Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Approach to Examining the Proximal and Intermediate Outcomes of an Intensive Family Preservation Program

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Child and Family Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the effects of the Boys Town In-Home Family Program (BT-IHFP) on parenting skills, family functioning, and child behavior for at-risk families involved with child protective services. The BT-IHFP is designed as a home-based, family-centered alternative to out-of-home placement with the goal of improving family functioning, keeping families together, and preventing further involvement with child protective services. The model uses a hands-on cognitive-behavioral approach, promotes family engagement, provides 24/7 services to families, and links families to community resources. While it is essential to examine ultimate, long-term outcomes such as family preservation, it is also important to investigate the proximal and intermediate outcomes that address the key changes in behavior that support successful long-term outcomes. The goals of this study were to (1) examine the pre-post change of proximal and intermediate outcomes and (2) examine if improvements in parenting skills, parental roles, and parental stress (proximal outcomes) will be related to improvements in child behavior at home, child behavior at school, and family functioning (intermediate outcomes). Inspecting intake and discharge data for 44 families, 94% were intact at discharge and significant pre-post improvements were found in proximal and intermediate outcomes. These findings suggest that this six-week intensive BT-IHFP holds promise for teaching at-risk families skills to promote positive family functioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abidin, R. R. (1995). Parenting stress index: Professional manual (3rd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA school-age forms and profiles. Burlington: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher, B. H., Farmer, E. M. Z., Burns, B. J., & Angold, A. (1996). The child and adolescent services assessment (CASA): Description and psychometrics. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M. (1992). An evaluation of family preservation services: Fitting agency services to family needs. Social Work, 37, 314–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, M., Cash, S. J., & Brook, J. P. (2000). Intensive family preservation services: An examination of critical service components. Child and Family Social Work, 5, 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blythe, B., & Jayaratne, S. (2007, April 9). Michigan Families First Effectiveness Study. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/printerFriendly/0,1687,7-124-21887-,00.html.

  • Blythe, B. J., Salley, M. P., & Jayaratne, S. (1994). A review of intensive family preservation services research. Social Work Research, 18, 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., & Daly, D. L. (2003). Ecological family-based services program: Training manual. Boys Town, NE: Boys Town Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, M. H. (2004). Behavioral and emotional rating scale: A strength based approach to assessment- (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, N. B., Baldwin, L., & Bishop, D. S. (1983). The Mcmaster family assessment device. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 9, 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M. W., Nelson, K. E., & Rivard, J. C. (1997). Effectiveness of family preservation services. Social Work Research, 21, 138–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1996). An experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow-up. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4/5), 335–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kabacoff, R., Miller, I., Bishop, D., Epstein, N., & Keitner, G. (1990). A psychometric study of McMaster family assessment device in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samples. Journal of Family Psychology, 3, 431–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinney, J., Haapala, D. A., & Booth, C. (1991). Keeping families together: The homebuilders model. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinney, J., Madsen, B., Fleming, T., & Haapala, D. A. (1977). Homebuilders: Keeping families together. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 667–673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R., & Griffith, D. (2004). Intensive family preservation services: Demonstrating placement prevention using event history analysis. Social Work Research, 28(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R., & Griffith, D. (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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirk, R. S., & Reed-Ashcraft, K. (2001). North Carolina family assessment scale (NCFAS): Research report. Buhl, ID: National Family Preservation Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larzelere, R. E., Daly, D. L., Davis, J. L., Chmelka, M. B., & Handwerk, M. L. (2004). Outcome evaluation of girls and Boys Town’s family home program. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 130–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, R. E. (2005). The effectiveness of families first services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 499–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell, J. H. (2004). Client participation and outcomes of intensive family preservation services. Social Work Research, 25(2), 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, E., Suarez, L., & Reid, J. C. (1997). Behavioral outcomes of home-based services for children and adolescents with serious emotional disorders. Family Preservation Journal, 2(2), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. E., & Nash, J. K. (2008). The effectiveness of aftercare services for African American families in an intensive family preservation program. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(3), 189–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, R., Wilkes, L., Luck, L., & Jackson, D. (2010). The efficacy of family support and family preservation services on reducing child abuse and neglect: What the literature reveals. Journal of Child Health Care, 14(1), 82–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pecora, P. J., Fraser, M. W., & Haapala, D. A. (1991). Client outcomes and issues for program design. In K. Wells & D. A. Haapala (Eds.), Family preservation services: Research and evaluation (pp. 3–32). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed-Ashcraft, K., Kirk, R., & Fraser, M. (2001). The reliability and validity of the North Carolina family assessment scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 11, 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodenhiser, R. W., Chandy, J., & Ahmed, K. (1995). Intensive family preservation services: Do they have any impact on family functioning? Family Preservation Journal, Summer 69–86.

  • Rosen, A., & Proctor, E. K. (1981). Distinctions between treatment outcomes and their implications for treatment evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49(3), 418–425.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H. (1992a). Assessing family preservation programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H. (1992b). Strategies for evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 167–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyuse, S. W., Hong, P. P., & Stretch, J. J. (2010). Evaluation of an intensive in-home family treatment program to prevent out-of-home placement. Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work, 7(3), 200–218.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Puyenbroeck, H., Loots, G., Grietens, H., Jacquet, W., Vanderfaeillie, J., & Escudero, V. (2009). Intensive family preservation services in Flanders: An outcome study. Child and Family Social Work, 14, 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, E. (1998). In-home family-focused reunification: A six-year follow-up of a successful experiment. Social Work Research, 22(4), 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, M., & Hammond, M. (2004). Treating children with early onset conduct problems: Intervention outcomes for parent, child, and teacher training. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 105–124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the staff members at Boys Town of South Florida and the graduate and undergraduate students at the Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln who participated in the data collection process. We are deeply appreciative to the families who participated in our study and shared their experiences with us. The manuscript editing and formatting assistance from Heidi Menard was also greatly appreciated. The program which is the subject of this manuscript is funded by the Children’s Services Council of Palm Beach County, a special taxing district of local government. It funds primary prevention and early intervention programs and services for children in Palm Beach County, FL. The Council had no role in the data analysis or writing of this report.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Special Education and Communication Disorders, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583-0732, USA

    Kristin Duppong Hurley & Alexandra Trout

  2. Momentum Behavioral Health, Lee’s Summit, MI, USA

    Annette Griffith

  3. Father Flanagan’s Boys Home, Boys Town, NE, USA

    Stephanie Ingram & W. Alex Mason

  4. Boys Town of South Florida, Palm Beach, FL, USA

    Claudine Bolivar

Authors
  1. Kristin Duppong Hurley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Annette Griffith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Ingram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claudine Bolivar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W. Alex Mason
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alexandra Trout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristin Duppong Hurley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duppong Hurley, K., Griffith, A., Ingram, S. et al. An Approach to Examining the Proximal and Intermediate Outcomes of an Intensive Family Preservation Program. J Child Fam Stud 21, 1003–1017 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9563-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9563-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation