DJI Approach to Good Practice

Scie International Seminar: Good Practice

Heinz Kindler / Eric van Santen

2

Context for the development of Good Practice in Germany

Social Services are organized at a

community level Outside the area of care for elder

citizens there is hardly any review and

audit system Little government commitment to

evidence based practice Low methodological standards in

German social work research

3

Low methodological standards in German Social Work publications

Analysis of 5 volumes of the 5 most important

social work journals (n>500 articles) Rating system according to Rosen et al (1999)

with six categories: Non empirical 412 82% Illustrative 46 9% Descriptive 39 8% Explanatory 4 0.8% Controlled 2 0.2% Systematic review 0 0.0%

4

Methodological standards regarding „best practice“ in German social work

Minimal methodological requirements: Some kind of

comparison of a range of different practices with regard

to one or more outcome criteria Literature search in a German social work database

after publications with „best practice“ in the title (n=8) Minimal methodological requirements

Not met 6 75% Partly met 2 25% Met 0 0%

In most cases „best practice“ is just a word for practice

that sounds good or is felt to be innovative

5

Dissemination of the Concepts

German Pages GB PagesEvidence Based + Jugendhilfe/Youth Welfare 1.410 9.800Evidenzbasiert + Jugendhilfe 234Good Practice + Jugendhilfe/ Youth Welfare 5.760 30.600Gute Praxis + Jugendhilfe 1.770

Number of Hits in Google

6

The DJI (German Youth Institute)

About 140 researchers, located in Munich and Halle,

founded 1963, 2008: 66 projects Mostly financed by the Federal Ministry for Family

Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ):

7,8 Mio. € in 2008, additional 8 Mio. from other sources Research for politicians and practitioners on children,

youth and families, including family and child welfare

services No unitary approach but constant work and discussion

on research approaches to evidence

7

Authorities in child and youth services

Federation Länder Towns and districtsAuthority Federal Ministry

for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth

16 Youth ministries of the Länder (Federal states); Youth offices of the Länder

Youth offices in every district and town (600)

Basics SGB VIII: Child and youth Welfare Act (Youth up to 27)

Carrying-out laws to SGB VIII

Mid-range child and youth plans

Instruments Nationwide stimulation and furthering; Pilot-projects; Federal advisory Board on Youth Matters; Child and Youth Report

Stimulation, furthering, further development of of non-statutory and statutory youth services; Financial support aimed at balanced expansion of provisions; Providing counselling and advanced training for the local level

Responsibility for planning and funding of local youth services under local self government

8

Cooperation between the statutory and the non-statutory sector Basic principle

Statutory and non-statutory youth services shall cooperate on a basis of partnership.

Precedence of the non-statutory youth services (Principle of subsidiarity)Where the non-statutory youth services can discharge suitable functions the

statutory sector shall refrain from activities of its own.

Overall responsibility of the statutory sectorThe statutory sector, i.e. the youth office, has the overall responsiblity for

child and youth services.

9

The Area of the 600 Youth Offices in Germany

Wohnform, begonnene Hilfen 1999Karte 6.4.2: Heimerziehung, sonstige betreute

Quelle: Statis tik der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe; Regionaldatenbank des DJI; eigene Berechnungen

Inanspruchnahmequotepro 10.000 der 0- bis 18-Jährigen

22,4 bis 65,1 (88)15,6 bis 22,4 (86)11,9 bis 15,6 (87)

8 bis 11,9 (89)0 bis 8 (89)

10

Effects of Local Responsibility

youth offices develope very different politics the width of the product range differs the quantity of the provisions differs different cultures of appropriateness

This leads to very different levels of usage of

youth care provisions

11

New cases residential care; young people up to 18

Wohnform, begonnene Hilfen 1999Karte 6.4.2: Heimerziehung, sonstige betreute

Quelle: Statis tik der Kinder- und Jugendhilfe; Regionaldatenbank des DJI; eigene Berechnungen

Inanspruchnahmequotepro 10.000 der 0- bis 18-Jährigen

22,4 bis 65,1 (88)15,6 bis 22,4 (86)11,9 bis 15,6 (87)

8 bis 11,9 (89)0 bis 8 (89)

12

Type of Care10.

Percentile90.

