and concepts presented in the curriculum by applying them to the two case study families. This day focuses on the Discovery Process, and participants are asked to practice looking for assessment information through the use of video clips of the family. Multiple tools for discovery are presented and practiced.

Day Four begins with an examination of how family strengths can be used in the intervention process. Next, participants are presented with multiple tools for setting goals with families, then role play goal-setting with the two case study families. Record keeping is introduced and is tracked throughout by the use of sample client files for the two practice families. The Change Process is introduced on this day and the first two of five strategies for helping families change are reviewed: Changing Behavior and Improving Parenting Skills. The rest of the day is spent looking at behavior management and improving parenting skills. Throughout the day, participants are introduced to new tools and are given opportunities to practice them with the case study families.

Day Five continues with the Change Process by focusing on the remaining three strategies for helping families change: Examining Family Dynamics, Enhancing Communication, and Connecting with Resources. Practice opportunities continue throughout the day as the “toolbox” continues to grow.

Day Six begins with Celebrating Change which focuses on helping families improve during the intervention and move on after case closure. The curriculum focuses on evaluating the family plan, looking at ethical and safety issues related to IFPS/FPS/RS, writing crisis intervention and safety plans, and examining case closure procedures as well as follow-up requirements. The day ends with looking at options for transitioning families to follow-up care and connecting them with resources.
_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network

A Blog’s Life: Our First Year

The IFPS Coast-to-Coast blog is celebrating its first anniversary! What do we have to celebrate?

A Coast-to-Coast Conversation that Is Dedicated to the Field of IFPS

There is no other forum with this sole focus. We believe that IFPS plays a critical role in the continuum of family and child-serving systems. We want to make sure that it continues to fulfill that role in the best way possible.

A Variety of Topics for Everyone Involved in IFPS

During the past year we have had posts on topics that appeal to practitioners, supervisors, administrators, researchers, evaluators, and just about everyone else who is involved in IFPS. If there is a topic of interest to you that has not yet been addressed, let us know!

A Milestone for IFPS

This year marks the 40th Anniversary of IFPS (Homebuilders® model). Throughout the year, we will be sharing tidbits of history along with the impact of IFPS.

Preserving the Past and Preparing for the Future

As part of the 40th Anniversary activities, the Institute for Family Development and the National Family Preservation Network will develop an IFPS Repository to store and share memorabilia, articles, publications, and other documents on IFPS. The Repository will preserve the past, enlighten the present, and serve as a foundation to educate future generations about IFPS.

What is the future of IFPS?

We think it’s bright but we know that it will only be achieved through hard work and commitment. We need to consider how we can all work together to create this bright future. How about this for our motto: “If your path is more difficult, it is because your calling is higher” (Unknown).

Your Turn

A blog is interactive so now it’s your turn. Here are some ways that you can actively participate:

Pass it along. See “How to Share a Post.” Anyone can follow the blog on Facebook, Twitter, or sign up to receive notification by e-mail.
Comment. See “How to Leave a Comment.”
E-mail us at blog@nfpn.org. We want to hear about your successes with IFPS and also your frustrations.
Write a post. Let us know that you’d like to contribute a post and we’ll provide the guidelines.
And let us know about anything else that would be of interest to the IFPS Community.

_______________
Posted by Peg Marckworth

IFPS In a University Setting

Since the inception of IFPS 40 years ago, advocates have discussed how best to transmit the IFPS knowledge base into social work education.

In the early days of IFPS, the strategy in schools of social work was for students to develop a generalist practice base first and then move into an area of advanced specialization. Current practice allows for specialization earlier in the process.

The National Child Welfare Workforce Institute focuses on students who are preparing for a career in child welfare. From 2009–2013, 300 students received financial support to obtain a BSW or MSW. Many of them are or have been employed in the child welfare field as they work towards an advanced degree. A dozen universities partner with the National Child Welfare Workforce Institute to train students.

Universities offering a specialty in child welfare generally offer one session on family preservation or, at most, one course. Rutgers University has consistently set the academic standard for coursework through initial and ongoing training to IFPS students and therapists.

