NRC-CWTE
TrainingWorking Paper #4
Spring 2003
National Resource Center
On Child Welfare Training & Evaluation
Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR’s):
Child Welfare Training
Preliminary Results and Implications for Training
Mavin Martin, Ph.D., Anita Barbee, MSSW, Ph.D., & Becky Antle, MSSW, Ph.D.
T he Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997
(ASFA) has had a significant impact on families
and systems involved with child welfare. Families
have recognized time limits in addressing issues that
led to involvement with child protective services
(CPS) and state agencies have recognized the pur-
pose of outcome-focused monitoring, evaluation,
and accountability. The implementation of AFSA
required supports at many levels not the least of
which was coordination and collaboration within CPS
systems and across provider systems. These sup-
ports both within and across systems include sound
statutes that govern State intervention, well-trained
staff, available and effective services, and commu-
nity partnerships. ASFA provided a federal legisla-
tive framework in order to give new direction and
parameters to child welfare agencies and the courts.
However, ASFA is not sufficient to change the child
welfare system, as no single law can change a sys-
tem or systems struggling with policy, capacity,
workforce, and caseload issues.
Child Welfare Infrastructure Evaluated Under
ASFA
Child safety, permanency, and well-being, the out-
comes of ASFA, will be achieved as child welfare
agencies institutionalize a safety-focused, family-
centered, community-based and culturally respon-
The achievement sive approach to service delivery. Quality services
however require a policy, fiscal, and organizational
of safety, perma- infrastructure that supports evidence-based practice.
nency and well- In other words, the implementation of ASFA requires
the alignment of key components of the CPS agency
being outcomes including mission, goals, policies, procedures, and
are directly related other systemic factors.
to the interplay of The Child and Family Services Reviews (CFSR’s)
are the federal monitoring and evaluation compo-
seven systemic nents of ASFA. The purpose of the CFSR’s is to
factors. measure States’ performance on statewide aggre-
gate data relative to national standards as well as
the State’s performance on qualitative criteria related
to the delivery of services. The achievement of
safety, permanency and well-being outcomes are
directly related to the interplay of seven systemic
factors. Historically, child welfare review processes
have evaluated the adherence to procedural require-
ments versus evaluating the quality of the decision
making process and service delivery. The seven
systemic factors are necessary to ensure that States
have the capacity to deliver services in a manner
NRC— Child Welfare Training & Evaluation, Kent School of Social Work, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292 * http://olav.usi.louisville.edu/nrc.htm
that is most likely to help children and families
achieve the desired outcomes.
What we know from the CSFR’s
In 2001 and 2002, 32 states completed the CFSR.
In the next year, 18 states will complete the proc-
ess. This monograph includes an analysis of data
gathered from States’ Final Reports and aggre-
gate data available on the Children’s Bureau web-
site. As expected, there were a number of signifi-
cant relationships among the seven outcomes,
seven systemic factors, and the 45 items (also
referred to as indictors) evaluated across these
outcomes and factors. (See sidebar for the seven
outcomes, systemic factors and 45 items evalu-
ated for CFSR’s).
No state has achieved substantial conformity in all
seven outcomes and no state has achieved sub-
stantial conformity on Permanency 1 (P1) or Well-
Being 1 (WB1). There are six states that have
achieved substantial conformity in all seven sys-
temic factors. Although substantial conformity on
all systemic factors does not correlate to achieving
outcomes, an item analysis revealed a significant
positive correlation between Safety 1 (S1) and the
total number of systemic factors achieved, r (28) =
.433, p<.05. In other words, the more systemic
factors in conformity, the more likely S1 will also
be found in conformity. Of the total cases evalu-
ated in 2001 and 2002, (n=1,584), cases were
more likely to achieve S1 than S2. No state to
date has an identified strength in assessing the
needs and services of the child, parents and foster
parents (item 17), in child and family involvement
in case planning (item 18), and in worker visits
with parents (item 20). Only four states received
strength ratings on caseworker visits with children
(item 19). (see www.acf.dhhs.gov for additional
findings of the first two years of the CFSR proc-
ess).
Relationship Between Outcomes
There were also significant relationships between
the three outcomes suggesting a strong interplay
between the total number of items achieved on
one outcome and the total number of items
achieved on another outcome. For example, there
is a significant positive relationship between the
items of Permanency 1 (P1) and the items of Well-
Being 1 (WB1), r (28) =.628, p<.01, between the
Page 2
items of P1 and WB3, r (28) = .613, p<.01, and the
items of WB 1 and WB 3, r (28) = .73, p<.01. These
results provide support for the relationship between
children achieving permanent and stable living envi-
ronments (P1) when having access to individualized
services with ongoing worker contact during the ser-
vice delivery process (WB1).
Relationship Between Outcomes and Systemic
Factors
Systemic factors most strongly correlated with out-
comes were Case Review System and Service Ar-
ray. There was a significant positive correlation be-
tween P1 items and Case Review System items
found in conformity, r (28) =.435, p<.05. In other
words, the number of items found in conformity on
the Case Review systemic factor is correlated with
