Did you know that the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) was in the vanguard when we first offered online courses six years ago? Did you know that there are over 600 online course vendors today? Did you know that 60% of the nation’s 4000 colleges/universities offer online degree programs? Did you know that just one university—Arizona State University—offers 70 degree programs online?   You can even obtain a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree online!

If none of this information comes as a surprise to you, then you’re well informed when it comes to online courses. But for many of us the explosion of online courses in recent years comes as more of a shock that is difficult to comprehend.

Here are some reasons why online courses have become so prevalent:

• Convenient
• Work at your own pace
• Earn CEU’s for ongoing education
• Engaging
• Quick way to gain specific knowledge
• Low cost

What about an online degree closer to home? For example, can you obtain a social work degree online? Absolutely! A quick google reveals over 50 colleges and universities offering online degrees in social work. You can also obtain ongoing education in social work although it may be challenging to find a specific course that fits your exact needs. A starting place is the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) that has just launched a new online continuing education resource for social workers, the Professional Education and Training Center (http://www.naswdc.org/pdev/default.asp).

And, what does NFPN plan for future online courses? We are considering additional online courses on father involvement and first-ever online courses for Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). Especially in the child welfare field, involving fathers appears to have stalled. One reason is that most of the father involvement curricula are, perhaps understandably, from a male perspective. However, the child welfare field is overwhelmingly female in both work force and head of household. Maybe it’s time to address that issue with a course on The Female Perspective on Father Involvement. How does that sound to you?

IFPS services are offered in most states but training for staff is generally available only when IFPS is offered statewide.  NFPN provides the IFPS ToolKit but that is more of a resource for establishing IFPS programs. There are currently no online courses for IFPS. Is there interest out there in taking online courses for IFPS?
NFPN would like to know what online courses subject matter is of interest to you. To provide NFPN with input and feedback on online courses, please take the 7-question survey at this link:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/RCVLFDR

It will take only a few minutes to complete and the information will be priceless! Thank you.

Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director

National Family Preservation Network

In 1980 Congress passed the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act in response to findings that child welfare agencies removed children from their parents without first attempting to preserve the family and then failed to provide parents with adequate services for reunification. The new law required states (child welfare agencies) to make “reasonable efforts” to help families stay together or to help reunite them. Congress required courts to make a finding as to whether or not the child welfare agency provided reasonable efforts. If the court made a “no reasonable efforts” finding, then the agency would receive no federal funding while the child was in foster care.

Although mandating reasonable efforts, Congress did not define the term. It so happened that family preservation services were being established nationwide during the same 1980’s decade when the federal government, states, and courts were focused on reasonable efforts. Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) were therefore often equated with reasonable efforts during that time.

It’s optional for states to define reasonable efforts. Three-quarters of the states do have definitions in statute. Minnesota’s law is more definitive than other states. Courts must consider whether services were:

1) Relevant to the safety and protection of the child;

2) Adequate to meet the needs of the child and family;

3) Culturally appropriate;

4) Available and accessible;

5) Consistent and timely; and

6) Realistic under the circumstances

While the states define and provide services to achieve reasonable efforts, the courts make the findings that enforce compliance. In a revealing survey conducted in Michigan in 2005, 20% of judges reported they always found reasonable efforts had been made, 70% said they rarely concluded there were no reasonable efforts, and 40% admitted that they lied about reasonable efforts being made because the state would otherwise lose federal aid! A nationwide survey of over 1,200 juvenile court judges found that only 44 judges had ever made at least one no reasonable efforts finding.

Obviously, there have been problems with implementation of the reasonable efforts mandate over the past 35 years: no definition provided by Congress, states have no guidance in developing definitions and definitions vary widely; and courts are extremely hesitant to make findings of no reasonable efforts. Why not just throw in the towel and repeal reasonable efforts?

Because there is a champion for the cause of reasonable efforts! Judge Leonard Edwards (retired) has written a book, Reasonable Efforts: A Judicial Perspective, that is reviving this important standard. Judge Edwards points out in his book that the reasonable efforts finding most often arises at the hearing for termination of parental rights. This is far too late in the process. Judge Edwards recommends that courts address reasonable efforts early and frequently throughout the case by:

Appointing counsel for indigent parents and guardians ad litem for all children prior to the shelter care hearing

• Addressing reasonable efforts at the shelter care hearing
• Scheduling an adjudication hearing within 60 days
• Determining if the child welfare agency has provided timely, relevant, and effective services in order to achieve reunification
• Scheduling interim hearings to check on progress
• Engaging fathers and the fathers’ families
• Providing training to all who are responsible for ensuring reasonable efforts

How about handling the delicate issue of no reasonable efforts findings? Judge Edwards suggests that judges themselves raise the issue of reasonable efforts if attorneys do not and then suspend a “no reasonable efforts” finding for a week in order to allow time for the child welfare agency to comply.

How can this renewed focus on reasonable efforts be sustained? Judge Edwards has arranged for a copy of the book to be sent to every juvenile court judge. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges is distributing the book and sponsoring Judge Edwards to train judges and attorneys nationwide.

