Child Welfare Partnership for Research
and Training (CW-PART)
San José State University
School of Social Work
Funded by the California Social Work
Education Center (CalSWEC)


Partnership between San José State University
School of Social Work and two county child
welfare agencies: Santa Clara County and
Santa Cruz County
The model provides a situated learning
environment for IV-E and other interested
students in which teams conduct applied
research on issues that are of immediate
relevance to the county or other partner
agencies.



Laurie Drabble, Ph.D., Professor,
SJSU School of Social Work
Darlene Da Silva, MSW, Graduate
and Research Assistant, SJSU
School of Social Work
Barbara Watkins, MSW, Social Work
Supervisor, Santa Clara County
Social Services Agency’s
Department of Family & Children’s
Services, Student Internship
Program
1.
Core elements of the partnered research
model
 Roles of different stakeholders and benefits of the
model (county, student, and faculty perspectives)
 Findings from evaluation
2.
3.
Illustrations from 2 projects in one county
(Differential response and trauma-informed
systems change research projects)
Lessons learned for adaptation in other
contexts; resources for replication



Need for a workforce that understands the
value of research and is capable of using
data for evaluation and planning.
Gaps in research and evaluation capacity on
organizational level.
Need to strengthen connection between
research and practice in social work
education.
Community-Engaged
Research Model (Teams & Partnership)
Implementation
Science
(Practice-Based
Research)
Adult Learning
Theory
(Situated,
Applied Learning)



Faculty and community partners work
together to identify prospective research
topics and questions
Student team members work under the
supervision of faculty to conduct reviews of
literature, collect and analyze data, and
develop written reports.
Students complete research over the
academic year and satisfy MSW course
requirements in the process.

Students:
◦ Volunteer for a team based on their interest in the project topic
◦ Review the research literature, Collect/analyze data, Interpret
findings, Identify practice, policy and research implications
◦ Disseminate findings to stakeholders

Field Instructors:
◦ Provide feedback about research topic
◦ Refer students to key informants
◦ Provide guidance on collaborative skills
Faculty:
◦ Work with agency advisors on selecting research topics
◦ Supervise research teams and collaborate with agency partners

Leadership Team
◦ Overall planning and coordination (IV-E Coordinator,
County & faculty reps).




Project-specific research briefs,
Showcase of student projects at Santa Clara
County DFCS
In-person briefings (e.g., Cross-Agency
Systems Team and DFCS Manager meetings
in Santa Clara County.
Special reports (e.g., evaluation findings for
the Mentor Parent Project were shared with
the SCC Board of supervisors)

County perspective – Barbara

Student perspective – Darlene Da

Faculty perspective – Laurie Drabble,
Watkins, DFCS, Santa Clara County
Silva, MSW, Research Assistant
SJSU School of Social Work



Research projects are beneficial to
county/agency planning and
evaluation.
Leverages resources in support of
county initiatives and projects (e.g.,
faculty consultation).
Minimizes potential burdens of
accompany individual projects.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Conflicting schedules among service
providers and students.
Challenging to schedule multiple
focus groups and interviews.
Students may be at their field
placement, class or job.
Requires research team members to
be very flexible.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Greater possibility of sharing research findingsnot just another paper.
Opportunity to develop relationships and more
opportunities for collaboration.
Students complete MSW requirements while
contributing to the goals and objectives of the
agency.
More support and guidance from research lead
faculty and team members.
Opportunity to learn from other student
perspectives and their research findings.
Makes research more meaningful-research that
contributes to the field.
BENEFITS



Effective strategy
for teaching
Meaningful projects
Stronger
relationships with
partner agencies/
practice
CHALLENGES



Time investment
(partners, students,
logistics like IRB)
Timing work to
match student and
county constraints
Competing demands
(e.g., publishable
research)
Survey of students (including students
in partnered projects and comparison
group of MSW students not in
partnered teams)
 Qualitative focus groups with students
 Survey and interviews with county
partners


Engagement in collaborative activities

Self-efficacy outcomes (perceived that

(attended meetings, researched
problems/issue relevant to agency,
presented findings to stakeholders)
research contributed to the field, more likely
to express interest in being a part of
research and evaluation in the future).
Focus groups found that teams offered:
1) Increased support and guidance,
2) Learning from different perspectives,
3) Learning new skills

Partners strongly endorsed the value of the
collaboration
◦ Relationship. “The partnership has been characterized
by a sense of mutual respect”
◦ Resources. “There is an exchange of unique
contributions from the partners involved”
◦ Outcomes. “This research partnership is beneficial to
the goals and objectives of my agency.”


