Intensive family preservation services research: Current status and future agenda Kathleen Wells and David E. Biegel

There is a widespread consensus in American society that it is best for children to grow up with their biological parents. Moreover, child development experts agree that intrafamilial bonds and attachments are crucial to the development and maintenance of trust and autonomy in children (Ainsworth, 1989). Yet because of a complex set of sociocultural, psychological, and economic factors, an increasing number of children in the United States are being removed from their parents and placed in foster care, group homes, and institutions. For example, the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families estimated that 500,000 children are currently in out-of-home placements in the child welfare, juvenile justice, and mental health systems in the United States. The committee projects that by 1995, if no major changes in governmental policies occur, this number will increase by 73 percent to more than 850,000 (Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, 1990). Kathleen Wells, PhD, is Associate Professor, and David E. Biege!, PhD, is Professor, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106.

Although most practitioners agree that out-of-home placement is in the best interests of some children and their families, the magnitude of the projected increase in the number of children in placement is a matter of concern. This trend, together with charges that the three major child-serving systems-the child welfare system (Kamerman & Kahn, 1990), the child mental health system (Stroul & Friedman, 1986), and the juvenile justice system (Hawkins & Doueck, 1987)-are neither meeting the needs of children nor using resources efficiently, has led to the development of new models of service delivery. One such model is family preservation services, a diverse set of programs that have the common goal of preventing the out-of-home placement of children. The number of family preservation service programs has increased significantly over the past decade. Although the exact number is unknown, the National Resource Center on Family-Based Services listed 20 family-based programs in its 1982 directory and 269 in its 1988 directory, the latest edition that is available (National Resource Center on Family-Based Services, 1988). During this time, the federal government and many state governments passed legis-

CCC Code: 0148-0847/92

lation to allow public funds to pay for such services. Family preservation services have considerable public and professional support because they emphasize keeping families together and because they are believed to be a cost-effective alternative to the placement of many young people. In addition, these services are compatible with public policy mandates to preserve families (for example, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980), to treat children in the least restrictive environment possible (for example, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975), and to keep youths who are status offenders out of institutions in the juvenile justice system (for example, the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974). Indeed, the interest in family preservation services among practitioners and policymakers triggered the reassessment and refinement of curricula in universitybased clinical training programs throughout the country (see, for example, Whittaker, Kinney, Tracy, & Booth, 1988). One notable effort in this regard has been that of the National Family Preservation Educators Work Group, an organization concerned with graduate social work

$3.00 © 1992, National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

21

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

Intensive family preservation services are designed to prevent the placement of children and youths in out-of-home placements. The literature pertaining to the effectiveness of these services is summarized. On the basis of this summary and the deliberations of the National Intensive Family Preservation Services Research Conference, a research agenda is proposed. It is concluded that future research should be directed toward understanding the proportion of children at risk of out-of-home placement who could be served by such programs, the context in which programs are implemented, the functioning of children and families, and the maintenance of treatment gains over time. The importance of theoretically anchored research is also stressed.

education (Tracy, Haapala, Kinney, & Pecora, 1991). In view of the potential of family preservation services, it is important to understand what they are, how they are implemented, and what impact they have on families and on the service systems of which they are a part. Such understanding is necessary to treat families successfully and to use public and private resources wisely. This article focuses on intensive family preservation services, one of the prominent programmatic models in the field (Kinney, Haapala, Booth, & Leavitt, 1990).

Despite the diversity of programs identified as family preservation programs, these services share some common features. Pecora, Fraser, Haapala, and Barlome (1987) identified a set of 14 attributes, in which the most central features are as follows: services last no more than 90 days, services are provided two to three times a week for one to four hours at a time, services nonnally are provided in the home, workers are available 24 hours a day for emergency visits or calls, families are provided with "concrete" services, and service providers encourage family empowennent and believe that most children are better off in their own homes (Wells, in press). Intensive family preservation services are one programmatic model, and an example of one such service is the Homebuilders program (Kinney et aI., 1990). In this program, families must meet two criteria to be referred for services. First, at least one family member must express the desire to keep the family together, and second, no key family member can refuse the option that the family stay together (D. Haapala, personal communication, January 11, 1990). The goals of treatment are to resolve the crises that led to the decision to place a child outside the home and to teach the family the basic skills they need to stay together (Wells, in press). To achieve these ends, families are seen by a caseworker within 24 hours of their referral to the program. After that visit, they are seen as often as needed. Their worker is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to address emergent family problems. Workers deal with no more than two families at a time, services generally are provided for four weeks, and workers