Click the link below to download a description of the six-day coursework offered to all new IFPS therapists:
(PDF, 135 Kb)
http://bit.ly/OHqN38

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network

Family Preservation Journal

Image used by permission

This is the first of two posts on the role of academia over the 40 years that IFPS has been in existence. From the beginning, IFPS has been one of the most researched and written about models of human services. Frequently this work was undertaken by faculty at colleges and universities across the nation.

In 1995 the Family Preservation Institute within the Department of Social Work, New Mexico State University, released the first issue of the Family Preservation Journal. Printing costs were covered by subscriptions. Professors John Ronnau and Alvin Sallee stated the purpose of the Journal: “to provide a forum in which practitioners, administrators, researchers, and educators in family preservation may present and critically review their findings, issues, and concerns. In the process, the family preservation culture and approach will be refined and invigorated.” Over twenty additional college and university professors served on the Editorial Board.

Articles in the first issue included:

A proposal that universities adopt a family preservation and support agenda as one of their missions in surrounding communities and regions.

A conceptual framework for reunification. A case example was analyzed using a conceptual framework that included social learning theory, client-centered approach, and ecological systems theory.

In a research study article, four assessment scales were used to determine change in family functioning based on the IFPS intervention. The results indicated that IFPS had a positive effect on family functioning.

The Journal also included a review of books and training materials. A professor commented on a 43-minute video of HOMEBUILDERS® IFPS training in which eight vignettes were presented to demonstrate behavioral-cognitive skills.

The following is an excerpt from the findings that reflected changes in parenting for families receiving IFPS:

Table 4
Child Well-Being Scales

Child Well-Being Scale	Pretest Mean	Posttest Mean	T-Value
Child well-being scale (44 items)	88.8	90.9	***-3.37
Parental disposition (14 items)	82.3	86.8	***-4.32
Children’s adequacy of mental health care	88.9	93.9	-1.95
Parental capacity of child care	88.6	88.8	-.10
Parental recognition of problems in the family	68.9	78.8	**-3.26
Parental motivation to solve problems	76.4	80.9	*-2.20
Parental cooperation with case planning	86.9	87.0	-.04
Parental acceptance of children	80.6	82.9	**-3.10
Parental approval of children	82.9	87.3	**-2.97
Parental expectations of children	81.1	97.6	***-3.39
Parental consistency of discipline	80.5	87.4	***-3.50
Teaching/stimulating children	85.7	87.0	-1.09
Protection from abuse	85.0	92.5	-1.79
Abusive physical discipline	87.9	6.51	*-2.40
Threat of abuse	89.8	94.7	**-2.73

p
* = <.05
** = <.01
*** = <.00

This brief overview of the first issue of the Family Preservation Journal indicates the role of the Journal in aiding to establish the foundation, theory, research, best practice, tools, and resources that would undergird the development and expansion of IFPS. A publication founded and supported by academia and devoted solely to family preservation lent legitimacy and credibility to the movement.

The publication’s name was later changed to the Journal of Family Strengths. Issues of the Family Preservation Journal are now available free online. Here is the link to the first issue: (PDF, 10.6 MB)
http://bit.ly/1bPGMkq

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network

Listening and Changing

How well do you listen?
How much do you know about what makes people want to change?

For anyone who needs to engage client families, these are two critical questions.

Most of us think we are good listeners. Here’s a simple test: how frequently in your communication with client families do you…

direct?
give advice?
persuade?
disagree?
interpret?
analyze?
question?
probe?
reassure?
sympathize?

You may be surprised to discover that none of these responses define listening!

How about promoting willingness to change?

How frequently do you begin to develop a case plan for families during your first meeting with them? And then discover that family members have taken none of the steps when you next visit them! Perhaps that is because there are three steps that need to be taken before family members are willing to make changes.

In 2012 the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN), in cooperation with the Institute for Family Development (IFD), developed a webcast training on Active Listening and the Six Stages of Change.

The half-hour webcast includes:

How to obtain information from families without interrogating them
How families make decisions to change and why rushing them is counter-productive
How listening to a family is key to helping them

The IFD Trainer, Suzanna McCarthy, provides a wealth of information, examples, and methods of really listening to families and helping them achieve their goals.

We’re making this webcast (a recording of the livestream video) available to you at no cost. You’ll want to view it more than once and you’ll learn something new every time! A handout to aid you in following along with the recording is also provided.

