No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Looking for and replicating model programs for ‘at risk’ children and families
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 February 2016
Abstract
At the present time there is a need for a new generation of programs to address the needs of ‘at risk’ children and families. This is an issue that is exercising the minds of service planners in both government and non-government community service organisations. This need arises from the fact that many existing programs have yet to be rigorously evaluated and are of questionable effectiveness. This lack of evidence of effectiveness does not sit well in the current climate of accountability. It also runs contrary to the increasingly strident calls for evidence based practice.
Many new programs arrive in Australia from the US as this country is often the source of program innovation as illustrated by the importation in the 1980s and 1990s of family preservation and family reunification programs. In the US, promotion of ‘model programs' has taken another step and a systematic effort at program replication is now in evidence. The question is, how might model programs from overseas be successfully replicated in Australia? And what is required, if anything, to replicate these models effectively taking account of our different cultural traditions?
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2001) Translating research into practice (TRIP) – 11. Fact sheet, Publication no. 01-PO17: Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F. (1993) ‘Family preservation services: A cautionary note’, Children Australia.
18, 2, 10–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ainsworth, F. & Hansen, P. (2002) ‘Evidence based social work practice: A reachable goal?’, Social Work and Social Services Review, 10, 2, 35–48.Google Scholar
Alexander, G., Curtis, P.A. & Kluger, M.P. (2000) What works in child welfare?, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2003a) Working together to protect our children.
Department of Family and Community Services, press release, September 3rd, Canberra.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2003b) Helping Mirabel help grandparents, Department of Family and Community Services, press release, June 12th, Canberra.Google Scholar
Chamberlain, P. (2003) Treating chronic juvenile delinquents, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Community and Disability Services Ministers Council (2003) A national plan for foster children and carers, Canberra.Google Scholar
The concise Oxford dictionary of English (1974) Fowler, H.W. & Fowler, F.G. (Eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, A. (2002) Lessons learned from a randomised study of multi-systemic therapy in Canada, London, ON: Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System.Google Scholar
Department of Health (1991) Patterns and outcomes in child placement: A message from current research and their implications, London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Henggeler, S.W., Schoenwald, S.K., Borduin, C.M., Rowland, M.D. & Cunningham, P.B. (1998) Multi-systemic treatment of antisocial behaviour in children and adolescents, New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Holt, P., Ward, J. & Wilson, A. (1996) Clinical practice guidelines and clinical pathways: A status report on national and NSW development and implementation activity, Sydney: New South Wales Health Department.Google Scholar
Kakavelakis, I. & Macdonald, G. (2003) Cognitive-behavioural interventions for assisting foster carers in the management of difficult behaviours: A systematic review, Bristol: University of Bristol, School of Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Kinney, L., Haapala, D., Booth, C. & Leavitt, S. (1990) ‘The Homebuilders model’, in Reaching high risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services, Whittaker, J.K., Kinney, J., Tracy, E. M. and Booth, C. (eds.), (pp. 31–64), New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Layzer, J.I., Goodson, B.D., Bernstein, L. & Price, C. (2001) National evaluation of family support programs. Final report volume A: Meta-analysis, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.Google Scholar
Maluccio, A.N., Ainsworth, F. & Thoburn, J. (2000) Child welfare outcome research in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America Press.Google Scholar
Petrosino, A., Turpin Petrosino, C. & Buehier, J. (2003) ‘Scared Straight’ and other juvenile awareness programs for preventing juvenile delinquency, Cochrane Library, Issue 1.Google Scholar
Schuerman, J.R., Rzepnicki, T.L. & Lineli, J. (1994) Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schuerman, J.R., Soydan, H., Macdonald, G., Forslund, M., de Moya, D. & Boruch, R. (2002) ‘The Campbell Collaboration’, Research in Social Work Practice, 12, 2, 309–317.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (1993) ‘Introducing family preservation services in Australia: Issues in transplanting programs from the US’, Children Australia, 18, 2, 3–9.Google Scholar
Shadish, W., Cook, T.D. & Campbell, D.T. (2002) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Whittaker, J.K., Kinney, J., Tracy, E.M. & Booth, C. (Eds.) (1990) Reaching high risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar