IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v104y2019ic22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Outcomes of the Iowa Parent Partner program evaluation: Stability of reunification and re-entry into foster care

Author

Listed:
  • Chambers, Jeff M.
  • Lint, Sandy
  • Thompson, Maggie G.
  • Carlson, Matthew W.
  • Graef, Michelle I.

Abstract

In an effort to facilitate family engagement with services, improve reunification outcomes, and empower the families they serve, child welfare agencies across the country have developed and implemented programs designed to provide peer mentoring. These programs work to identify parents who have successfully navigated the child welfare system in the past and train them to mentor parents who are currently in the system. The current study used a quasi-experimental design and propensity score matching to examine the outcomes for children of families served by the Iowa Department of Human Services Parent Partner program, one of the earliest and most established programs in the country. Results indicated that the children of program participants were significantly more likely to return home at discharge from their foster care placement than the children of matched non-participants. Additionally, Iowa Parent Partner program participants were significantly less likely to have a subsequent child removal within 12 months of the child returning home than matched non-participants. No significant differences were found between the children of program participants and children of matched non-participants in the total time in out of home care or subsequent child removal within 24 months of returning home. These results suggest that participating in the Iowa Parent Partner program can meaningfully improve the outcomes of children and families. Limitations and implications of the current study, as well as recommendations for future research, are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Chambers, Jeff M. & Lint, Sandy & Thompson, Maggie G. & Carlson, Matthew W. & Graef, Michelle I., 2019. "Outcomes of the Iowa Parent Partner program evaluation: Stability of reunification and re-entry into foster care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:104:y:2019:i:c:22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074091930026X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.05.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. LaLonde, Robert J, 1986. "Evaluating the Econometric Evaluations of Training Programs with Experimental Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(4), pages 604-620, September.
    2. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra E. Todd, 1997. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 605-654.
    3. Weigensberg, Elizabeth C. & Barth, Richard P. & Guo, Shenyang, 2009. "Family group decision making: A propensity score analysis to evaluate child and family services at baseline and after 36-months," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 383-390, March.
    4. Guo, Shenyang & Barth, Richard P. & Gibbons, Claire, 2006. "Propensity score matching strategies for evaluating substance abuse services for child welfare clients," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 357-383, April.
    5. Ryan, Joseph P. & Victor, Bryan G. & Moore, Andrew & Mowbray, Orion & Perron, Brian E., 2016. "Recovery coaches and the stability of reunification for substance abusing families in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 357-363.
    6. repec:mpr:mprres:3298 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Shaw, Terry V., 2006. "Reentry into the foster care system after reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(11), pages 1375-1390, November.
    8. James Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Jeffrey Smith & Petra Todd, 1998. "Characterizing Selection Bias Using Experimental Data," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(5), pages 1017-1098, September.
    9. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    10. Rajeev H. Dehejia & Sadek Wahba, 2002. "Propensity Score-Matching Methods For Nonexperimental Causal Studies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 151-161, February.
    11. Dehejia, Rajeev, 2005. "Practical propensity score matching: a reply to Smith and Todd," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 355-364.
    12. Victor, Bryan G. & Ryan, Joseph P. & Moore, Andrew & Mowbray, Orion & Evangelist, Michael & Perron, Brian E., 2016. "Foster home licensing and risk of reentry to out-of-home care following family reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 112-119.
    13. James J. Heckman & Hidehiko Ichimura & Petra Todd, 1998. "Matching As An Econometric Evaluation Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 65(2), pages 261-294.
    14. Williamson, Erin & Gray, Aracelis, 2011. "New roles for families in child welfare: Strategies for expanding family involvement beyond the case level," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1212-1216, July.
