Implementation fidelity of Team Decisionmaking

Children and Youth Services Review

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 119-124

  Crea, Thomas M ^a   Usher, Charles L ^b   Wildfire, Judith B ^b  

^a BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Family involvement; Foster care; Implementation; Team Decisionmaking

Indexed keywords

EID: 57049169193     PISSN: 01907409     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.06.005     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Abt Associates. The effectiveness of comprehensive case management interventions: Findings from the national evaluation of the Comprehensive Child Development Program (1997), Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA
2. Bath H.I., and Haapala D.A. Family preservation services: What does the outcome research really tell us?. Social Service Review 68 3 (1994) 386-404
3. Batterson M., Crampton D., Crea T., Harris F., Madden A.A., Usher L., and Williams J. Implementing Family to Family. Chapel Hill, NC. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (2007)
4. Crampton D., and Natarajan A. Connections between group work and family meetings in child welfare practice: What can we learn from each other?. Social Work With Groups 28 1 (2005) 65-79
5. Crea, T.M., Crampton, D.S., Abramson-Madden, A., and Usher, C.L., (in press). Implementation of Team Decisionmaking (TDM): Scope and compliance with the Family to Family practice model. Children & Youth Services Review.
6. CSR Incorporated. Comprehensive Child Development Program-A national family support demonstration: Process evaluation final report (1997), CSR, Inc, Washington, DC
7. DeMuro P., and Rideout P. Team Decisionmaking: Involving the family and community in child welfare decisions. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation (2002)
8. Derthick M. Agency under stress: The Social Security Administration in American Government (1990), The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC
9. Dusenbury L., Brannigan R., Falco M., and Hansen W.B. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research 18 2 (2003) 237-256
10. Elmore R.F. Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. Political Science Quarterly 94 4 (1980) 601-616
11. Fraser M.W., Nelson K.E., and Rivard J.C. Effectiveness of family preservation services. Social Work Research 21 3 (1997) 138-153
12. Gilliam W.S., Ripple C.H., Zigler E.F., and Leiter V. Evaluating child and family demonstration initiatives: Lessons from the Comprehensive Child Development Program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15 1 (2000) 41-59
13. Henggeler S.W., Schoenwald S.K., Swenson C.C., and Borduin C.M. Letter to the editor: Methodological critique and meta-analysis as Trojan horse. Children and Youth Services Review 28 (2006) 447-457
14. Johnson C.D. Family to Family in Denver County: Self evaluation year end report. Denver, CO: Denver Department of Human Services (2006)
15. Lipsky M. Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services (1980), Russell Sage Foundation, New York
16. Littell J.H. Evidence or assertions? The outcomes of family preservation services. Social Service Review 69 2 (1995) 338-351
17. Littell J.H. Effects of the duration, intensity, and breadth of Family Preservation Services: A new analysis of data from the Illinois Family First experiment. Children and Youth Services Review 19 1/2 (1997) 17-39
18. Littell J.H. Lessons from a systematic review of effects of multisystemic therapy. Children and Youth Services Review 27 (2005) 445-463
19. Littell J.H., and Scheurman J.R. What works best for whom? A closer look at Intensive Family Preservation Services. Children and Youth Services Review 24 9/10 (2002) 673-699
20. McGrew J.H., Bond G.R., Dietzen L., and Salyers M. Measuring the fidelity of implementation of a mental health program model. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 4 (1994) 670-678
21. Ortega S., Mundy E.J., and Perry-Burney G. Methods and practical approaches for evaluating social service collaboratives: The evaluative coterie. Children and Youth Services Review 24 6/7 (2002) 485-511
22. Pressman J.L., and Wildavsky A. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; Or, why it's amazing that Federal programs work at all (1973), University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
23. Scheurman J.R., Rzepnicki T.L., and Littell J.H. Putting families first: An experiment in family preservation (1994), Aldine de Gruyter, Hawthorne, NY
24. Solomon B. Accountability in public child welfare: Linking program theory, program specification and program evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review 24 6/7 (2002) 385-407
25. Usher C.L. Improving evaluability through self-evaluation. Evaluation Practice 16 (1995) 59-68
26. Usher C.L., Wildfire J.B., and Gibbs D.A. Measuring performance in child welfare: Secondary effects of success. Child Welfare 78 1 (1999) 31-51
27. Wind L., and Brooks D. Child welfare demonstration projects: A model for implementation and evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review 24 6/7 (2002) 543-558