22

that the factors associated with success in intensive family preservation services differ for different types of families. Experimental Studies

Feldman (1991), McDonald and Associates (1990), and AuClaire and Schwartz (1986) (also reported in Schwartz, AuClaire, & Harris, 1991) each recently completed experimental studies of intensive family preservation services. These OVERVIEW OF STUDIES studies correct some of the deficiencies of prior work in this area and help answer the Preexperimental and Quasifollowing question: Do intensive family experimental Studies preservation services prevent placement of Developers of intensive family preser- children? In addition, these investigations vation services have taken the lead in evalu- are noteworthy because of the considerating their practice (see Kinney, Madsen, able difficulties involved in implementing Fleming, & Haapala, 1977). Not surpris- experimental studies in field settings. This ingly, initial investigations were modest in review focuses on those portions of each scope. Typically they focused on the pro- study that pertain most directly to the efportion of children served who remained at fectiveness of intensive family preservahome after receiving intensive family pres- tion services. Table 1 displays some key ervation services. Findings showed that features of each study. New Jersey Study. Feldman (1991) between 40 percent and 90 percent of these children remained at home at termination compared the functioning of New Jersey of service or at follow-up. families having one or more children at Although these findings provided hope risk of placement who received intensive that intensive family preservation services family preservation services (the experimight be powerful interventions, the data mental group) with that of families who were too preliminary and suffered from too received traditional child welfare services many methodological problems to yield (the control group). specific conclusions. (See Magura, 1981, Families were eligible to participate in and Stein, 1985, for discussion of prob- the study if they had a child no older than lems in the knowledge base in family pres- 18, if the child had been judged to be at risk ervation programs in general.) of a first-time out-of-home placement This first generation of investigations of (placements lasting 29 days or fewer were intensive family preservation services, not counted), if the family was judged to be when considered together, had a number of unable to benefit from less intensive comsignificant limitations. Few studies used munity services, if the family had at least comparison or control groups, so it was one parent willing to cooperate with the difficult to attribute outcomes obtained to treatment program, and if the family was involvement in a program. The flow of not homeless. Families who had members clients through programs and of subjects with substance abuse problems were acthrough studies was described poorly. Data cepted on a case-by-case basis. collection procedures were not articulated. Eligible families were assigned randomly The reliability of measures, particularly to either the experimental or the control those relying on clinical judgment, was not group in one of four New Jersey counties. addressed. The study included 183 families-96 exSubsequent empirical work by K. Nel- perimental and 87 control. The number of son (1991); Yuan and Struckman-Johnson families in each group at each site ranged (1991); and Pecora, Fraser, and Haapala from 12 to 31. (1991) contributed to this literature by exStudy measures included those pertainamining multiple outcomes of treatment; ing to the families' demographic and probby exploring some family, child, and treat- lem characteristics, their functioning, and ment correlates of success in treatment; their use of out-of-home placements. Data and by using quasi-experimental designs. were obtained from county agencies or This work showed, among other things, during interviews with the primary child

Social Work Research & Abstracts 1 Volume 28, Number 11 March 1992

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

DEFINITION OF FAMILY PRESERVATION SERVICES

usually meet with families in their own homes. Interventions are both concrete (for example, helping families to obtain food or jobs) and therapeutic. Therapeutic interventions include cognitive, environmental, and interpersonal strategies. These interventions are based on social learning theory, crisis intervention theory, and ecological perspectives on child development (Wells, in press).