Percentile Mean Medianvariation

coefficient (s/x)Counselling* 46,2 186,9 112,5 103,8 60%Social-Padagogic Family Care */** 2,7 17,5 9,1 7,5 70%Care Outside the Family** 13,8 55,9 31,4 27,5 55% therefrom Professional Daycare** 1,7 12,5 6,4 5,2 74% intensiv social-pädagogic care** 0,3 3,7 1,6 0,9 125% Family Foster Care** 2,6 14,5 7,8 6,6 69% Residenticial Care** 5,2 31,0 16,9 14,6 65%Shelter Care 2,0 37,2 17,0 10,6 127%

Percentile of care utilization; Agency districts 2004 (per 10.000 under 18 year old persons)

* Per 10.000 under 27 years old persons; ** new cases; ***Persons/Families at 31. December; only regions that prvcide the type of care

Source: official child and youth services statistics; own calculations

13

Type of care 10. Percentile 90. Percentile

Social-Padagogic Family Care * 3 16Intensiv Social-Pädagogic Care* 0,5 6Professional Daycare* 2 8Residential Care** 1 3

Short Term Family Foster Care* 2,5 26Social-Padagogic Family Care ** 43 100Attendance for Juvenile Offender*** 16 76

Workload (cases per caseworker) and mean duration in care in youth agency districts, Germany

Cases per Caseworker

Duration in Weeks

Source: * Youth Office Survey, DJI; ** Residential Care Units Survey, DJI; *** Data from the official child and youth services statistics; own calculations

14

Example 1 of the DJI Approach:Risk assessment in child protection

practice Rated as one of the top three problems in three workshps with

child protection practitioners Two non-systematic reviews (Kindler 2006) Development of a risk assessment module in cooperation with two

children and youth authorities Testing phase 1: Reliability, incremental prognostic valididty,

acceptance (Kindler et al. 2008, Reich et al. 2009) Testing phase 2 (one year later): Acceptance, redundancies, most

common errors and misunderstandings Still missing: Comparison with other RA-methods in Germany

15

Incremental prognostic validity

One page risk assessment instrument (21 risk factors) 60 child protection case files already open before the

instrument was introduced Risk analysis based on the first 3 months of the file,

independent case progress analysis with „Child Welfare

Outcome Indicator Matrix“ (Trocmé et al. 1999), e.g.

additional maltreatment episode Structured risk assessment predicted additional

maltreatment and maltreatment related injuries of

children in the family over and above unstructured case

worker risk intuition

16

5 risk factors predicted later maltreatment

related injury of a child in the family:

Maltreatment related

injury

Mother maltreated as child .30*

Mother addicted / psychiatric illness .22+

Father maladaptive coping .29*

Prior Maltreatment .24*

Parents underestimate risk .25*

17

Sum of risk factors Maltreatment

related injury (%)

0-1 0%

2-3 13%

4+ 53%

18

Example 2 of the DJI approach:Reunification of foster children

Foster care workers do not rate reunification as top problem, but

several high court decisions demand more reunification efforts Collecting data on reunification base rates (van Santen),

international comparison data (e.g. Thoburn 2007) Field research: reunification processes (n=29, follow-up period:

1yr), what decision criteria are used by practitioners and what is

done to support reunifications processes (telephone interviews) Field search for projects aimed to support successful

reunifications, 2 projects where contracted for writing a report on

their practice Ongoing systematic review on validated prognostic critieria,

creation of 2 instruments (barriers to reunification, prognosis)

19

Summary 1: Our answers to the SCIE questions

Is there a sufficiently robust evidence base to

identify good practice? Generally not; Germany is just doing the first steps to

build up ebp; threats to validity, meta-analysis and

systematic review techniques are hardly known, there is

growing interest in international collaboration

20

Summary 2: Our answers to the SCIE questions

Political Issues: In the small area of early child welfare services there is a

national agency (NZFH), doing a good job to create an

evidence base (e.g. 3 RCT‘s), there is some policy

support, but connections to the science organisations are

weak, practitioners seem to be divided about gp, seeking

support but being critical against controll and

accountability

21

Summary 3: Our answers to the SCIE questions

Delivery mechanisms I: Handbook First experience with a web-based and printed on

Handbook on child endangerment are very positive,

several project data-bases (not evaluated), policy

frameworks support gp for some time in specific areas

(e.g. foster care), professional codes are generally gp

friendly but are not strongly supported

22www.dji.de/asd

23

Summary 3: Our answers to the SCIE questions

Delivery mechanisms II: Promoting Evaluation

Identifying completed and ongoing evaluation studies in Germany Analysing and systematising these studies Preparing the information obtained for storage in a Database Stimulating and monitoring the evaluation discussion Encouraging the interdisciplinary exchange of experience among stakeholders involved in and

affected by evaluations Counselling on designing and implementing evaluations at the federal level Developing and advancing external evaluation concepts and strategies in child and youth services Advancing evaluation standards within the framework of the German Evaluation Society (DeGEval

- Gesellschaft für Evaluation) Establishing international collaboration and research contacts and transfer of experience Events such as expert meetings, workshops and expert hearings Publications documentation and internet service

24

Summary 3: Our answers to the SCIE questions

Delivery mechanisms III: Databases (GP) Research on Childcare Schools and their Partners Youth and Work Gendermainstreaming in Youth Welfare Services Social Integration of Marginalized Young People Prevention of School Fatigue and Refusal