achievement of substantial conformity on P1.
Mavin Martin, Ph.D.
Service Array is the systemic factor most strongly
correlated with the total number of items in confor-
mity across all outcomes. There was a significant
positive correlation between Service Array items
achieved and the total number of items achieved
across all domains, r (28) = .531, p<.01. The strong
relationship with Service Array was particularly evi-
dent with regard to Safety outcomes and indicators.
There was a significant association between Service
Array and S1; those States not in conformity on Ser-
vice Array were not in conformity with items of S1.
(c2 (1,28)=3.62, p<.06). The converse was also sup-
ported; there was a significant positive correlation
between the total number of Service Array items and
S1 items (r (28) = .459,p<.05) in conformity. There is
a significant association between Service Array and
item 1 of S1 (i.e. timelines of initiating investigations
of reports of child maltreatment); those States not in
conformity on Service Array were not conformity on
S1, item 1 (c2 (1,28)=9.61,p<.01). There was a sig-
Anita Barbee, MSSW, Ph.D. nificant association between Service Array and S1,
item 2 (i.e. repeat maltreatment); those States not in
conformity with Service Array were not in conformity
with S1, item 2 (c2 (1,28)=5.46,p<.05). In addition,
there was a significant association between Service
Array and WB1, item 18 (i.e., child and family in-
volvement in case planning). Those States not in
conformity on Service Array were not in conformity
with WB 1, item 18 (c2 (1,28)=3.62,p<.06).
Relationship Between Systemic Factors
In addition to investigating the relationship between
outcomes and systemic factors, the relationship
among systemic factors was also explored. There
was a significant positive correlation between Ser-
vice Array items and the total number of systemic
factors in conformity, r (28) = .701, p<.01. There was
a significant positive correlation between achieve-
ment of items on Service Array items and achieve-
ment of items on the systemic factor of Foster and
Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Reten-
tion items, r (28) = .403, p<.05.
Becky Antle, MSSW, Ph.D.
Access to Service Array is related to the Case Re-
view System; those who were not in conformity with
Service Array were not in conformity with Case Re-
view, (c2 (1,28)=3.13, p<.08). There was a signifi-
cant association between Service Array and Case
Review, item 29 (i.e., notification of potential caregiv-
ers of children in foster care), c2 (1,28)=5.56, p<.05.
There was also a significant association between Ser-
vice Array and Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing,
Recruitment and Retention; those who achieve confor-
mity on Service Array were also more likely to achieve
conformity on Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing,
Recruitment and Retention (c2 (1,28)=3.93,p<.05).
There was a significant association between Service
Array and Foster and Adoptive Recruitment and Li-
censing, item 42 (i. e. standards are applied to all
licensed or approved foster family homes receiving
title IV-E or IV-B funds) those who achieved items on
Service Array also were also found in substantial con-
formity on item 42 (c2 (1,28)=3.93,p<.05).
What are the gaps in CFSR process that could
also impact outcomes
A comprehensive and accurate evaluation of state
child welfare agencies must address system chal-
lenges related to four areas of casework practice: (1)
case complexity, (2) worker factors, (3) practice mod-
els, and (4) transfer of training to the field. Scales
(1997) conducted a study on the needs of 659 child
welfare workers, 30-50% of which reported that their
previous training was inadequate or poor. Workers
reported that they had inaccurate knowledge about
high-risk youth and felt they were doing a poor job in
service delivery. There was a significant relationship
between quality of training ratings and program rat-
ings. In all, 90% of workers said that additional training
would be useful in improving knowledge and skills.
Workers who are poorly trained to serve multi-problem
families will have difficulty implementing best practice
standards and skills. Quality assurance mechanisms
that incorporate training outcomes are one method to
evaluate the implementation of evidence-based child
welfare practice models. The National Resource Cen-
ter on Child Welfare Training and Evaluation has pre-
pared companion monographs discussing these chal-
lenges.
Case complexity
Substance abuse is the primary source of the dra-
matic rise in child abuse and neglect during the past
two decades. Although estimates vary from 20% to
80% of all maltreatment cases involve substance
abuse (Young, Gardner, Dennis, 1998), one recent
study found that seven out of ten cases of maltreat-
ment involved a parent or guardian who abused sub-
stances (CASA, 1999). The results of the CFSR proc-
ess, indicate that between 8% and 48% of the cases
reviewed cited substance abuse as the primary rea-
son for opening the case (Young & Gardner, 2003).
Substance abuse accounts for $10 billion in federal,
state and local government spending on child welfare
systems (CASA, 1999). Over the past decade child
welfare practice has shifted away from providing ser-
vices aimed at preventing repeat maltreatment toward
investigation, child safety, and permanency decisions.
Although commendable in theory, in practice, the work
of ensuring safety and permanency has been compli-
cated by the increase in the complexity of cases as a
result of substance abuse and other factors. In addi-
tion to substance abuse, there are a number of other
co-morbid factors that create complexity in child wel-
fare cases. A recent review of child welfare case re-
cords in Kentucky found that mental illness was pre-
sent in 42% of the cases reviewed while mental retar-
dation was identified in 17%, and domestic violence in
68% of the cases reviewed (Antle, Martin, Christen-