To access the webcast recording and handout, visit:
http://nfpn.org/products/nfpn-ifd-webcast

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network
and Charlotte Booth, Executive Director, Institute for Family Development

An Australian’s View of IFPS

Photo by marragem. Used under the Creative Commons license.

In 2012, the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust provided me with the most adventurous, challenging, and rewarding experience of my life when approving my project into studying the effective use of intensive family support services to address child and abuse and neglect.

During my 10 weeks of travel across the United Kingdom, Denmark, the United States of America, and Canada, I heard from some of the world’s foremost experts on child protection who have shared their valuable time, experiences, and knowledge with me.

Some Lessons I Learned About Intensive Family Preservation Services

A family preservation philosophy is essential to achieve positive transformational change.

Research-based, effective family preservation services must be established in an intensive targeted system.

Child protection must be conceptualized as a system that protects children, supports families, and strengthens communities, with the sharing, not shifting, of responsibilities.

A political and public will must be established in order to challenge the hearts and minds of the community to assert that our most vulnerable children and families are worthy of respect, care, and support—whatever it takes.

Child abuse and neglect does not occur in isolation, rather in contexts. It cannot be easily disentangled from individual, family, and community issues, such as, poverty, mental health, drug and alcohol dependency, domestic violence, homelessness, and social isolation. Governments across the world are actively seeking options to support families so that more children and young people could remain safely at home. Just as there is not “one type” of family, nor is there a “one type of service” that can address all of the families’ needs. Family preservation services have a significant role to fulfill in a system designed to protect children and support families. Throughout my travels, I have developed an understanding that family preservation is also a philosophy, with potential to provide community-based interventions for families with a much broader range of issues and problems.

The following is what I learned from one program I visited in the United States.

Institute for Family Development—Developers of the HOMEBUILDERS® Program

Homebuilders® is an intensive in-home family treatment program designed to keep children and families safe and prevent unnecessary out of home placement of children, and to safely reunite children and families. The team (I met with Charlotte Booth, Christi Lyson, and John Hutchens) spoke of how the Homebuilders® program has evolved over time but the emphasis of the intervention has always been on the safety of the child.

In order to achieve that the program has a clearly articulated set of values and beliefs, which guides program design and staff behaviour. Along with the provision of concrete supports, clinicians utilize a range of cognitive and behavioural therapy interventions, such as motivational enhancements therapy.

The promotion of Homebuilders® to the child protection sector as an effective intervention program has not come without its challenges. The implementation of the model takes time and resources and the support of the government and non-government sectors is crucial.

A meta-analysis of research conducted by the Washington State Institute For Public Policy into Intensive Family Preservation Programs: Program Fidelity Influences Effectiveness (February, 2006) concluded that:

Intensive Family Preservation Services that are implemented with fidelity to the Homebuilders® model significantly reduce out-of-home placements and subsequent abuse and neglect. We estimate that such programs produce $2.54 of benefits for each dollar of cost. However non- Homebuilders® programs (even those claiming to be based on the Homebuilders®) produce no significant effect on either outcome.

These results support the view that fidelity to program design can determine whether or not an individual program is effective in achieving its goals.

Grounded in comprehensive research, the Homebuilders® model is an effective family preservation model that would greatly benefit Queensland’s (Australia) child protection system.

The transportation of effective and sustainable alternative strategies as seen throughout the United States, Canada, Denmark, and the United Kingdom can benefit Australia through redirecting future funding, policy, and programs areas that better target services to vulnerable children and families.

Resources must be shifted to fund research-based, effective family preservation services to address child maltreatment.

The full report can be accessed at:
http://www.churchilltrust.com.au/fellows/detail/3689/christopher+boyle

_______________
Posted by Chris Boyle, 2012 Churchill Fellow, Queensland, AUSTRALIA
chrisjboyle74@gmail.com

IFPS and Step-down Services

From its inception, IFPS has been an all-inclusive service that is completed within four to six weeks. Early IFPS programs had no provision for step-down services. This does not mean that families received no additional services. IFPS therapists frequently refer families to other services prior to the close of the IFPS intervention. But the question remains: are IFPS step-down services ever justified? If so, when is the optimal time to offer them?

I undertook a study of this issue in 2000 in the state of North Carolina. What I discovered was a “window of vulnerability” that is depicted in the following chart by means of placement rates following the IFPS intervention:

Note “window of vulnerability” from 120 days to 270 days post service.