The model provided a mechanism for more
focused and cohesive communication and
collaboration between partners.
The leadership team improved collaboration.
Illustrations of research project
operations and findings
PROJECT EXAMPLES
 Differential Response (Faculty Lead: Kathy Lemon).
 Trauma Informed Systems Change Initiative
Evaluation in Santa Clara County
(Faculty Leads: Laurie Drabble/Ed Cohen)
 OVERALL STRUCTURE
 One “team” with students taking the lead with
different research questions or project
components
 Projects evolved over more than one year (multiyear)
 Implemented in partnership with specific
stakeholder groups in the county agency

Differential Response Qualitative Findings:
Factors Influencing Outcomes and
Promising Practices
Student Team: Darlene Da Silva, Jessica Richardson, Anjali Srivatsa,
Hannah J. Toy, Marixa Zamora

Differential Response Quantitative Findings:
Latino Disproportionality and Re-referral
Outcomes
Student Team: Darlene Da Silva, Kathy Grajeda, Jessica Richardson
and Marixa Zamora

Family Development Matrix Implementation
Qualitative


What practice approaches are most effective in
engaging immigrant Latino families involved in DR
services?
What are some of the challenges that caseworkers
encounter when engaging immigrant Latino
families into DR services?
Quantitative

It was hypothesized that there would be differences
in the mean number of days from the child welfare
referral to the CBO between racial/ethnic groups
(White, Asian American, Latino and African
American).


Qualitative Portion: Interviewed 13 child
welfare professionals working with Santa
Clara County’s child welfare system and the
community-based agencies providing DR
services.
Quantitative Portion: The sample included
secondary de-identified data of families
participating in voluntary services.
Administrative data on 1,674 families who
began services between Jan. 1 2010 to Dec.
31 2011 were included.




It is important for caseworkers to clarify the
purpose of the agency and the role of the service
provider during the initial contact with the family.
Services for immigrant families should be sensitive
to their linguistic needs.
Immigrant Latino families need to feel that they are
fundamental to the decision making process in
order to develop a trusting relationship.
It is important to encourage the participation of the
biological father or father figure of the child given
the relatively high number of fathers who are
present in immigrant households.


For Path 2 families, average days from
referral to the CBO is longer than for Latino
(32) and White (30) families, then it is for
API (27) or African American (24) families.
Since the services are voluntary, engagement
in services is important to outcomes.
Process Evaluation of Trauma Informed
Systems Change Initiative

◦


Student Team: Yesenia Salinas and Lillybeth
Solorio
Opportunities and Barriers in Use of Data to
Inform Trauma Informed Services and
Systems Change (interviews; analysis of
baseline data in 3 systems – DFCS, Juvenile
Probation, Dependency Court)
Trauma-Informed Practices across systems
(DFCS, Juvenile Probation, Community
Agencies)


What successes and challenges have
emerged in the process of developing
a common foundation for trauma
informed practice across systems in
Santa Clara County?
What are the anticipated outcomes of
trauma informed systems change
efforts and what strategies are
important to achieve these outcomes?
Observed CAST meetings
 Interviewed 11 CAST members
 Individuals included:

◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Public Health Nurse
Leaders from DFCS
Probation
District Attorney’s Office
Community Organizations
DADS
First 5
Overarching Themes
Developing a shared
vision and
strengthening a
commitment to better
address trauma within
and across systems.
Specific Ideas Related to Theme
 Dialogue and discussions have helped to create a shared vision for broad
systems change
 Key leaders across systems have a shared commitment to improving
systems to better serve families
 Commitment to avoid re-traumatizing families.
 Enthusiasm in working together
Common language
regarding trauma.
 Training and discussion to create a common “trauma” language
 Opportunity for dialogue from various agencies
Building on existing
relationships with each
other and across
systems.
 CAST/trauma work is grounded in relationships and trust from working
together on previous county wide projects
 Meetings create access to each other, builds momentum, and helps create
opportunities to leverage resources
Helping break down
system “silos” and
increase collaboration.
 Working collaboratively is critical; each system perspectives, resources, and
services are important to addressing trauma.
 Created opportunities for communication
Leadership driven and
buy-in is necessary in
all levels of the system.
 Buy-in from the leadership across systems is critical
 In many systems, staff were characterized as ready, interested, or “hungry”
for concrete opportunities to become more trauma-informed
(healing/recovery oriented).
1. Support of leadership in both the agency and
university contexts is critical
2. Liaisons in each system are essential for
managing the overall partnership, brokering
resources, and serving as conduits between
systems
3. A structured and facilitated process is helpful
for identification of research questions
4. Multi-year projects centered on key county
initiatives are more feasible and meaningful than
multiple smaller projects.
5. Organizational assets are critical, including
 Faculty with backgrounds in conducting
research in child welfare and/or relevant
methodologies;
 Relevant courses in the curriculum for
accommodating a year-long research
project;
 Adequate numbers of interns/students for
creating research teams; and
 Funding to pilot the model (in this case,
through CalSWEC).
6. Importance of orientation for students, field
instructors, and other partners
7. Course assignments may require adaptation
8. Coordination is important to maximize the “team”
experience
9. Flexibility and maintaining communication,
through key identified liaisons are critical to problem
solving about timing issues, data, and other
challenges that may arise
10. Attending to the partnership and efforts to build
social capital are as important as the research
products.




