Child welfare accountability: evaluating quality assurance processes in Maryland.
Other Titles
Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland Child Welfare. 1st Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportResearch in Support of Child Welfare Policy & Programs
Abstract
Executive Summary: The Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 increased legislative oversight of the Maryland Quality Assurance processes in child welfare. The Act also provides a framework for the Department of Human Resources (DHR) to partner with the University of Maryland School of Social Work (UMB/SSW) to develop the Maryland Quality Assurance (QA) Collaborative. The purpose of the Collaborative is to evaluate quality assurance processes and make recommendations for improvement. As required by 5-1309(B), this annual report presents 1) an evaluation of existing quality assurance policies and practices and 2) recommendations on how to improve quality assurance processes in child welfare. A separate companion report, "Child Welfare Accountability: Annual Report on Maryland Performance Indicators," describes Maryland's performance on performance indicators outlined by the Child Welfare Accountability Act. This report was compiled by faculty and staff at the University of Maryland School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Service Administration. Drs. Diane DePanfilis and Sarah Kaye Faraldi managed the Child Welfare Accountability project and writing of this report. Anna Hayward and Gillian Gregory participated in the design and implementation of the Quality Assurance process evaluation and led the redesign of the supervisory review instrument. Cathy Mol, Carnitra White, and David Ayer guided the activities of the Quality Assurance Collaborative. The Quality Assurance team of the Social Services Administration includes Gloria Valentine, Shirley Brown, Jospehine Lambert, Dee Ritterpusch, Elizabeth Mitchell Stemley, and Jewel Wilson.Table of Contents
Executive Summary; Evaluation of Maryland's Quality Assurance System; Summary of Recommendations; Introduction; Evaluation of Maryland's Quality Assurance System; Local Self-Assessment; Onsite Review; Program Improvement Plan (PIP); Local Supervisory Review; Recommendations for Improvement; Improve Sampling Strategies; Increase Technical Assistance for Local Departments; Automate Data Collection; Consider Redesigning the Onsite Review ProcessDescription
PROJECT NAME: Child Welfare Accountability: Efficiency and Effectiveness of Child Welfare Services. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Diane DePanfilis, PhD. PROJECT DATES: 1/1/2007-06/15/2008; 6/16/2008-6/15-2009. COLLABORATORS: University of Maryland School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children. Department of Human Resources, Social Service Administration.Series/Report No.
Child Welfare Research;Sponsors
Maryland Higher Education Commission(MHEC)- yr 1; Maryland Department of Human Resources - yr 2.Keyword
Maryland Child Welfare Accountability Act (2006)University of Maryland, Baltimore. School of Social Work--Projects and Reports
Child welfare--Maryland--Evaluation
Family social work
Foster parents--Maryland
Identifier to cite or link to this item
http://hdl.handle.net/10713/86Collections
The following license files are associated with this item:
- Creative Commons
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
Maryland Child Welfare Perfomance Indicators 2nd Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportThe Child Welfare Accountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301 through 1311 inclusive) specified a set of performance indicators covering four categories of child welfare practice: Child abuse and neglect, Protecting children in out-of-home care from abuse and neglect, Permanency and stability of children in out-of-home care, and Effectiveness of efforts to address the health, mental health, education, and well-being of children in out-of-home care. This report describes and documents the performance indicators mandated in the Act for the period July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. A separate companion report entitled Evaluating Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland describes and evaluates Quality Assurance processes in calendar year 2008.
-
Maryland Child Welfare Performance Indicators. 3rd Annual Child Welfare Accountability ReportExecutive Summary: The Child Welfare Acountability Act of 2006 (Maryland Family Law, Section 1301-1311 inclusive) specified a set of performance indicators covering four categories of child welfare practice: 1. Child abuse and neglect, 2. Protecting children in out-of-home care from abuse and neglect, 3. Permanency and stability of children in out-of-home care, and 4. Effectiveness of efforts to address the health, mental health, education, and well-being of children in out-of-home care. This report describes and documents the performance indicators mandated in the Act for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. A separate companion report entitled "Evaluating Quality Assurance Processes in Maryland" describes and evaluates Quality Assurance processes in calendar year 2009. Acknowledgements: This report was prepared by faculty and staff of the University of Maryland, School of Social Work's Ruth H. Young Center for Families & Children (RYC) in partnership with staff at the Department of Human Resources, Social Services Administration (DHR/SSA). Diane DePanfilis, Terry V. Shaw, Haksoon Ahn, and Nina Esaki co-manage the interagency agreement that supports the development of this report. Terry V. Shaw and Haksoon Ahn developed the performance indicators found in this report with the assistance of David Ayer from DHR/SSA. Carnitra White, Richard Larson, David Ayer and Linda Carter at DHR/SSA guided the activities of the outcomes measurement and performance indicators process.
-
The impact of organizational culture and climate in child welfare agencies on outcomes for children involved in the child welfare system: A multi-level analysis of a nationally representative sampleChild welfare organizations in the U.S. are tasked with the overarching goal of protecting children from abuse and neglect. The achievement of this goal has been found to be difficult and some child welfare organizations seem to be more effective at reaching this goal than others. A dearth of empirical literature exists in understanding how child welfare organizational functioning impacts its ability to achieve positive outcomes for the children who come into contact with their local child welfare system. An extensive review of the literature revealed that culture and climate of organizations may play an important role, but the existing research is unclear about the extent and direction of that role. Additionally, methodological issues with the existing studies threaten the validity of the results. The present dissertation builds on existing research and conducts secondary analysis using a nationally representative sample. The study applied theories of organizational social context and ecological model to answer the research question: When controlling for risk factors related to child characteristics and organizational contextual characteristics, to what extent do the culture and climate of the child welfare agency impact child-level outcomes? Using the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Wellbeing (NSCAW II), bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to answer the research question. Results indicate that individual, agency, and local context characteristics impact recurrence of abuse during the study period. At the individual level, living in a poor household and having prior substantiated maltreatment increased the odds of recurrence. At the agency-level, of the six culture and climate variables, only the climate score of functionality had an impact on risk of recurrence. The agency-level local context variable of county child poverty had the largest effect on recurrence and added explained variance to the model. However, both significant agency-level variables did not impact recurrence in the expected direction. Future research should continue to focus on research methods, better conceptualization and measurement of organizational constructs, and utilize an ecological perspective approach.