sen, & Barbee, under review). Unfortunately, an estimated 40
percent of all child welfare professionals do not have adequate
training to identify, assess, and plan for services to treat sub-
stance abuse of parents who abuse and neglect their children
(CASA, 1999, CDF, 1998, GAO, 1999).
When the mother or father (or both) of children involved with the
child welfare are also involved with the criminal justice system the
service delivery system is even more challenging. Child welfare
professionals are constantly attempting to balance the rights of
the parent(s) and those of the children when planning for perma-
nency (Martin, Barbee, Antle, & Sar, 2002; Zuckerman, 1994;
Zuckerman & Bresnahan, 1991). Which services to provide; how
to pay for them; and what constitutes “reasonable efforts” to treat
parents and hold families together contribute to the immeasurable
stress experienced by child welfare professionals. The majority of
recently incarcerated parents of children in foster care are serving
time for non-violent drug related offenses. A large percentage of
these parents are mothers whose parental rights are in jeopardy
as a result of the ASFA which dictates permanency decisions
within 12 months of out of home placement (CASA, 1999; CDF,
1998; DHHS, 1999; GAO, 1998; Kamerman & Kahn, 1990;
Young, Gardner, & Dennis, 1998). After 15 months in foster care,
termination of parental rights actions can be initiated against par-
ents despite the absence of appropriate, accessible services to
address the substance abuse issue that lead to the abuse or ne-
glect.
Workers
Worker stress related to case complexity is compounded by an
organizational environment that cannot afford error. Given the
gravity of child welfare work and the constant threat that one
worker or supervisor’s judgment may result in harm to a child, the
daily pressures experienced by child welfare professionals can be
enormous. Visitation and reunification following parental sub-
stance abuse treatment are particularly stressful for child welfare
professionals who have not been trained in relapse risk assess-
ment and prevention strategies. Conscientious professionals are
cautious about withdrawing from the lives of families as most child
welfare professionals know that if a child is harmed following re-
unification with a parent who relapses, it is the child welfare
agency, not the substance abuse treatment agency that will be
held accountable. In the current environment of high visibility in
the case of miscalculation, child welfare professionals are
stressed by large caseloads that make it extremely difficult to
adequately attend to families’ substance abuse issues.
Child welfare retention and recruitment issues have been identi-
fied as contributing to less than optimal outcomes in child welfare
(GAO, 2003). Although turnover rates are positively affected by
supervisor support and professional child welfare programs such
as IV-E stipend programs (e.g. Public Child Welfare Certification
Program (PCWCP) in Kentucky), turnover remains a significant
issue for child welfare. Turnover rates are directly related to high
levels of complex decision-making, lack of control, and lack of
resources for families with substance abuse issues. The lack of
accessible, individualized substance abuse services for mothers
who would like to participate in treatment without placing their
children in out of home care is well documented (Knight, Hood,
Logan, & Chatham, 1999; Young, et. al, 1998). Long waiting lists
for these specialized services are the norm. When services are
available, child welfare professionals lack the authority to access
or pay for substance abuse treatment services. As a result, too
many families receive whatever services are available at the time
rather than individualized services most appropriate for their
needs (Fox, Burnham, Barbee, Yankeelov, 2000; Fox, Miller, &
Barbee, in press). .
Additionally, there are individual workers characteristics, such as
Page 3
conscientiousness, that predict job performance. An evaluation of
a Virtual Office program for child welfare workers found that only
workers who are high in conscientiousness benefit from this type
of work arrangement (Barbee, Bledsoe, Antle, & Yankeelov, 1999).
Similarly, an evaluation of a bachelor’s level child welfare prepara-
tion program found that conscientiousness and learning readiness
predict work commitment and success (Barbee, Sullivan, & Antle,
2003). Learning readiness incorporates concepts such as transfer
of learning skills, ability to use feedback, learning as a life skill,
support for learning, and self-direction in learning (van Zyl & van
Zyl, 2000). Child welfare trainees who are high in learning readi-
ness are more likely to transfer skills from training to practice
(Antle, 2002).
Practice models
Kentucky’s child welfare practice model, Family Solutions, is a
conceptual model that defines problems as difficult situations in
everyday life. Family Solutions is a family-centered, strengths-
based, solution-focused casework model that attempts to under-
standing the exception to an identified family issue, as well as the
problem itself. Family Solutions is an approach to assessment,
case planning, and on-going casework that targets specific every-
day family events which: 1) have caused the family distress and
difficulty and, 2) represent a situation in which at least one family
member cannot reliably maintain his/her behavior. The model inte-
grates evidence-based relapse prevention approaches from the
fields of substance abuse, behavior risk management, and learned
helplessness. Goals of this child welfare practice model include
working in partnership with families, focusing on everyday life
events, and promoting prevention skills. Please see NRC-CWTE
monograph on Engaging Child Welfare Families: A Solution-Based
Approach to Child Welfare Practice for a complete discussion this
child welfare practice model.
Transfer of Training to the Field (See NRC-CWTE monograph
Training Transfer: Variables that Predict and Maximize Trans-
fer)
Training evaluation research has shown that there are three pri-
mary predictors of training transfer: learning readiness, organiza-
tional/management support of training, and immediate learning
(Antle, 2002). Trainees who are higher in learning readiness, who
value of learning as a life-long process, and who perceive their
managers and organization to be supportive of the material being
trained are more likely to use skills from training. Similarly, trainees
who gain knowledge of key concepts from training are more likely
to transfer this knowledge to practice.
Program Improvement Planning: Targeted Training to Impact
Outcomes
Most States (75%) have been found in substantial conformity with
the area of Staff and Provider Training however on-going training
has been identified as a relative weakness nationally. As States
plan for program improvement, a strategy to address non-
conformity will likely be training. Training has always been a part of
change strategies, however, given the results of the CFSR’s, train-
ing cannot be the only solution when addressing areas for program
improvement. Training and evaluation of training can provide criti-
cal information and direction to program improvement planning as
long as training evaluation becomes a component of continuous
quality improvement. While training evaluation methods have be-
come more sophisticated, most public child welfare agencies do
not measure the effectiveness of training beyond participant satis-
faction. As a result, most child welfare agencies do not benefit
from the data generated from pre- and post-tests of knowledge
and skills or from the transfer of that knowledge and skill to the
field.
Although Title IV-E funds support training and training evaluation
for child welfare agencies in all fifty States through federal match-
Page 4

