Styles of Evidence-Based Practice in the Child Welfare System

Abstract

The use of evidence-based practice (EBP) has been advocated as a means by which to improve the outcomes of services delivered to children and families in the child welfare system. However, the term “evidenced-based practice” has been used to describe several different approaches to using evidence or research findings to improve practice. These approaches differ significantly in several important ways, including their assumptions, how data concerning programming should be collected and used, and who sets the agenda concerning the usage of research findings. In order to clarify the various approaches to evidence-based practice, the authors developed a framework for distinguishing different styles of EBP in child welfare. Two implications of the framework for the production and utilization of knowledge to improve programming are discussed. Different styles of EBP should be implemented when their underlying assumptions are valid for a particular system or situation. Elements of different styles of EBP are often combined in one program without adequate attention to the conflicts among the elements.

KEYWORDS:

• Evidence-based practice
• child welfare
• social work practice

Notes

The research from which this article stems was funded in part by grants JJ99430000, JJ01430002, and JJ01430003 for “Initiating a Continual Improvement Process in Residential Educational Institutions for Youth” from the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, Office of Funding and Program Assistance, Juvenile Justice Unit, a faculty enhancement grant from Portland State University, and two developmental grants from the University at Albany. Points of view presented in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services or either university.

1. Before proceeding to the application of these models to the various styles of evidence-based practice, a final note regarding nomenclature is in order. To various extents, all three of these models involve development of some kind. Empirical rational strategies of change involve developing findings from research and integrating these into programming. Normative re-educative models rely heavily on a system's ability to produce its own knowledge in order to more fully develop its problem-solving structures. Finally, power coercive models involve the development of structures to insure compliance with external standards. Consistent with Chin and Benne's use of the term, we limit our usage of “development” to refer only to the second set of change strategies, normative re-educative.

2. We would point out that the COA standards appear to require a developmental system to be put in place. The standards, however, are silent as to how this should be done and agencies failing to meet G2 risk losing accreditation.