Partnered research model offers and engaged
way for students to master competencies
related to connecting research and practice.
The model is compatible with integration of
learning across foundation and advanced
years and with competency based education.
Partnered models engage and support
capacity-building for the workforce.
Working in teams fosters valued skills, such
as collaboration, problem-solving, and
project management.




Continued sustainability planning,
including:
◦ Integration into IV-E program and new
Field Instruction Initiative
◦ Integration into the MSW course structure
Development of online training modules for
student teams and other partners
Continued development of agreements,
timelines, and productive working
partnerships with current counties
Pilot partnered research in other contexts
(new county and in behavioral health)



Embedded model. High level of involvement
and consultation from faculty (e.g.,
participation on planning groups; ongoing
consultation)
Consultation model. Consultation on
identification of multi-year projects currently
in progress; match to faculty interest.
County-centered. County identify “menu” of
projects for students. Faculty consult as
needed; supervise students. (Ideal with group
consultation)


Resources from Recent Field Instruction
Initiative Institute:
http://calswec.berkeley.edu/2014-title-iv-esummer-field-institute-program
◦ Readiness assessment checklist
◦ Logic model draft
Readiness Domain
and Questions
Assessment in Your Organization
1. Do local
partners perceive
value in
collaborative
models for
investigating local
questions?
Discussions about potential benefits and challenges of partnered
research have been conducted with key stakeholders in child
welfare and the university.
2. Is there
leadership support
for this effort?
Leadership support has been assessed in both child welfare and
university contexts
3. Are partners in
both systems
aligned in views of
the “problem” and
solution?
Partners in both systems generally share a common view
problem(s), such as need for practice-based research and/or
teaching research that is linked to practice contexts.
Reasons for changing the status quo and advancing the partnered
model specific to the local context have been documented.
If needed, efforts are underway to foster leadership support.
Partners in both systems endorse development of a partnered
model as a strategy to address perceived gaps or needs.
Consideration has been given to benefits to different stakeholders
(e.g., identification of “WIFM – what’s in it for me? – for students,
county agency staff, and faculty)
Yes
No
Comments
Readiness Domain and
Questions
Assessment in Your Organization
4. Is the model feasible
at this time?
Partners have discussed advancing the project in the context of competing
demands, such as other initiatives or other challenges partner organizations are
facing.
The university has faculty with appropriate content or methodological expertise
The county agency has staff with appropriate expertise for collaborative research
planning and implementation.
County agencies are ready and/or able to share data and (if appropriate to research
goals) integrate separate databases
5. Have resources
required to create and
sustain the project been
identified?
A preliminary list of human and material resources has been identified.
Partners have identified existing resources (such as research courses, IV-E seminars,
field instruction) that may be leveraged for sustainability.
If needed, partners are able to pursue/ obtain new resources
6. Are there are
individuals in both (all)
systems who are able to
take ownership of this
effort?
A leadership team has been identified to advance and sustain the effort. (e.g., team
with faculty, IV-E coordinator, county field coordinator)
Key contact liaisons for brokering communication and problem solving have been
identified in both the county agency and the School/Dept of Social Work.
Readiness Questions
Assessment in Your Organization
7. Is the
current
climate
supportive
?
There is a culture of support for applied research and evaluation in both
organizations
The partners have a history of working together and have generally
developed a sense of mutual respect and trust.
Collaborative research is perceived as aligned with organizational mission(s)
and/or organizations are able to adapt the model to match their
mission(s).
8. Do the
organizatio
ns have the
collaborativ
e capacity
to
implement
and sustain
the
project?
Partner organizations are willing to be flexible and to problem-solve as
needed to address the demands of each system (e.g. responsive to
deadlines of the county and the academic year calendar).
There are organizational structures in place in both the county and the
university that would allow for communication and planning, in addition
to the leadership team
There is generally support from key stakeholders in each organization (e.g.,
Field Instructors in child welfare, faculty and students in the university evidenced by data from discussions, focus groups, and or surveys

Materials available on CalSWEC web site:
◦ http://calswec.berkeley.edu/field-instructioninitiative
◦ Click on Mutual Partnership Activities
◦ Click on Supplemental Materials


FUTURE: Web site with resources through
SJSU pending: Institute for Community
Partnered Research (ICPR)
Observations from a student perspective.
Yesenia Salinas & Lillybeth Solorio, IV-E
Students, graduated 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jbjZQv8AHI&feature=youtu.be
Laurie Drabble
SJSU School of Social Work
laurie.drabble@sjsu.edu