    15. Summers, Alicia & Wood, Steve M. & Russell, Jesse R. & Macgill, Stephanie O., 2012. "An evaluation of the effectiveness of a parent-to-parent program in changing attitudes and increasing parental engagement in the juvenile dependency system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 2036-2041.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Soffer-Elnekave, Ruth & Haight, Wendy & Jader, Bailey, 2020. "Parent mentoring relationships as a vehicle for reducing racial disparities: Experiences of child welfare-involved parents, mentors and professionals," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Lalayants, Marina & Wyka, Katarzyna & Saitadze, Inga, 2021. "Outcomes of the Parent Advocacy Initiative in child safety conferences: Placement and repeat maltreatment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Kroeger, Sarah & Monahan, Tess & Perry, Brendan, 2022. "How Can Research Improve Foster Care Policy and Practice?," MPRA Paper 113969, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Diana N. Teixeira & Isabel Narciso & Margarida R. Henriques, 2022. "Driving for Success in Family Reunification—Professionals’ Views on Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Balsells Bailón, M. Àngels & Urrea-Monclús, Aida & Vaquero Tió, Eduard & Fernández-Rodrigo, Laura, 2022. "The voices of children, mothers, and fathers: Can parenting programs improve reunification processes in the Spanish child protection system?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dettmann, E. & Becker, C. & Schmeißer, C., 2011. "Distance functions for matching in small samples," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 55(5), pages 1942-1960, May.
    2. Carlos A. Flores & Oscar A. Mitnik, 2009. "Evaluating Nonexperimental Estimators for Multiple Treatments: Evidence from Experimental Data," Working Papers 2010-10, University of Miami, Department of Economics.
    3. Steven Lehrer & Gregory Kordas, 2013. "Matching using semiparametric propensity scores," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 13-45, February.
    4. Jones A.M & Rice N, 2009. "Econometric Evaluation of Health Policies," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 09/09, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    5. Helena Holmlund & Olmo Silva, 2014. "Targeting Noncognitive Skills to Improve Cognitive Outcomes: Evidence from a Remedial Education Intervention," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(2), pages 126-160.
    6. Sunil Mithas & M. S. Krishnan, 2009. "From Association to Causation via a Potential Outcomes Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 295-313, June.
    7. Jose C. Galdo & Jeffrey Smith & Dan Black, 2008. "Bandwidth Selection and the Estimation of Treatment Effects with Unbalanced Data," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 91-92, pages 189-216.
    8. Begoña Cueto & F. Mato, 2009. "A nonexperimental evaluation of training programmes: regional evidence for Spain," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 43(2), pages 415-433, June.
    9. Heinze, Anja & Pfeiffer, Friedhelm & Spermann, Alexander & Winterhager, Henrik, 2005. "Vermittlungsgutscheine: Zwischenergebnisse der Begleitforschung 2004 : Teil 3: Mikroökonomische Wirkungsanalyse," IAB-Forschungsbericht 200503, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany].
    10. Iacus, Stefano M. & Porro, Giuseppe, 2007. "Missing data imputation, matching and other applications of random recursive partitioning," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 773-789, October.
    11. Juan Díaz & Miguel Jaramillo, 2006. "An Evaluation of the Peruvian "Youth Labor Training Program"-PROJOVEN," OVE Working Papers 1006, Inter-American Development Bank, Office of Evaluation and Oversight (OVE).
    12. Tommaso Nannicini, 2007. "Simulation-based sensitivity analysis for matching estimators," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 7(3), pages 334-350, September.
    13. A. Smith, Jeffrey & E. Todd, Petra, 2005. "Does matching overcome LaLonde's critique of nonexperimental estimators?," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 125(1-2), pages 305-353.
    14. Dettmann, Eva & Becker, Claudia & Schmeißer, Christian, 2010. "Is there a Superior Distance Function for Matching in Small Samples?," IWH Discussion Papers 3/2010, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    15. Guido W. Imbens & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2009. "Recent Developments in the Econometrics of Program Evaluation," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 5-86, March.
    16. Jochen Kluve & Boris Augurzky, 2007. "Assessing the performance of matching algorithms when selection into treatment is strong," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 533-557.
    17. Sánchez-Braza, Antonio & Pablo-Romero, María del P., 2014. "Evaluation of property tax bonus to promote solar thermal systems in Andalusia (Spain)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 832-843.
    18. Marco Caliendo & Sabine Kopeinig, 2008. "Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(1), pages 31-72, February.
    19. Caliendo, Marco & Mahlstedt, Robert & Mitnik, Oscar A., 2017. "Unobservable, but unimportant? The relevance of usually unobserved variables for the evaluation of labor market policies," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 14-25.
    20. Eliasson, Kent, 2006. "How Robust is the Evidence on the Returns to College Choice? Results Using Swedish Administrative Data," Umeå Economic Studies 692, Umeå University, Department of Economics.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:104:y:2019:i:c:22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.