ing funds to States, these funds are in jeopardy as the impact of training has not be tied to organizational change
(Miller & Dore, 1991; Tracy & Pine, 2000). Funding reductions coupled with growing case complexity and a child
welfare workforce struggling with high caseloads and lack of service array create an untenable position for many
...mothers will child welfare agencies (Gleeson & Philbin, 1996). In a recent survey of child welfare workers, approximately 50% of
lose contact workers reported that they did not feel prepared to perform their complex job duties (Scale, 1999).
and often cus- Our current child welfare service array for parents with substance abuse, mental health, and chronic health condi-
tody of their tions is fragmented. The lack of coordination and collaboration across systems is contributing to less than optimal
children under outcomes for families and children. Child welfare, like primary care is often the point of entry for women with chil-
dren. Due to the stigma and negative stereotypes associated with mothers struggling with addiction, these women
ASFA if treat- are unlikely to seek "traditional" substance abuse treatment trajectories. It is now a reality that mothers will lose
ment is not contact and often custody of their children under ASFA if treatment is not provided within a context that continually
provided within holds the tension of the rights of children and those of the parents. Despite repeated calls for services that accom-
a context that modate the realities of women's lives (e.g., child care, transportation, supportive work), there is a paucity of sub-
stance abuse treatment options for women who want to maintain contact with their children (Knight, et al.,1999). At
continually a systems level, it is critical that child welfare and substance abuse service delivery systems unite under a common
holds the ten- agenda to address the individualized needs of families and children. Without a unified front, there will be no lasting
sion of the change in the child welfare system.
rights of chil-
dren and those
of the parents Child and Family Services Reviews: Outcomes and Systemic Factors
Safety Outcomes