TABLE 1. Features of Three Experlrnentlll Studies In Intensive Family Preservation Services

Feature Measures Placement" Includes all episodes postreferral Includes episodes of any duration Includes running away Functlonlng b Includes measure of child's functioning Includes measure of family's functioning

California Study (McDonald & Associates, 1990)

Hennepln County Study (AuClaire & Schwartz, 1986)

Ves Ves Ves

No Yes No

Ves Yes No

Ves Ves

No No

No No

58 Low 17 57 88 13

58 Low 64 45 5 6.8

45 _d

67 30 15

Major findings Statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups fort' Proportion placed No No No No No Ves Type of placements Time In placement No No Ves Ves Ves Timing of entry Into placement Functioning No ·Out-of-home placement was defined as any out-of-home placement of any child In a study family In the New Jersey study and In the California study and as any out-of-home placement of each child In the Hennepln County study. In the California study, data were analyzed In terms of proportion of children placed and proportion of study families experiencing a placement. ~hree standardized measures of functioning at termination or at follow-up were used In the New Jersey study: the Family Environment Scale (Moos & Moos, 1981), the Child Well-Being Scale (Magura & Mo..s, 1986), and the Interpersonal Evaluation List (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). eSES (socioeconomic status) was defined In terms of the community In the New Jersey study and In terms of family income In the California study. No SES data were available for the Hennepln County study. dA Dash = no data available. eln the New Jersey and the California studies, prior placement referred to placement of any at-risk child In a study family. In the Hennepin County study, It referred to placement of the one target child under study In each family. t"Cllent" refers to client of the child welfare system In the New Jersey study and to client of a public assistance program In the California study. No similar data were available for the Hennepln County study. SlChlld's age refers to the mean age of all target children for the New Jer..y and the Hennepln County studies. The number given here is the approximate median age of all study children In the California study. "Tests of statistical significance were not completed In the Hennepln County study.

caretaker or worker for each family. Data pertaining to family functioning were collected at one week and at three months after termination of service. Data pertaining to child placement were collected from the point of referral and for 12 months after service termination for both the experimental and the control group. Analyses of outcome data revealed that at service termination, a child from 7.3 percent of experimental families entered placement, compared with 14.9 percent of control families. This difference was not statistically significant. However, from one month through nine months after termination, the differences in placement rates between the two groups differed to a

statistically significant degree: A child entered placement in fewer experimental families than in control families. At 12 months, the difference between the two groups had disappeared. By that time, a child had entered placement in 45.8 percent of experimental families and 57.7 percent of control families. Experimental children entered placement at a slower rate than did control children. On average, experimental families had their first placement 4.3 months postdischarge and control families had their first placement 2.4 months postdischarge (p < .05). However, according to Feldman (1991), ''There were no statistically significant differences in the level of restrictiveness of

the placement, type of placement, total number of placement events, or total time in placement during the first year" (p. 62). Between one and three months after termination of service, experimental families generally failed to improve to a greater degree than did control families. Both experimental and control families were evaluated at one and three months after termination of service on 18 measures of family functioning: 10 Family Environment Scales (Moos & Moos, 1981), four Child WellBeing Scales (Magura & Moses, 1986), and four Interpersonal Support Evaluation List Scales (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983). On only two of these 18 scales were there statistically significant differences between

Intensive Family Preservation Services Re..arch I Wells and Blegel

23

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

Characteristics of families Percentage who were single parents Average SESe Percentage who had a prior placement" Percentage who were minorities Percentage who were a former or current cllentt Child's age In yearsSl

New Jer..y Study (Feldman, 1991)

24

of all control children were placed within this period compared with 7 percent (n = 23) of all experimental children. 5. Experimental and control children had "equivalent placement incidents; the placed project [that is, experimental] children had an average of 1.6 placement incidents and the placed comparison [that is, control] children had an average of 1.9 placement incidents" (McDonald & Associates, 1990, p. 6.14). 6. "Combined, relative placement days and foster family days accounted for 91.2 percent of all placement days and 81.9 percent of [all] of the [placed] children in the ... control group, and 85.4 percent of all placement days and 72.8 percent of [all] of the [placed] children in the ... experimental group" (McDonald & Associates, 1990, p. 6.17). Hennepin County Study. AuClaire and Schwartz (1986) studied two groups of children in Hennepin County, Minnesota. They compared the placement experiences of children at risk of out-of-home placement who received intensive family preservation services with those of children who were placed out of home in foster homes, hospitals, group homes, and residential treatment centers. Children were eligible to participate in the study if they had been approved for out-of-home care, were between 12 and 17 years of age, were not wards of the state, and were not under court order for placement. Children who were eligible to participate in the study were assigned to either an experimental or a control group, according to a procedure that closely approximated random assignment of cases. Fifty-five children were assigned to the experimental group and 58 to the control group. The researchers obtained infonnation pertaining to each study child's use of placement services for up to 12 months from the time the child entered either the experimental or the control group. Infonnation was drawn from Hennepin County's Community Services Department Child Welfare Division data files. Analyses showed that there were no differences between the experimental and the control group in the total number of placements used. Children in the experimental group used 54 placements; children in the control group used 55. There were only marginal differences between the two groups in use of multiple placements. Fifty-five percent (n = 30) of