All IFPS advocates and providers should unite behind this effort to revive reasonable efforts and we should also express the strong relationship between IFPS and reasonable efforts. A good starting place is to read Judge Edwards’ book. It’s a free download to Kindle or IPAD. Print copies are available for a shipping/handling charge. More information is available here:

 http://www.judgeleonardedwards.com/

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

Happy New Year!

The National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) is entering the new year at full speed. We’re excited to kick off 2015 by sharing about our new resources. Our current resources include assessment tools, father-involvement training curricula, research and practice documents, and training/technical assistance. For more information on all of our resources visit NFPN.org.

NFPN is introducing two new resources in the first two months of 2015. This month NFPN is introducing a quality improvement instrument, and next month NFPN will introduce two new assessment domains: Trauma and Post-Trauma Well-Being.

Today, NFPN is pleased to announce the release of a Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) Instrument for use with Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS).

Importance of CQI

The federal Administration for Children and Families—Children’s Bureau defines Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) as the complete process of identifying, describing, and analyzing strengths and problems and then testing, implementing, learning from, and revising solutions.

The Children’s Bureau addresses quality assurance (QA) of state child welfare agencies through Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR). During the first round of reviews conducted from 2001 to 2004, the Children’s Bureau found that 31 states had QA systems. That number increased to 40 states in the second round of reviews conducted from 2007 to 2010.

The Children’s Bureau further lists five key components of an effective CQI system:

• A strong foundational administrative structure
• Quality data collection
• An effective case record review process
• Process to analyze and disseminate data
• Processes to provide feedback to stakeholders/decision-makers and adjust programs and process

The complete memorandum is available at:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/im1207.pdf

Purpose of CQI for IFPS

One essential component of an effective child welfare system is Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). Thus, it is critical to maintain and improve the quality of IFPS programs on an ongoing basis. The CQI-IFPS Instrument allows states and contracted providers, through the case review process, to determine if they are meeting best practice for IFPS and that includes the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and families. The CQI instrument assists in determining what is currently being done well along with identifying areas that need improvement in the future.

Components of the CQI-IFPS Instrument

The CQI-IFPS Instrument is grounded in many years of research on IFPS. Each item of the Instrument has been carefully selected and field-tested.

The CQI-IFPS Instrument and supporting materials including:

• Introduction (Definition, Basis in federal law/policy, and Purpose of IFPS CQI)
• CQI-IFPS Instrument (10 domains covering a total of 75 items)
• Tally Sheet (Checklist for case reviewers that allows tallying of up to 5 case files)
• Directions for Use (Preparation, Reviewing Case Files, Debriefing, Using Findings to Guide Improvement in Practice)
• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

The following is a portion of the Tally Sheet showing how the instrument is used and scored:

NFPN recommends that IFPS programs be operational for at least one year prior to using the CQI instrument.

Pricing

The CQ-IFPS Instrument is affordably priced, ranging from $125 for small private agencies to $250 for large private and government agencies. You may order and pay online with access to the instrument and resource materials immediately following payment.

Order Today!

To get started, visit: http://nfpn.org/cqi-ifps

If you have questions or need more information, contact director@nfpn.org or phone 888-498-9047.

Posted by Priscilla Martens, Executive Director
National Family Preservation Network

The Family Preservation Project was a 2-year specialization in intensive family preservation services at the University of Washington School of Social Work in the early 1990s, sponsored jointly with the Institute for Family Development (neè Behavioral Sciences Institute), the parent agency of Homebuilders™ and funded by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

Jim Whittaker, Emeritus Professor at University of Washington, School of Social Work explained the challenge: “could we bring the heart of Homebuilders™ into a social work curriculum here at the University of Washington School of Social Work and enhance our professional preparation of students and graduates in doing that, and would there be some ideas worth sharing with a broader audience of social work nationally?”

The Project:

• Developed and implemented a model graduate curriculum for specialization in intensive family preservation.
• Prepared a cadre of students for leadership positions in family preservation services.
• Designed a graduate-level family preservation curriculum in practice, policy, research areas.
• Facilitated research on key practice and administrative issues in the family preservation field.

In 1991 the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University published Intensive Family Preservation Services: Resource Book, compiled and edited by Linda Jewell Morgan and Peg Marckworth.

With the permission of the Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University the handbook is reprinted on the Resources page of our website: Click here to view the handbook »

posted by Peg Marckworth

Presented at the IFPS 40^th Anniversary, July 18, 2014

I have been asked to talk briefly about what is happening today in IFPS and Homebuilders®. Those of you who know me—and many of you do—know that being brief is not my strong suit, but I will try very hard to briefly summarize the current state of IFPS/Homebuilders and some of the exciting new developments.