Safety 1 (S1): Children are first and foremost protected from abuse and neglect
Item 1: Timeliness of initiating investigations of reports of child maltreatment
Item 2: Repeat Maltreatment*

Safety 2 (S2): Children are safely maintained in their homes whenever possible and appropriate
Item 3: Services to family to protect child(ren) in home and prevent removal
Item 4: Risk of harm to child(ren)
Child Welfare Training

Permanency Outcomes

Permanency 1 (P1): Children have permanency and stability in their living situations
Item 5: Foster care re-entries *
Item 6: Stability of foster care placement
Item 7: Permanency goal for child
Item 8: Reunification, guardianship, or partnership placement with relatives
Item 9: Adoption *
Item 10: Permanency goal of other planned permanent living arrangement

Permanency 2 (P2): The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children
Item 11: Proximity of foster care placement
Item 12: Placement with siblings
Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care
Item 14: Preserving connections
Item 15: Relative placement
Item 16: Relationship of child in care with parents

Well-Being Outcomes

Well-Being 1 (WB1): Families have enhanced capacity to provide for their children’s needs
Item 17: Needs and services of child, parents, foster parents
Item 18: Child and family involvements in case planning
Item 19: Worker visits with child
Item 20: Worker visits with parent(s)

Well-Being 2 (WB2): Children receive appropriate services to meet their educational needs
Item 21: Educational needs of the child

Well-Being 3 (WB3): Children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs
Item 22: Physical health of the child
Item 23: Mental health of the child
 Page 5

Child and Family Services Reviews: Outcomes and Systemic Factors

Systemic Factor 1: Statewide Information System
Item 24: State is operating a Statewide Information system that, at a minimum, can readily identify the status, demographic characteris-
tics, location, and goals for the placement of every child who is in foster care.

Systemic Factor 2: Case Review System

Item 25: Provides a process that ensures the each child has a written case plan to be developed jointly with the child’s parent(s) that
includes the required provisions.
Item 26: Provides a process for the periodic review of the status of each child, no less frequently than once every 6 months, either by a
court or by administrative review.
Item 27: Provides a process the ensures that each child in foster care under the supervision of the State has a permanency hearing in a
qualified court of administrative body no later than 12 months from the date the child entered foster care and no leas frequently than
every 12 months thereafter.
Item 28: Provides a process for termination of parental rights proceedings in accordance with the provisions of ASFA.
Item 29: Provides a process for foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers of children in foster care to be notified of,
and have an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing held with respect to the child.

