The impact of the Solution Based Casework (SBC) practice model on federal outcomes in public child welfare

Case manager job strain in public child welfare agencies: Job demands and job control's additive effects, and instrumental feedback's mediating role

“…The federal government, for example, requires that public child welfare agencies store caselevel data on all children under their legal care or supervision (Pecora et al, 2012). Disaggregating and analyzing this data at the office, district, region, county, and state level can strengthen public child welfare case managers' performance expectations by providing them with outcome feedback on which types of service interventions or menu of interventions will (or have) produced the best client outcomes (Antle, Christensen, Van Zyl, & Barbee, 2012).…”

Continuous Quality Improvement Processes in Child Protection: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Two studies claimed using CQI processes directed the gathering of appropriate evidence to contribute to outcome measurement (Cash et al, 2012;Flango et al, 2015) and two claimed heightened rapport and collaboration with stakeholders (Antle et al, 2012;Lawrence et al, 2011). Other reported outcomes of the application of CQI included increased support networks for families (Lambert et al, 2015); increased use of critical reflection among staff (Flango et al, 2015;Lambert et al, 2015); and improved practice in assessment and planning (Flango et al, 2015;Lawrence et al, 2011).…”

“…Four studies concluded that the introduction of systematic approaches to evaluate and improve service delivery required time, training, resources and leadership support (Antle et al, 2012;Cash et al, 2012;C. Glisson et al, 2006;Lawrence et al, 2011).…”

“…Strengths-based, solution focused models of practice which were inclusive of the families engaged with child protection services, were consistently found to result in improved outcomes for children. While different labels were attached to these practice models (for example, Solution Based Casework as discussed by Antle et al (2012) Four studies highlighted the value of engagement with, and the involvement of, families (Holden et al, 2010;Lambert et al, 2015;Lawrence et al, 2011;Van Zyl et al, 2014). Van Zyl et al (2014), moreover, highlighted that working with the nuclear family was not enough; engagement needed to include the extended family.…”

“…All the studies (n=8) stated that the aim of applying CQI measures was to improve organisational processes and six also described the establishment of measures to determine this improvement (Antle, Christensen, van Zyl & Barbee, 2012;Cash et al, 2012;Flango et al, 2015;Lambert, Richards & Merrill, 2015;Lawrence, Rosanbaum & Dodge, 2011;van Zyl et al, 2014). Collaborative team work in identifying issues and applying CQI processes (a core feature of Shortell et al's definition) was highlighted as a feature in six (Antle et al, 2012;Flango et al, 2015;Glisson et al, 2006;Holden et al, 2010;Lambert et al, 2015;Lawrence et al, 2011) and a focus on key stakeholders and their involvement was clearly identified by three of the eight papers, namely Cash et al (2012), Holden et al (2010) and Lawrence et al (2011). However, while the articles claimed to have applied CQI strategies, very few (n=3) explicitly described the methodology of applying these strategies to…”