First, however, I have to go back in time to 1994 to provide some context to what’s happening today. In 1994, Priscilla Martens, Director of the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN), surveyed states to gather information about statewide implementation of Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). Some of you may recall that at one time, these services were called “family preservation services”—FPS, and then later (I can’t recall when), the “I”—Intensive” was added and these services became Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS). In some states these services are still referred to as “family preservation”, and in others, “intensive family preservation”.

In 1994, the survey showed that a half dozen states had implemented IFPS/FPS statewide. This was pretty amazing. After a fairly short time—less than 8 years—statewide implementation was achieved in a number of states. This accomplishment was the direct result of Peter Forsythe’s vision and strategic approach to systems change, and the work of many of you here today, who were involved at many different levels.

I want to rewind a little farther back to 1987, when New Jersey became the first state outside of Washington State to set a goal of statewide implementation of IFPS. In 1987 New Jersey began a very thoughtful and well planned implementation—beginning with four counties (rather than the entire state at once), with plans to expand over the next few years. I have fond memories of driving with Maureen Braun from Hudson County in the north to Cape May in the south for a week of hiring interviews with potential IFPS supervisors and therapists using the Homebuilders® interview role play. We didn’t have as many questions or the writing exercises we use today, but we used a very similar family “role play”. Out of that week of interviews unfortunately, we identified only one person to hire. But what we hope happened, and I think it did, was that the agencies learned more about the program and what we were looking for in potential staff, and began to understand the importance of “job fit”—the idea that it is not just a certain degree or experience that qualifies people for the IFPS job, but that factors such as values, lifestyle, and flexibility are essential for someone to “fit” with this type of job. This unusual strategy of role playing family members and seeing how applicants respond to them, and feedback helped them better understand the service and the need for job fit.

Back to today. We actually—hopefully —have improved our interview process based on years of experience, and many examples of what we might call “mis-hires”. We ask a lot more questions and gather more information, and we still do a role play—which is really the heart of the process. But now, instead of driving up and down a state, we do it with other states via Skype. We recently finished interviews via SKYPE with15 to 20 applicants in the Washington D.C. area as part of our start up process for a new team there. So, technology has become our friend, even though many of us fought it.

In 2006, the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) issued a report, which Ray Kirk and others here spoke about. This report focused a big spotlight on fidelity. The WSIPP report really highlighted the importance of fidelity, and resulted in placing a new focus on the Homebuilders® standards, which had been in place since the 1990s. In 2006 we (IFD) decided to focus on how we would measure these standards—what the fidelity measures would be, and the indicators that people are meeting the standards. (Asking for instance—does everything have to be 100% to meet a standard?) After a couple of years and many hours of meetings, we developed 23 standards and 17 pages of fidelity measures. We now share them with every state we work with. Some of those people are here today and they know the standards and fidelity measures very well.

The fidelity measures are really important for program implementation, as well as the other pieces: “What are our methods for measuring (the standards)? And, where are we going to get the data?” We have some data that are easy to count (e.g. number of face to face hours, response time, etc.) and a lot of data and information that are much more difficult to measure. This includes data/information/evidence of teaching, using cognitive behavioral interventions, engagement, and motivating families. We had to develop strategies to measure fidelity to the model and to help states then implement the model at the level of fidelity on which we were focused.

Moving a little forward in time. Some of you may know that for years we didn’t give permission to program/agencies to use the name Homebuilders®, because we couldn’t insure they would maintain fidelity to the model. As a result there were all kinds of creative names for IFPS and FPS programs all over the country: Home Ties, Family Ties, Family Options and about five versions of Families First.

In 2008, we began allowing other organizations to use the name Homebuilders® based on our ability—and theirs—to measure model fidelity. Today, there are 28 Homebuilders® programs/teams across the country with more being developed over the next year. Right now, there are:

• Twelve teams in Washington State including a team, through Washington’s mental health system, that is focused on trying to prevent psychiatric hospitalization and residential treatment. Monica Wafstet-Solin, one of our long-time staff members, heads up that program.
• Nine teams in the state of Indiana, which was one of the first states to be a laboratory for implementing the fidelity measures and standards.
• Four teams in Louisiana, with hopefully more on the horizon.
• Two teams in Broward County, Florida, an interesting privatization experiment that is going well.
• Washington D.C. is hopefully coming on line this month with one team and 3 more in 2015.
• A team in Connecticut just started 2 weeks ago.
• An exciting new team in northern British Columbia, which will be within a First Nations organization and serve First Nations/Aboriginal families.
• Two teams will be starting in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania later this year.

One of the tools we now have, which is instrumental in this implementation and development process—and this is why we’re now saying, “Technology is our friend,”—is a web-based client data and documentation system that has made it much easier at the program level, for therapists, supervisors, administrators, researchers, and for our consultants to always be kind of “peering” online at what people are doing—referrals, safety plans, and everything else involved in the intervention

So, we’re back now to 2014. NFPN has completed another survey that shows that there are now at least 12 states with statewide IFPS programs as well as many others that are not statewide. These states together are serving over 11,000 families.

So there has been and continues to be movement and new developments in IFPS —and it’s exciting.

Posted by Peg Marckworth