Systemic Factor 3: Quality Assurance System

Item 30: The State has developed and implemented standards to ensure that children in foster care are provided quality services that
protect the safety and health of children.
Item 31: The State is operating an identifiable quality assurance system that is in place in the jurisdictions where the services included
in the Child and Family Services Plan (CFSP) are provided, evaluates the quality of services, identifies strengths and needs of the ser-
vice delivery system, provides relevant reports, and evaluates program improvement measures implemented.
System Factor 4: Staff and Provider Training
Item 32: The State is operating a staff development and training program that supports the goals and objectives in the CFSP, ad-
dresses services provided under Titles IV-B and IV-E, and provides initial training for all staff that deliver these services.
Item 33: The State provides for ongoing training for staff that addresses the skills and knowledge base needed to carry out their duties
with regard to the services included in the CFSP.
Item 34: The State provides training for current or prospective foster parents, adoptive parents, and staff of State licensed or approved
facilities that care for children receiving foster care or adoption assistance under Title IV-E that addresses the skills and knowledge base
needed to carry out their duties with regard to foster and adopted children.

Systemic Factor 5: Service Array

Item 35: The State has in place an array of services that assess the strengths and needs of children and families and determine other
service needs, address the needs of families in addition to individual children in order to create a safe home environment, enable chil-
dren to remain safely with their parents when reasonable, and help children in foster and adoptive placements achieve permanency.
Item 36: The services in item 35 are accessible to families and children in all political jurisdictions covered in the State’s CFSP.
Item 37: The services in item 35 can be individualized to meet the unique needs of children and families served by the agency.

Systemic Factor 6: Agency Responsiveness to the Community

Item 38: In implementing the provisions of the CFSP, the State engages in ongoing consultation with tribal representatives, consumers,
service providers, foster care providers, the juvenile court, and other public and private child- and family- serving agencies and includes
the major concerns of their representatives in the goals and objectives of the CFSP.
Item 39: The agency develops, in collaboration with these representatives, annual reports of progress and service delivered pursuant to
the CFSP.
Item 40: The State’s services under the CFSP are coordinated with services or benefits of other Federal or federally assisted programs
serving the same population.

Systemic Factor 7: Foster and Adoptive Parent Licensing, Recruitment, and Retention
Item 41: The State has implemented standards for foster family homes and childcare institutions which are reasonably in accord with
recommended national standards.
Item 42: The standards are applied to all licensed or approved foster family homes or childcare institutions receiving IV-E and IV-B
funds.
Item 43: The State complies with Federal requirements for criminal background clearances as related to licensing or approving foster
care and adoptive placements and has in place a case planning process that includes provisions for addressing the safety of foster care
and adoptive placements for children.
Item 44: The Sate has in place a process for ensuring the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the
ethnic and racial diversity of children in the State for whom foster and adoptive homes are needed.
Item 45: The State has in place a process for the effective use of cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adoptive and perma-
nent placements for waiting children.
Page 6

References
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P. L. No. 105-89 (1997).

Antle, B.F. (2002). Training evaluation for supervisor best practice in child welfare.
Unpublished dissertation.

Antle, B.F., Martin, M., Christensen, D., & Barbee, A. (under review). Solution-
Based Casework: A Paradigm Shift to Effective, Strengths-Based Practice for
Child Protection. Child Abuse and Neglect.

Barbee, A., Sullivan, D., & Antle, B. (2003). Kentucky’s Public Child Welfare Certification Program
(PCWCP). Presented at the 49th annual meeting of the Council on Social Work Education,
Atlanta, Georgia.

Children's Defense Fund. (1998). Healing the whole family: A look at family care programs.
Washington, D.C. : Author.

General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing homes for
children of substance abusers. Washington, D.C.: Author.

General Accounting Office. (2003). Child Welfare: HHS could play a greater role in helping child
welfare agencies recruit and retain staff. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Fox, S., Burnham, D., Barbee, A. P., & Yankeelov, P. (2000). Public school to work: Social work
that is! Maximizing agency/university partnerships in preparing child welfare workers. Train-
ing and Development in Human Services, 1, 13-20.

Fox, S., Miller, V., & Barbee, A. P. (in press). Finding and keeping child welfare workers: Effect
use of Title IV-E training funds. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment.

Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (1990). The problems facing social services for children, youth,
and families. Children and Youth Services Review, 12, 344-370.

Knight, D. K., Hood, P. E., Logan, S. M., & Chatham, L. R. (1999). Residential treatment for
women with dependent children: One agency's approah. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 31,
339-351.

