|
|
|
|
The Racetrack The following graphic helps to illustrate a concept. Since there 9 clearly defined practice related elements in the case load analysis model, any interpretation of its effectiveness must consider the degree to which the elements have been implemented. Any conclusions drawn about the overall effectiveness of the model must at least consider as one of its research elements the degree to which each theoretical concept was actually being practiced. Otherwise, how can you possibly attribute any results at all to the model. The model below illustrates the notion that for each element, it is possible to establish a somewhat objective assessment of the degree to which it has been implemented and integrated. Not only does this assist in evaluating the models effectiveness, but it provides a gage by which counties can measure their progress, it provides a standard against which they measure their progress in implementation, and it becomes a planning tool as counties look to further integrate the model.
What is being tracked? There are 2 critical aspects of implementation that need to be tracked - at least as a start.
Of all those who could be or should be using a particular element, how many actually are? Another variant on this aspect is, of all those cases where this element should be being used, on how many is it being used?
There is little doubt that measuring quality in the field of child welfare is a difficult undertaking, yet what good is it to implement a tool - say risk assessment - if you are unable to determine how well people are able to utilize it? How can a tool become truly integrated if there is no means for driving continuous improvement, identifying areas that are well understood and consistently practices as well as those where interventions are required? The "Subjective to Objective" Continuum As frustrating as "incrementalism" can be, sometimes it is the only way. In a world where systematic implementation is not the norm, adding even a subjective assessment that addresses consistency in implementation is a big step. From that platform though, the rules can be a little better defined, the standards can become gradually tighter, until eventually, a truly objective assessment can be established. This is the approach we have taken with our own implementation. We began in November of 1999 with a paper and pencil questionnaire and some loosely defined terms. In January we graduated to a computerized database application and the rules and selections became a little more clear. In April, after and extensive review of people's understanding and interpretation of the questions for each element, we conducted the assessment again - in all 9 counties - and compiled the results. The following graphic illustrate the type of instrument we used. Click on it to see a full size view.
|