The placement dynamics evident suggested that secondary interventions or additional services should be offered to families in the first 6 months following termination of the IFPS intervention.

Beginning in 2004, IFPS programs in North Carolina were required to track families for 6 months after receiving IFPS services:

Contact families monthly, inquire about functioning & needs.
Conduct a more comprehensive assessment of families during the contacts at 3 months and 6 months.
Verify that families were receiving the services that they were supposed to receive after IFPS and see if additional in-home services are needed.

IFPS workers were authorized to re-open services to the family for a maximum of 2 weeks and a maximum of 2 times during the 6 month follow-up period.

Between 2004 and 2008, 999 families received follow-up contacts
593 received 3-month comprehensive assessment
381 received 6-month assessment
Families had option to decline being contacted in the future; some families could not be located

Family contacts during 6 months following case closure

	Month 1	Month 2	Month 3	Month 4	Month 5	Month 6
Number of Families Contacted	999	791	662	535	471	407
Average Hours of Phone Contacts	1.07	.92	.92	.77	.73	.78
Average Hours of In-Person Contacts	1.89	1.33	1.28	1.19	1.11	1.20
Average # Worker Initiated Contacts	1.66	1.43	1.42	1.39	1.35	1.32
Average # Family Initiated Contacts	1.55	1.35	1.32	1.02	.92	.95
Number of Case Re-Openings	17	10	8	7	7	5

During the period 2000–2004, prior to implementation of follow-up contacts and possible additional services, the post service placement rate (attrition rate) during the first 6 months was approximately 7%, based on AFCARS data.

Among families receiving follow-up services between 2004 and 2008, post-IFPS service placement rate was:

3.0% during first 3 months,
1.5% during months 4–6.

Conclusion

Follow-up services during first 6 months post-IFPS services appear to reduce the placement (attrition) rate by about one-third.

_______________
Posted by Ray Kirk, Researcher
Dr. Kirk’s research on the child welfare system includes assessment tools, IFPS, reunification, and prevention.

IFPS and Disproportionality

Racial/ethnic disproportionality in child welfare has been a topic of interest and controversy among child welfare researchers and administrators since data became available that permitted its investigation.

These findings from a Casey study in 2007 [1]highlight the over- and under-representation of ethnic groups in foster care:

Black children are overrepresented in foster care by a ratio of 2:1
Native Americans are overrepresented in foster care by a ratio of 2:1
Whites are underrepresented by a ratio of 0.7:1
Hispanics are underrepresented by a ratio of 0.9:1
Asians are underrepresented in foster care by a ratio of 0.25:1

Disproportionate Need or Discriminatory Practices

Citing Hill (2006) [2], Casey Family Programs states that three national incidence studies revealed no significant differences between the base maltreatment rates of Black and White families.

This lack of differences in base rates suggests that disproportionality in the child welfare system is not due to disproportionate need, but rather to discriminatory practices in society (reports of abuse and neglect) or within the child welfare system (investigations, substantiations, placements, permanency outcomes).

Addressing Disproportionality

In order to determine effective strategies for reducing disproportionality, I undertook a study to examine an effort to address disproportionality with a policy and practice initiative utilizing Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). [3] The study was based on data from the state of North Carolina:

IFPS is available in 70 of the state’s 100 counties, although IFPS is not available in sufficient quantity in any county to respond to all eligible families.

Families eligible for but that did not receive IFPS received traditional public and contract agency services, such as, counseling, skill training, protective supervision, day care, etc.
The study employed a retrospective, population-based design that permitted the selection of all high-risk abuse and neglect cases.
Data were merged from various statewide (NCCANDS, AFCARS) and program-specific (IFPS) databases.
The study included 2,056 high-risk families that received IFPS, and the comparison group included 28,004 high-risk families.
About three-fifths of the treatment population was White, a little more than one-third was Black, and the remainder comprised American Indians, Hispanics, and Asian/Southeast Asian families.
There were no differences on placement rates between Blacks and non-Black minorities, so these groups were combined.
White and non-White racial groups within the IFPS treatment condition were essentially equivalent with the exception of non-Whites having slightly more substantiated prior reports. Theoretically, any increased overall risk associated with this difference would be likely to diminish, rather than enhance the treatment outcome being investigated.
Independent variables: race, risk, IFPS versus non-IFPS
Dependent variable: cumulative risk of placement

The Results

High-risk minority children receiving traditional services were at higher risk of placement than White children, but minority children receiving IFPS were less likely to be placed than White children.
When only minority children were examined, those receiving IFPS were less likely to be placed than those receiving traditional services.