Martin, M.H., Barbee, A.P., Antle, B. F., & Sar, B.K. (2002). Expedited permanency planning:
Evaluation of the Kentucky Adoptions Opportunities Project (KAOP). Child Welfare, 81. 203-
224

National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (January 1999). No
Safe Haven: Children if substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending perspectives and building
common ground: A report to congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washing-
ton, D. C: Author.

Van Zyl, K. & van Zyl, M. A. (2000). Re-conceptualizing learning readiness and standardizing the
Learning Benefit Inventory. Unpublished manuscript.

Young, N. K., Gardner, S. L., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and drug problems in
child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, D. C.: Child Welfare
League of America.

Young, N. K. & Gardner, S. L. (2003). A preliminary review of alcohol and other drug issues in the
States’ Child and Family Service Reviews and Program Improvement Plans. Paper prepared
for the Center on Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA and Office of Child Abuse and Ne-
glect, Children’s Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families.

Zuckerman, B. (1994). Effects on parents and children In D. J. Besharov (Ed).), When Drug
Addicts Have Children: Re-orienting Child Welfare's Response. Child Welfare League of
America. Washington, D. C.: American Enterprise Institute.
Page 7
National Resource Center
On Child Welfare Training & Evaluation
Kent School of Social Work
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY 40292
Phone: 502-852-3396 NRC Publication Resources
Fax: 502-852-2921
http://olav.usi.louisville.edu/nrc.htm
ASFA Supervisor-Team Training:
Solution-Based Supervisory Practice
for Achieving Outcomes in Child
Welfare
• Sample Level 2 Tests
• ASFA/Family Solutions Level 2 Test
• Sample Feedback Reports
• Development of Level 2 Tests based on
state curricula
• Development of Feedback Reports & Deci-
sion Tree
Child Welfare Training
Child & Family Service Reviews
(CFSR’s): Preliminary Results and
Implications for Training
• ASFA/Family Solutions Curriculum
• Family Solutions Practice Tools
• ASFA/Family Solutions Level 3 Evaluation
Tools (Survey, Chart File Review Tool)
• QA Tool
• Case Demographics/ Case Complexity
Chart File Review Tool
• Retention Chart File Review Tool
• Learning Benefit Inventory
• Training of Trainers in Family Solutions
Model
• Development of Level 3 Evaluation Tools
based on state curricula
• Training of Trainers in Learning Readiness
Intervention
• Training in Response to issues identified in
compassion/fatigue scale
When Do Competencies Work?
• Sample Job Description for Child Welfare
Workers & Supervisors
• Menu of Worker Competencies
• Menu of Supervisor Competencies
• Worksheet for Development of Competen-
cies Unique to States (Policy, Practice
Model)
• Consultation with states around competen-
cies, link to training & federal review proc-
ess
Page 7
Engaging Child Welfare Families: A
Solution-Based Approach to Child
Welfare Practice
• Family Solutions Curriculum
• Family Solutions Evaluation Tools (Level 2
& 3 tests)
• Consultation around Shift to Solution Based
Practice Model
So, Your State Wants to Begin Evalua-
tion of Child Welfare Training: The
Strategic Planning Process
• Sample Strategic Plans
• Development of Strategic Plans for
States/Organizations
Training To Outcomes: The Impact of
Training on Organizational Outcomes
• Development of Evaluation Strategy
• Consultation around Acquisition & Linking of
Routine State Outcome Data & Evaluation
of Practice Model/Training
• Training Transfer Inventory
• Learning Benefit Inventory
• Scoring & Analysis of Scale Data
Training Transfer: Variables that Pre-
dict and Maximize Transfer
• Training Transfer Inventory
• Organizational Learning Conditions
• Team Learning Conditions
• Supervisor Training Support
• Positive & Negative Reinforcement of Train-
ing
• Self-Efficacy
• Level 1 Test
• Affective
• Utility
• FTS Specialist Program Protocol
• FTS Anchors & Documentation Tools
• Training Refresher Protocol
• Training Refresher Content for
ASFA/Family Solutions Curriculum
• Consultation around Implementation of -
FTS Program
• Development of Anchors specific to state
needs
• Development of Training Refresher Courses
for existing curriculum