Using Navigation and Family Group Decision-Making to Support Kinship Families Child Abuse Prevention Conference July 2 4 , 2 0 1 8 Presented by: Julie Treinen, Program Director, AZ Kinship Support Services Arizona’s Children Association Michele Schm idt, Senior Evaluation Associate LeCroy & Milligan Associates, I nc.
Learning Objectives • Provide an overview of Kinship Navigation and Family Group Decision-Making (FGDM) • Review preliminary evaluation results • Explore the benefits and challenges of implementing this type of model with kinship families
Kinship Care is commonly defined as… “The full-time care, nurturing, and protection of a child by relatives, members of their Tribe or clan, godparents, step-parents, or other adults who have a family relationship to a child."
Project Goals • Provide services that promote the safety, permanency, and well-being of kinship families, and meet their immediate needs • Strengthen existing community collaborations • Rigorously evaluate the implementation, impact, and cost of services through an experimental design: • Navigation services only (comparison) • Navigation services + FGDM (treatment)
Target Population • Informal families KARE Center • Partnership with SALA Department • In-home cases of Child Safety • Dependency cases • Courts Community • Schools Referrals • Other social service providers
Services as Usual Open-Case Navigation Services • Identify and meet urgent Navigation needs. • Provide caregivers with information and referrals , donated goods (diapers, household goods, food). • Connect caregivers to community service providers for financial needs (e.g., rental or fuel assistance). • Develop and implement a Navigation Plan with primary caregiver. • Utilize services : – Support groups – Title 14 Guardianship Clinic (in partnership with SALA)
Services Enhanced Open-Case Navigation + FGDM Identifying Family Post-FGC Identify/Meet Members Follow-up on Urgent Navigation Family Plan Needs Family and Navigator Family Group Implement Family Conference Prep and Plan Planning Family Group Navigator Creates a Conference/ Menu of Services Develop Family Plan
Evaluation Design Fidelity Monitoring DCS Admin Data Informed Treatment Consent Follow-up Survey Group at 6 Months Post Baseline Case Closure Control Survey Group Client Interviews Randomization Fidelity Monitoring
Implementation Study • Describe demographics of the study groups – Evaluate baseline equivalency of study groups • Measure fidelity of project to FGDM and Kinship Navigation Models
Outcomes Study Instrument/Data Outcomes Measured Self-Reported Caregiver Pre/Post • Family needs Survey • Healthy Families Parenting Inventory Child Permanency and Safety DCS Administrative • Placement stabilization/disruption Data • Substantiated maltreatment reports Service utilization Service Records • Types, number, and duration of AKSS services received (dosage)
Evaluation Highlights
Study Groups • Over 1,500 caregivers have received Information, Referral and Connection (IRC) services. • 160 Caregivers eligible for Open-Case Navigation services consented to be in the study (97% acceptance rate) Control Group Treatment Group (Navigation (FGDM + Only) Navigation) Total Kinship 49% 51% 160 Caregivers
Open Case Navigation Indicators A family could benefit from Open-Case % of Study Navigation when: Sample Family is ≤ 200% FPL 88% Caring for 3+ Children 63% Have difficulty establishing a legal relationship 63% DCS involvement 43% Young/sibling caregiver (18-25 years) 9% Child utilizes behavioral health services 9%
Caregiver Demographics of Study Sample • 86% Female • Mean Age: 51 • 60% Hispanic/Latino • 25% Caucasian • 9% African American • 5% Native American • 57% Single
Reasons for Kinship Care 48% DCS investigation/removal 47% Parental substance use disorder One or both parents are uninvolved 39% One or both parents are incarcerated 39% Abuse/neglect/abandonment of child 28% Immigration/deportation of parents 14% 12% One or both parents are deceased 11% Parental mental health 7% Domestic violence 7% Poor housing/unsafe living environment Financial issues 7% Parental physical health 6%
DCS Status of Kinship Families in Study Informal Formal Families Families (No DCS), (DCS), 48% 52%
Legal Relationship at Intake No Legal Relationship 47% Unlicensed DCS Placement 36% Title 14 Gx 7% 5% Adoption POA 3% Title 8 Gx 2% Title 25 Gx 0%
Caregiver Relationship to Child Grandparent 73% Aunt/Uncle 12% Non-relative 6% Cousin 5% Sibling 3% Step Parent 1%
Caregiver Stressors at Intake – Healthy Families Parenting Inventory Scale Social Support 40% Mobilizing Resources 37% Depression 28% Role Satisfaction 26% Personal Care 23% Problem Solving 17% Home Environment 14%
Grandparents Face Greater Stressors Compared to Other Kinship Caregivers 55% 49% 44% 43% 32% 31% 28% 24% 16% 16% 15% 13% 12% 12% Social Support Problem Depression Self-Care Mobilize Role Home Solving Resources Satisfaction Environment 20 August 2017
Navigation Services Number of Services Service Control Treatment 49 31 Navigation - Court Attendance 124 160 Navigation - Home Visit 181 243 Navigation - Office Visit 47 91 Navigation - Staffing Navigation – Contacts on behalf of/ 1,511 1,524 with client
Other Support Services Number of Services Service Control Treatment 120 165 Support Groups 19 20 Guardianship Clinic 20 27 KARE College/Topical Education 4 6 Guardianship and Adoption Training 6 6 Kinship Information Session
Family Group Decision-Making Average Service Number of Count per Average Services Family Time 906 17 21 Min FGC Preparation 31 1 184 Min FCG Conference 169 7 18 Min FGC Follow-up
Strengths and Successes • Kempe Center Training on FGDM • Strong fidelity to FGDM and Kinship Navigation • Cross learning with San Diego YMCA grantee • Twice monthly staff peer review of cases • Improved engagement and reduced attrition rates over time in the treatment group
Challenges and Barriers • Enrollment of clients to meet sample size – PCJCC DAP number of kinship cases is lower than expected (parent change of custody) – DAP added a Family Navigator • RCT study design may not meet family needs leading to greater attrition in treatment group • Evaluation data collection/entry learning curve of staff • Providing full FGDM training for replacement staff post turnover is difficult
Thank you! • Question or comments? • Contact information: jtreinen@arizonaschildren.org michele@lecroymilligan.com
Recommend
More recommend