Social Work Research &Abstracts I Volume 28, Number 1 I March 1992

experimental children and 50 percent (n = 29) of control children experienced no placements, 18 percent (n = 10) of experimental and 26 percent (n = 15) of control children experienced one placement, and 27 percent (n = 15) of experimental and 24 percent (n = 14) of control children experienced two or more placements. However, there was some difference in the types of placements used by the two groups. The largest difference was for shelter care: 63 percent (n = 34) of all placements were in shelter care for the experimental group and 35 percent (n = 19) for the control group. Experimental children used fewer placement days (2,368) than did control children (3,803). In addition, there were differences in the types of placements in which experimental and control children spent their time. In the experimental group, close to half (49 percent) of all placement days were spent in shelter placement, compared with only 5 percent of all placement days for the control group. Synthesis of Empirical Investigations

These investigations, considered together, point to some general conclusions regarding the effectiveness of intensive family preservation services. First, intensive family preservation services prevent or delay the imminent placement of about half the children who are truly at risk of placement, if one considers control children placed during the first two months of service delivery to represent the proportion of children who are truly at risk of placement. For example, at 60 days po streferral , McDonald and Associates (1990) reported that 13 percent of control families and 7 percent of experimental families experienced a placement of at least one of their children. Feldman (1991) reported similar findings. Second, the effects of intensive family preservation services are not long lasting. Indeed, only one of the three experimental studies revealed a statistically significant difference in the proportions of experimental and control families experiencing a placement (Feldman, 1991). By 12 months after termination of service, the difference between the two groups had dissipated. Third, families in both experimental and control groups are still vulnerable after service tennination. For families with children who are, on average, in adolescence

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

the degrees of improvement of experimental and control families. California Study. McDonald and Associates (1990) examined the functioning of California families with one or more children at risk of placement. The study tested whether families in five intensive family preservation service demonstration projects (the experimental group) had fewer placements than families receiving traditional services (the control group). Families were included in the study cohort if they were involved with a local child protective service agency and if they had one child or more at imminent risk of placement outside the home during the study period. All such families then were assigned randomly, by means of "randomized assignment lists," to either the experimental group or the control group. There were 152 families in the experimental group and 152 in the control group. The researchers obtained infonnation pertaining to each at-risk child's use of placement services from referral to eight months postreferral. Placements that ended before eight weeks from referral were not counted for either the experimental or the control group. Data were drawn from county placement records. Analyses of placement data showed the following six conclusions: 1. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of experimental (n = 143) and control families (n = 150) who used any placement. One-fourth (n = 36) of experimental families and onefifth (n =30) of control families used placement services between three and eight months postreferral. 2. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of experimental (23 percent, n = 33) and control families (25, n = 37) who underwent an investigation "for abuse and/or neglect subsequent to their referral to the study" (McDonald & Associates, 1990, p. 6.12). 3. There were no statistically significant differences between experimental and control families in the average number of days their children spent in placement: Experimental families had an average of 202.5 days and control families an average of 292.9 days. 4. There were statistically significant differences in the proportion of children from experimental (n = 338) and control (n = 352) families who were placed within 60 days of referral. Thirteen percent (n =47)

(AuClaire & Schwartz, 1986; Feldman, 1991), nearly half of experimental families (45 percent to 46 percent) and more than half of control families (50 percent to 58 percent) experienced a placement 12 to 14 months postreferral. For families with younger children, about one-fourth of each group experienced a placement three to eight months postreferral (McDonald & Associates, 1990). RESEARCH AGENDA

Functioning of Children and Their Families

Even though intensive family preservation services are intended for children whose safety can be assured with the provision of services, there are no empirical data to document whether the children served are safe from abuse, neglect, and other forms of serious maltreatment, or for how long; whether the emotional problems that triggered their referral to a placement service are resolved; whether these children remain uninvolved in delinquent behavior; or whether the postponement of entry into out-of-home placement that occurs for some children is desirable. Indeed, it can be argued that placement is not an adequate measure of clinical status. Although none of the studies reported here examined whether the placements that occurred were desirable, most practitioners acknowledge that some welfare, mental health, and juvenile justice system placements are indeed in the best interests of the children and their families. There-

