1 / 22

Family Connections: Promoting safety and well-being outcomes among families at risk for neglect

Family Connections: Promoting safety and well-being outcomes among families at risk for neglect. Diane DePanfilis Howard Dubowitz University of Maryland Center for Families 14 th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, St. Louis, March 31-April 5, 2003. Funding.

annora
Download Presentation

Family Connections: Promoting safety and well-being outcomes among families at risk for neglect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Family Connections: Promoting safety and well-being outcomes among families at risk for neglect Diane DePanfilis Howard Dubowitz University of Maryland Center for Families 14th National Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, St. Louis, March 31-April 5, 2003

  2. Funding • Five year U.S. DHHS, Children’s Bureau grant to demonstrate methods for preventing and intervening with child neglect • Grant number 90CA 1580 to University of Maryland, Baltimore. • Diane DePanfilis, Principal Investigator; ddepanfi@ssw.umaryland.edu • Howard Dubowitz, Co-PrincipalInvestigator, hdubowitz@peds.umaryland.edu • Esta Glazer-Semmel, Co-Principal Investigator

  3. Why neglect prevention? • Many families struggle to meet the basic needs of their children. • The consequences of neglect are equally, if not more damaging than other forms of child maltreatment. • Our mandated systems often get involved too late. We need to understand more about successful models for reaching and intervening with families early.

  4. Family Connections • Mission: Promoting the safety and well-being of children and families through family and community services, professional education and training, and research and evaluation. • www.family.umaryland.edu

  5. Guiding Principles for Work toIncrease Capacity & Reduce Risk • Ecological developmental framework • Community outreach • Family assessment & tailored intervention • Helping alliance with family • Empowerment/strengths based • Cultural competence • Outcome-driven service plans

  6. Purpose of Study • To explore the relationship between length of service and outcomes of a five-year federally funded demonstration project to help families prevent neglect

  7. Intervention Research Questions • Is there change over time in: • risk factors? • protective factors? • child safety or well being outcomes?

  8. Intervention Research Questions • Does length of services affect change over time in: • risk factors? • protective factors? • child safety or well being outcomes?

  9. 3-Month Intervention Emergency assistance Home based counseling services Family Assessment Referrals for other services if indicated Service coordination and facilitation 9-Month Intervention Emergency assistance Home based counseling services Family Assessment Outcome driven service plans Service Referrals Service coordination and facilitation Intervention:Random assignment Social work interns followed an intervention manual to deliver services to both groups.

  10. Data Collection Methods • Self directed, computer assisted interview • Standardized self-report measures administered at baseline, case closure, and six-month follow-up • Standardized self report and observational measures • Administered at 30 days; three and six months, and closure • Intern driven  integrated with intervention

  11. Data Analysis Repeated Measures Analysis • Assess change over time • Baseline  Closing  6-month Follow-up • Comparison of length of service- 3 months vs. 9 months

  12. Geographic location The family lives in the West Baltimore Empowerment Zone Family demographics At least one child between 5 and 11 years living in the household Basic needs may be unmet Presence of at least 2 risk factors Voluntary status There is no current CPS involvement The family is willing to participate Target Population

  13. Study sample: Caregiver demographics • 154 families • 86% African American • Mean age= 39 years old • 98% female (151 females, 3 males) • 58% unemployed, 19% employed full-time, 8% employed part-time, 10% in training, 5% retired • 5% married, 65% never married, 13% separated, 10% divorced, 7% widowed • 62% had less than high school degree

  14. Study sample: Child demographics • Average number of children in families = three • 17% have one child • 25% have two children • 27% have three children • 31% have four or more children • Mean age = 9 (range 1 month to 21 years) • 49% female and 51% male • Relationship to caregiver • 78% are children • 14% are grandchildren • 8% are other relative

  15. Constructs in this Analysis • Decrease Risk Factors: • Caregiver depressive symptoms • Parenting stress • Life stress • Enhance Child Safety • CPS reports • Physical Care • Psychological care • Increase Protective Factors: • Parenting attitudes • Parenting competence • Family functioning • Social support • Enhance Child Well-Being • Child behavior NOTE: measures at end of presentation

  16. Results: Risk Factors • Comparing families before intervention to 6 months after intervention, there were statistically significant reductions in: • Risk Factors • Caregiver depressive symptoms • Parenting stress • Life stress

  17. Results: Protective Factors • Comparing families before intervention to 6 months after intervention, there were statistically significant increases in: • Protective Factors • Parenting attitudes • Parenting satisfaction • Social support

  18. Results: Child Safety • Significant Improvement in Physical Care • CWBS Household furnishings • CWBS Overcrowding • CWBS Household sanitation • Significant Improvement in Psychological Care • CWBS Mental health care • CWBS Caregiver teaching stimulation of children • Decrease in CPS reports & CPS indicated reports

  19. Results: Child Well Being • Comparing families before intervention to 6 months after intervention, there were statistically significant reductions in: • Total Raw CBCL Score • Internalizing behaviors • Externalizing behaviors

  20. Results: Group Comparison • 9 month intervention demonstrated greater improvements than the 3 month group in: • Caregiver depressive symptoms • Child behavior • No differences between groups in other domains (e.g., parenting stress, life stress, parenting attitudes, social support, household safety).

  21. Limitations • Convenience (relatively small) sample • Intervention delivered primarily by MSW interns • Questions about fidelity of intervention (despite intervention manual) • Short follow-up (only 6 months)

  22. DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THIS PRESENTATION and other materials at: http://www.family.umaryland.edu Click on Research Click on PowerPoint Presentations

More Related