Evaluation of Ohio's Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration Project
The evaluation of Ohio's Title IV-E Waiver examines the impact of child welfare system reforms in 18 demonstration and 17 comparison counties. The intent of the Waiver is to provide child welfare agencies with financial flexibility to enable them to modify their agency practice, with a focus on keeping children out of placement and thus reducing child welfare expenditures and improving outcomes for children and families. In the third phase of this evaluation, the evaluation adds special attention to two main intervention strategies being implemented in all 18 demonstration sites, in terms of their potential as evidence-based practices:
- Family Team Meetings: Independent trained facilitators guide periodic meetings of family, relatives, advocates, providers, and child welfare agency staff to develop and implement plans for children at risk of foster care placement or seeking reunification;
- Kinship Supports: Designated staff assist relatives and close kin to care for children who cannot remain in the birth home, including provision of targeted services and supports, as well as offering guidance to casework staff to enhance kinship caregiving.
Beginning in 1998, the evaluation has included a process/implementation study, a participant outcomes study and a fiscal study. A variety of methods have been used to collect data for this project: site visits, focus groups, client surveys, primary case-level data collection efforts and the collection of administrative data from state-level data systems. To assess fidelity to the two core interventions, HSRI has created a web-based data system. HSRI leads a project team including Westat and Chapin Hall, and conducts the process/implementation study, fidelity assessment, and analysis of outcomes related to the two interventions. Evaluation reports have been prepared every three years, examining the impact of flexible federal funding on program innovation, spending patterns, and child & family outcomes in the demonstration counties, compared to the experiences in the comparison counties.