Maintenance of Gains Made in Treatment over Ti me

Expectations need to be clarified regarding how much difference practitioners expect between families receiving intensive family preservation services and those receiving alternative services and regarding how long the effects of intensive family preservation services are intended to last. This step will help practitioners judge programs fairly. Without such a standard, it is difficult to say, for example, whether or not the similarity in the proportions of experimental and control children placed by 14 months postreferral, which occurred in the Feldman (1991) study, indicates a weakness in the intensive family preservation programs studied. However, irrespective of the standards for judging success, practitioners need to engage in prospective, longitudinal evaluations to assess whether desired programmatic outcomes are maintained over time. Such research can lay the groundwork for answering important questions, such as the following: "What child, family, and community characteristics are associated with

the maintenance of gains in family functioning over time?" Impact of the Ecological Context on Programs

As noted earlier, a major policy objective of intensive family preservation services is to reduce the proportion of children placed out of the home who could be served at home. However, children's use of placement resources is affected by changes in the service system of which programs are a part (Dore, 1991; Schuerman, Rzepnicki, & Littell, 1991). Investigations are needed to assess the impact of the ecological context in which programs are operating on their implementation, outcomes, replication, and costs. Ecological features include the characteristics of the service systems, the agencies, and the communities in which programs are operating; the informal supports and the placement and nonplacement services that are available; and how children are referred to those services. (Weiss and Jacobs, 1988, discussed an ecological approach to evaluating family programs; their prescriptions also are relevant for research in intensive family preservation services.) Such research will help practitioners address the following questions: • Are placement rates affected by program type or by changes in the available placement resources? • How does service availability affect clinical decisions regarding the need for intensive family preservation services and placement services? • What factors impede and what factors facilitate faithful replication of services in various contexts? • What aftercare services are needed to maintain gains made in treatment, and what is the cost of intensive family preservation services when all of these services are taken into account? Population to Be Served

Although the proportion of the total population of children approved for outof-home placement who meet the criteria for entrance into intensive family preservation programs is not known, some observers suspect that this proportion is smaller than previously hoped (Schuerman, Rzepnicki, Littell, & Budde, 1990; Wells, in press). This issue must be examined if

Intensive Family Preservation Services Research I Wells and Siegel

25

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

This research agenda is the result of the authors' analysis of data and a synthesis of discussions that took place at the recently convened national conference on family preservation services research (Wells & Biegel, 1990, 1991). Because these data show that intensive family preservation programs delay or prevent the placement of some children, it is believed that such programs are worthy of continued evaluation and assessment. However, these data also show that intensive family preservation programs are neither sufficient nor appropriate for all families with children at risk of out-of-home placement and that much remains to be learned regarding whether they enhance family and child functioning. Four major issues require additional research.

fore, investigations are needed to assess the degree to which intensive family preservation services are meeting their primary therapeutic goals: reducing the crises that led to the need for child placement, ameliorating the critical problems of children and their families, and promoting the skills that families need to stay together. Investigations are also needed to assess the degree to which intensive family preservation services are meeting their principal policy goal: to reduce the proportion of children in placement who could be served at home. The extent to which intensive family preservation services prevent placement cannot be inferred precisely from existing research. The literature poses two problems: (1) many control children are not placed, so it is difficult to estimate the rate of placement prevention for children in the experimental group, and (2) most studies count the first placement of control group children, thereby confounding the criterion for inclusion in the study cohort (that is, being at imminent risk of placement) with the dependent variable (that is, use of subsequent out-of-home placements). Future research in this area must attend to these problems.

THE ROLE OF THEORY

Research in intensive family preservation services has tended to be atheoretical. The theoretical assumptions (Barth, 1988) underlying the programs have not been tested, and it is not known whether the basic clinical hypotheses are generally valid. No attempt has been made to connect theories relating to treatment with theories pertaining to the causes and consequences of specific child and family problems. K. Nelson (1991), for example, provided evidence that delinquent and antisocial youths do not fare as well as youths with other kinds of problems in intensive family preservation service programs as they are currently configured. Research into these services would be enriched by attention to the literature on antisocial behavior and juvenile delinquency (see Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985; Patterson, 1980). Theoretically anchored research would not only improve programs but also would advance knowledge in general.

