IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v32y2010i5p732-739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation in child welfare: The adoption and implementation of Family Group Decision Making in Pennsylvania

Author

Listed:
  • Rauktis, Mary E.
  • McCarthy, Sharon
  • Krackhardt, David
  • Cahalane, Helen

Abstract

This paper explores what system factors influenced the adoption of Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) in Pennsylvania and what the perceived barriers and facilitators of adoption and sustainability are according to the individuals involved in FGDM. A mixed methods design is employed, using geographic autocorrelation modeling and analysis of qualitative data about barriers and facilitators. The findings reveal that maltreatment and poverty rates and the size of the population of children are non-significant predictors of a county using FGDM, but having a FGDM pilot grant is a significant predictor, along with having had a system of care initiative. Population density and number of caseworkers also are significant, if weaker, predictors; population density became insignificant once the two largest counties, Philadelphia and Allegheny were removed from the model. Having a neighboring county that practices FGDM e.g. the neighborhood effect is the most powerful predictor (z = 8.98, pÂ

Suggested Citation

  • Rauktis, Mary E. & McCarthy, Sharon & Krackhardt, David & Cahalane, Helen, 2010. "Innovation in child welfare: The adoption and implementation of Family Group Decision Making in Pennsylvania," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 732-739, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:5:p:732-739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(10)00015-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Crea, Thomas M. & Crampton, David S. & Abramson-Madden, Anne & Usher, Charles L., 2008. "Variability in the implementation of Team Decisionmaking (TDM): Scope and compliance with the Family to Family practice model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(11), pages 1221-1232, November.
    3. McBeath, Bowen & Briggs, Harold E. & Aisenberg, Eugene, 2009. "The role of child welfare managers in promoting agency performance through experimentation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 112-118, January.
    4. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    5. Linda Babcock & Xianghong Wang & George Loewenstein, 1996. "Choosing the Wrong Pond: Social Comparisons in Negotiations That Reflect a Self-Serving Bias," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 111(1), pages 1-19.
    6. Butts, Carter T., 2008. "Social Network Analysis with sna," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 24(i06).
    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. Tony McGinn & Paul Best & Jason Wilson & Admire Chereni & Mphatso Kamndaya & Aron Shlonsky, 2020. "Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), September.
    2. Crea, Thomas M. & Crampton, David S., 2011. "The context of program implementation and evaluation: A pilot study of interorganizational differences to improve child welfare reform efforts," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 2273-2281.
    3. Snyder, Elizabeth H. & Lawrence, C. Nicole & Dodge, Kenneth A., 2012. "The impact of system of care support in adherence to wraparound principles in Child and Family Teams in child welfare in North Carolina," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 639-647.
    4. Kim, Jangmin & Trahan, Mark & Bellamy, Jennifer & Hall, James A., 2019. "Advancing the innovation of family meeting models: The role of teamwork and parent engagement in improving permanency," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 147-155.
    5. Landsman, Miriam J. & Boel-Studt, Shamra & Malone, Kelli, 2014. "Results from a family finding experiment," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 62-69.
    6. Allen, April D. & Hyde, Justeen & Leslie, Laurel K., 2012. "“I Don't Know What They Know”: Knowledge transfer in mandated referral from child welfare to early intervention," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 1050-1059.

    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. Rauktis, Mary Elizabeth & Bishop-Fitzpatrick, Lauren & Jung, Nahri & Pennell, Joan, 2013. "Family group decision making: Measuring fidelity to practice principles in public child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 287-295.
    2. Pennell, Joan & Edwards, Myles & Burford, Gale, 2010. "Expedited family group engagement and child permanency," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1012-1019, July.
    3. Hurlburt, Michael & Aarons, Gregory A. & Fettes, Danielle & Willging, Cathleen & Gunderson, Lara & Chaffin, Mark J., 2014. "Interagency Collaborative Team model for capacity building to scale-up evidence-based practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 160-168.
    4. Simon G�chter & Arno Riedl, "undated". "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining," IEW - Working Papers 113, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    5. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    6. Mbassi, Christophe Martial & Messono, Omang Ombolo, 2023. "Historical technology and current economic development: Reassessing the nature of the relationship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    7. Lackner, Mario & Sonnabend, Hendrik, 2021. "Coping with advantageous inequity—Field evidence from professional penalty kicking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    9. Ashwin W. Joshi, 2017. "OEM implementation of supplier-developed component innovations: the role of supplier actions," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 548-568, July.
    10. Gomez, Rebecca J. & Travis, Dnika J. & Ayers-Lopez, Susan & Schwab, A. James, 2010. "In search of innovation: A national qualitative analysis of child welfare recruitment and retention efforts," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 664-671, May.
    11. Juhwan Kim & Sunghae Jun & Dongsik Jang & Sangsung Park, 2018. "Sustainable Technology Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Using Bayesian and Social Network Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, January.
    12. Synek, Stefan & Koenigstorfer, Joerg, 2018. "Exploring adoption determinants of tax-subsidized company-leasing bicycles from the perspective of German employers and employees," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 238-260.
    13. Samrachana Adhikari & Beau Dabbs, 2018. "Social Network Analysis in R: A Software Review," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(2), pages 225-253, April.
    14. Piasenti, Stefano & Valente, Marica & Van Veldhuizen, Roel & Pfeifer, Gregor, 2023. "Does Unfairness Hurt Women? The Effects of Losing Unfair Competitions," Working Papers 2023:7, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Kanu, Edmond Augustine & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2019. "An assessment of land reform policy processes in Sierra Leone: A network based approach," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2019-04, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    16. Akca Yasar & Gokhan Ozer, 2016. "Determination the Factors that Affect the Use of Enterprise Resource Planning Information System through Technology Acceptance Model," International Journal of Business and Management, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(10), pages 1-91, September.
    17. Chieh-Yu Lin & Yi-Hui Ho & Young-Long Wu & I-Chi Yu, 2019. "Determinants of Mindful Adoption of Green Innovation," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 8(4), pages 79-89, July.
    18. McCrae, Julie S. & Scannapieco, Maria & Leake, Robin & Potter, Cathryn C. & Menefee, David, 2014. "Who's on board? Child welfare worker reports of buy-in and readiness for organizational change," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-35.
    19. Liberati, Caterina & Marzo, Massimiliano & Zagaglia, Paolo & Zappa, Paola, 2012. "Structural distortions in the Euro interbank market: the role of 'key players' during the recent market turmoil," MPRA Paper 40223, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Feng-Shang Wu & Chia-Chang Tsai, 2022. "A Framework of the Value Co-Creation Cycle in Platform Businesses: An Exploratory Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-18, May.

    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:32:y:2010:i:5:p:732-739. 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.