Figure 1—Risk of Placement After CPS Report for Children Receiving Traditional CW Services by Race

Figure 2—Risk of Placement After Referral to IFPS for Children Receiving IFPS by Race

Figure 3—Risk of Placement After CPS Report/Referral to IFPS for Non-White Children

Conclusion

IFPS is associated with a reduction in racial disproportionality of out-of-home placement among high-risk families. Within-race analysis suggests that IFPS may mitigate racial disparity in out-of-home placement existing in the remainder of the child welfare population that receives traditional services.

References

1. Casey Family Programs. (2007). Fact Sheet: Disproportionality in the Child Welfare System: The Disproportionate Representation of Children of Color in Foster Care.

2. Hill, R.B. (2006). Synthesis of Research on Disproportionality in Child Welfare: An Update. Washington, DC: Casey/Center for the Study of Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity.

3. Kirk, R.S. & Griffith, D.P. (2008). Impact of intensive family preservation services on disproportionality of out-of-home placement of children of color in one state’s child welfare system. Child Welfare, 87 (5), 87–105.

_______________
Posted by Ray Kirk, Researcher
Dr. Kirk’s research on the child welfare system includes assessment tools, IFPS, reunification, and prevention.

Implementing IFPS Nationwide

Part of the excitement of celebrating the 40th Anniversary of IFPS comes from discovering or re-discovering publications that document the history and impact of IFPS.

In this post we review a paper written in 2001 by Frank Farrow, Director of the Center for the Study of Social Policy. Mr. Farrow looked at the first quarter-century of IFPS; the following is a summary of his findings taken from The Shifting Policy Impact of Intensive Family Preservation Services.

In the 1980s, the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation funded 10 programs to determine how to keep families in crisis intact. The Homebuilders® IFPS program stood out based on clarity of service approach, quality training, and quality assurance. The Clark Foundation was convinced that the Homebuilders® program could be replicated nationwide.

Peter Forsythe, Director of the Children’s Program at Clark Foundation, developed three strategies to achieve this goal:

Further development of the Homebuilders® practice model
A coalition of national organizations to support IFPS
Support to states that were committed to implementing the model

The most critical implementation occurred at the state level.

Michigan was one of the first states to implement IFPS and pioneered the use of IFPS with families involved in substance abuse. (Note: Michigan was also the site of a random assignment control group study demonstrating the effectiveness of IFPS in preventing placement.)

Kentucky was the first state to introduce legislation mandating IFPS, with Judge Richard Fitzgerald a key supporter.

Iowa’s IFPS program was established statewide with the help of a key legislator, as was Tennessee’s program.

Missouri had a public-private partnership for IFPS consisting of the child welfare agency, a children’s advocacy group, and the mental health agency.

Taken together, these states generated a groundswell of professional opinion in favor of IFPS.

Meanwhile, on the national front, Congress had passed legislation in 1980 requiring that states make “reasonable efforts” to maintain children in their own homes before removing them for placement in foster homes or residential care.

However, there was no clear definition or funding to implement this provision.

And so the national organizations that supported IFPS went to work to link reasonable efforts to family preservation. National organizations that supported IFPS included:

Child Welfare League of America (CWLA),
Children’s Defense Fund (CDF),
Mental Health Institute of the University of South Florida,
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), and
Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP).

States that had implemented IFPS provided critical testimony and onsite visits. All of these efforts resulted in passage of the Family Preservation and Support amendments to child welfare law in 1993. For the first time, a federal funding stream was available for IFPS that explicitly recognized the concept and practice of family preservation.

Mr. Farrow concludes by saying that family preservation has changed child welfare practice in ways that can never completely disappear. IFPS created a widespread professional belief that intensive interventions can make a difference to families. That belief lives on today!

To read Mr. Farrow’s paper, visit:
http://bit.ly/1jxO6sU

_______________
Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director, National Family Preservation Network