26

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Although this article has focused on experimental research, other strategies also have much to offer. First, research in this area would be enhanced by a greater reliance on research programs in which issues are examined sequentially. In this way, adequate pilot work can be performed to inform and enhance subsequent investigations, including experimental investigations. Second, research would be advanced by using a range of designs such as preexperimental, quasi-experimental, experimental, and correlational designs. The choice of a design would depend on the questions under investigation. Third, because the literature contains not even one qualitative investigation, there are no systematically collected data on crucial issues such as how programs develop, how intensive family preservation service workers perceive their jobs, or even how families experience treatment. Qualitatively based empirical investigations would inform not only practice but also theory. A FINAL NOTE

Intensive family preservation services are important because of their emphasis on preventing the placement of children outside their homes, the respect for families and the optimism regarding intra- and interpersonal change that are implicit in their approach, and their potential for triggering systemwide reform. Research has played a vital role in the development of intensive family preservation services; it has the potential to inform the refinement and expansion of these services in the coming decade.

REFERENCES Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.c. §670. Ainsworth, M. D. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44, 709-716. AuClaire, P., & Schwartz,l. (1986). An evaluation of the effectiveness of intensive home-based services as an alternative to placement for adolescents and their families. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Barth, R. (1988). Theories guiding home-based intensive family preservation services. In J. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E. Tracy, & C. Booth (Eds.),lmproving practice technology for work with high risk families: Lessonsfrom the "Homebuilders" so-

Social Work Research & Abstracts 1 Volume 28, Number 11 March 1992

cial work education project (pp. 91-113). Seattle: Center for Social Welfare Research. Cohen, S., & Hoberman, H. M. (1983). Positive events and social supports as buffers of life change stress. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13,99-125. Dore, M. M. (1991). Context and the structure of practice: Implications for research. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 121-137). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.c. §§1232, 1400, 1405, 1406, 14111420, 1453. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Feldman, L. H. (1991). Evaluating the impact of intensive family preservation services in New Jersey. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 47-71). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Hawkins, J. D., & Doueck, H. J. (1987). Juvenile offender diversion and community-based services. In A. Minahan (Ed.-in-Chief), Encyclopedia of social work (18th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 10-15). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers. Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974,42 U.S.C. §5601. Kamerman, S., & Kahn, A. (1990). Social services for children, youth, and families in the United States. Children and Youth Services Review, 12, 1-184. Kinney, J. M., Haapala, D., Booth, D., & Leavitt, S. (1990). The Homebuilders model. In J. K. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E. M. Tracy, & C. Booth (Eds.), Reaching high riskfamities: Intensive family preservation services in human services (pp. 31-64). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Kinney, J. M., Madsen, B., Fleming, T., & Haapala, D. A. (1977). Homebuilders: Keeping families together. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 667-673. Magura, S. (1981). Are services to prevent foster care really effective? Children and Youth Services Review, 3, 193-212. Magura, S., & Moses, B. (1986). Outcome measures for child welfare services-Theory and applications. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America. McDonald & Associates, Inc. (1990). Evaluation of ABI562 in-home care demonstration projects (Vol. 1: Final Report). Sacramento, CA: Author. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. National Resource Center on Family-Based Services. (1988). Annotated directory of selected familybased service programs (6th ed.). Iowa City, lA: Author. Nelson, D. (1991). The public policy implications of family preservation. In, K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

practitioners are to extend intensive family preservation services to the families for whom they could be more beneficial and if they are to clarify the needed balance between intensive and nonintensive services. This task is linked to the precise definition of the target population that is accepted for intensive family preservation services. Policymakers, as well as program planners and researchers in the field, disagree about what this definition should be. Some observers, such as D. Nelson (1991), argue that services should be targeted to families with a child at imminent risk of out-of-home placement who also meet criteria for entrance into programs. Others, such as Yelton and Friedman (1991), believe that services should be available to a wider range of families. Yet, even where consensus exists regarding the definition of the target population, referring agencies and programs find it difficult to apply criteria consistently over families and over time. The methodology for making such decisions is not well developed (Tracy, 1991). Therefore, research is needed to examine the proportion of the population of children approved for out-of-home placement that meets the criteria for entrance into intensive family preservation services and to investigate the factors associated with applying these criteria consistently over families and over time.

