Search
Free Newsletter
Syndicate
Welcome to the National Family Preservation Network
|
NFPN provides the vision, leadership, training, tools, and resources to assist policy makers and practitioners to build on a family's strengths and to preserve family bonds so children can be protected and nurtured at home. Please take a little time to read through our Web site. Below you will find some of our current articles and news stories, or watch our short introduction video. Thank you. |
Our mission is to serve as the primary national voice for the
preservation of families through Intensive Family Preservation and
Reunification Services (IFPS & IFRS). NFPN has developed a
comprehensive fatherhood initiative, because fathers are an integral
part of families. We believe that children deserve to remain safely with their families
when possible, and that all efforts must be made to reunite children
with their families, when it is safe to do so.
| A Nationwide Look at IFPS |
|
|
|
|
In 1994, the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) published a directory of Intensive Family Preservation Services (IFPS) programs nationwide. Over 200 IFPS programs in 35 states were identified as meeting NFPN’s criteria for inclusion, with the bulk of the information coming from nonprofit IFPS providers. It’s now 2007 and NFPN has just completed another nationwide survey of IFPS. This time the survey summary is based solely on information provided by
state public child welfare agencies. The survey is part of a larger
IFPS research project funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Only 3 states did not provide information for the survey. Respondents from 20 state child welfare agencies indicated that they offer IFPS to all or a substantial portion of the state’s population and have a service model based on specific criteria. These states include: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Virginia. Six of these states were not providing IFPS 13 years ago while six other states (not listed) no longer provide IFPS on a statewide basis. NFPN still subscribes to the same IFPS program standards used in the original survey as well as some additional ones based on research in the intervening years. The following standards were met most frequently by the 20 states in the current survey (80% or higher):
The IFPS standards that are not being met by states include the following (50% or lower):
Two-thirds of the states have a method for tracking adherence to program standards. In recent years, research has shown that risk of placement increases around 5 months following the close of the IFPS intervention. This is an indicator that a “booster shot” of services or step-down services would helpful. In this survey, 60% of the states indicated that they provide step-down services following termination of IFPS services. Lending support to the outstanding safety record of IFPS, only one state reported child deaths over the past 5 years due to abuse or neglect during the time that a family was receiving IFPS. So what has changed over the past 13 years with regard to IFPS? There has been some turnover in the states that offer IFPS on a statewide basis, but other states are taking their place. Four states are in the process of developing IFPS programs statewide. In addition, 70% of the states currently offering IFPS statewide also offer Intensive Family Reunification Services (IFRS) based on the same model as IFPS. The biggest concern is that program standards for IFPS have eroded over the years. All programs included in the 1994 directory met the caseload standard of 2–4 families at a time and intensive intervention of 5–20 hours per week. Today, the majority of states have caseloads higher than 4, and services are spread over a longer period of time than 4–8 weeks, such that families are not seen for even a minimum of 5 hours per week. This lack of model integrity has resulted in some research findings that show no or little effectiveness for IFPS programs. The negative research findings on programs lacking model integrity have received a great deal of publicity. In turn, that has affected the perception of IFPS and the level of support and funding by child welfare administrators and elected officials. How about some good news? At least 5 states are either returning to or establishing model integrity with revamped or new programs. Research on IFPS programs with model integrity consistently demonstrates the effectiveness of these programs. NFPN is currently conducting research on high-integrity IFPS programs and will release the findings later this fall. As follow-up to this nationwide survey, NFPN plans to convene a nationwide summit of the states listed above. Discussion will include why states offer IFPS, how they develop a model of service, funding sources, barriers, and benefits. Program managers will be asked to share how they think IFPS programs could be strengthened and expanded. Most states offering IFPS statewide also offer IFRS so reunification issues will also be included. And, there will be a focus on model integrity and research findings. State child welfare agencies that participated in the 1994 survey and the current survey and that have maintained the best record for continuity and model integrity include Alabama, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, New York, and North Carolina. For an example of a high-integrity model of IFPS, view Missouri’s Standards of Practice for Intensive In-home Services. Last, but certainly not least, many thanks to all of you who provided information for the IFPS survey or directed NFPN to key respondents. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|