the out-of-home placement of adolescents: The Hennepin County experience. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 33~6). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Select Committee on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. House of Representatives. (1990). No place to call home: Discarded children in America. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Stein, T. J. (1985). Projects to prevent out-of-home placement. Children and Youth Services Review, 7, 109-121. Stroul, B., & Friedman, R. (1986). A system of care for severely emotionally disturbed children and youth. Washington, DC: CASSP Technical Assistance Center, Georgetown University Child Qevelopment Center. Tracy, E. M. (1991). Defining the target population for family preservation services. In K Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 138-158). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Tracy, E., Haapala, D., Kinney, J., & Pecora, P. (Eds.). (1991 ).Intensive family preservation services: An instructional sourcebook. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences. Weiss, H., & Jacobs, F. (Eds.). (1988). Evaluating family programs. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Wells, K (in press). Family preservation services in context: Origins, practices, and current issues. In I. Schwartz (Ed.), Family and home-based services. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Wells, K, & Biegel, D. (1990). Intensive family preservation services: A research agenda for the 1990s. Proceedings of the Intensive Family Preservation Services National Research Conference. (Available from The National Resource Center on Family-Based Services, School of Social Work, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, lA 52242.) Wells, K, & Biegel, D. E. (Eds.). (1991). Family preservation services: Research and evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Whittaker, J., Kinney, J., Tracy, E., & Booth, C. (Eds.). (1988). Improving practice technology for work with high risk families: Lessons from the "Homebuilders" social work education project. Seattle: Center for Social Welfare Research. Yelton, S. W., & Friedman, R. M. (1991). Family preservation services: Their role within the children's mental health system. In K Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 223-240). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Yuan, Y. Y., & Struckman-Johnson, D. L. (1991). Placement outcomes for neglected children with prior placements in family preservation programs. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 92-118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Accepted November 26,1991

AVAILABILITY OF FISCAL YEAR 1992 RESEARCH FuNDs The National Head Start Bureau and the National Center for Child Abuse and Neglect of the Administration for Children and Families announce the availability of funds in the areas of Head Start/University Partnerships, Correlates of Positive Outcomes for Head Start Children and Families, Field Initiated Studies in Child Abuse and Neglect, and graduate student research grants in both areas. This announcement will appear in the Federal Register in early spring. If you would like to receive the announcement and/or serve as a peer reviewer or on consultant panels, fill out and return this form. Check all that apply: o I would like to receive the Federal Register Announcement o I would like to serve as a proposal reviewer o I would like to serve as a consultant on advisory panels o I am willing to input my 1resume on a Head Start-supplied diskette I have a 0 31f2" or 0 5 A" diskette and IBM compatible PC

Your name and mailing address:

Fill in this form and send to:

MySSNis _____________________

James O'Brien, Ph.D. The Head Start Bureau Attn: Head Start Research, SWl P.O. Box 1182 Washington, DC 20013

Intensive Family Preservation Services Research I Wells and Biegel

27

Downloaded from http://swra.oxfordjournals.org/ at Penn State University (Paterno Lib) on March 5, 2016

and evaluation (pp. 207-222). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Nelson, K (1991). Populations and outcomes in five family preservation programs. In K Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 72-91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Patterson, G. (1980). Treatment for children with conduct problems: A review of outcome studies. In S. Feshback & A. Fraczek (Eds.), Aggression and behavior change (pp. 83-132). New York: Praeger. Pecora, P., Fraser, M., & Haapala, D. (1991). Client outcomes and issues for program design. In K Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 3-32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Pecora, P. J., Fraser, M. W., Haapala, D., & Barlome, I. A. (1987). Defining family preservation services: Three intensive home-based treatment programs. Salt Lake City: University of Utah, Social Research Institute. Schuerman, J., Rzepnicki, T., & Littell, J. (1991). From Chicago to Little Egypt: Lessons from an evaluation of a family preservation program. In K. Wells & D. Biegel (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 187206). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Schuerman, J., Rzepnicki, T., Littell, J., & Budde, S. (1990, December). Some intruding realities. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association for Family-Based Services, Detroit. Schwartz, I. M., AuClaire, P., & Harris, L. J. (1991). Family preservation services as an alternative to