Homebuilders - Intensive Family Preservation and Reunification Services
Homebuilders provides intensive, in-home counseling, skill building and support services for families who have children (0-18 years old) at imminent risk of out-of-home placement or who are in placement and cannot be reunified without intensive in-home services.
Homebuilders practitioners conduct behaviorally specific, ongoing, and holistic assessments that include information about family strengths, values, and barriers to goal attainment. Homebuilders practitioners then collaborate with family members and referents in developing intervention goals and corresponding service plans. These intervention goals and service plans focus on factors directly related to the risk of out-of-home placement or reunification. Throughout the intervention the practitioner develops safety plans and uses clinical strategies designed to promote safety.
Homebuilders utilizes research-based intervention strategies including Motivational Interviewing, a variety of cognitive and behavioral strategies, and teaching methods intended to teach new skills and facilitate behavior change. Practitioners support families by providing concrete goods and services related to the intervention goals, collaborating with formal and informal community supports and systems, and teaching family members to advocate for themselves.
Homebuilders services are concentrated during a period of 4 to 6 weeks with the goal of preventing out-of-home placements and achieving reunifications. Homebuilders therapists typically have small caseloads of 2 families at a time. Families typically receive 40 or more hours of direct face-to-face services. The family’s therapist is available to family members 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Treatment services primarily take place in the client's home. Providers are required to have a master’s degree in social work, psychology, counseling, or a closely related field or a bachelor’s degree in social work, psychology, counseling, or a closely related field with at least 2 years of related experience.
Homebuilders is rated as a well-supported practice because at least two studies with non-overlapping samples carried out in usual care or practice settings achieved a rating of moderate or high on design and execution and demonstrated favorable effects in a target outcome domain. At least one of the studies demonstrated a sustained favorable effect of at least 12 months beyond the end of treatment on at least one target outcome.
Date Research Evidence Last Reviewed: Mar 2020
Sources
The program or service description, target population, and program or service delivery and implementation information was informed by the following sources: The California Evidence-based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare, the program or service developer’s website, the program or service manual, and the studies reviewed.
Program/Service Webpage Updated: Dec 2020
This information does not necessarily represent the views of the program or service developers. For more information on how this program or service was reviewed, visit the download the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Version 1.0
Target Population
Homebuilders serves families who have children (0-18 years old) at imminent risk of out-of-home placement or who are in placement and cannot be reunified without intensive in-home services.
Dosage
Homebuilders services are concentrated during a period of 4 to 6 weeks. Families typically receive 40 or more hours of direct face-to-face services. The family’s Homebuilders practitioner is available to family members 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with primary back up from the Homebuilders supervisor. Services are tailored and sessions are flexibly scheduled based on the family members’ needs, goals, values, culture, circumstance, learning styles and abilities.
Location/Delivery Setting
Recommended Locations/Delivery Settings
Treatment services primarily take place in the client’s home. Services are provided when and where the family needs them, including other community locations (e.g. school).
Location/Delivery Settings Observed in the Research
- Home
Education, Certifications and Training
Homebuilders practitioners are required to have a master’s or bachelor’s degree in psychology, social work, counseling, or a closely related field. Practitioners with a bachelor’s degree are also required to have at least two years of related experience working with children and families.
Supervisors and program managers are also required to have a master’s or bachelor’s degree in social work, psychology, counseling or a closely related field. Those with a master’s must have at least two years of experience working with children and families. Those with a bachelor’s degree must have at least four years of experience as a Homebuilders practitioner. If they do not have prior Homebuilders experience, supervisors must complete at least six Homebuilders interventions during their first year.
Practitioners, supervisors and program managers receive initial and ongoing training, consultation and support to deliver quality services and ensure fidelity to the Homebuilders model. The Homebuilders Quality Enhancement System (QUEST) includes start up consultation and technical assistance, webinars, 15 -17 days of workshop training for all staff during the first two years, an additional 2-4 days of workshop training for supervisors and program managers, ongoing team and supervisor consultation with a highly trained and experienced Homebuilders consultant, fidelity reviews and site visits.
Program or Service Documentation
Book/Manual/Available documentation used for review
Kinney, J., Haapala, D. A., & Booth, C. (1991). Keeping families together: The HOMEBUILDERS model. Taylor Francis.
Available languages
Materials are available in English. Some documents and tools are also available in Spanish.
Other supporting materials
Homebuilders Fidelity Measures
For More Information
Website: www.institutefamily.org
Email: info@institutefamily.org
Note: The details on Dosage; Location; Education, Certifications, and Training; Other Supporting Materials; and For More Information sections above are provided to website users for informational purposes only. This information is not exhaustive and may be subject to change.
| Results of Search and Review | Number of Studies Identified and Reviewed for Homebuilders - Intensive Family Preservation and Reunification Services |
|---|---|
| Identified in Search | 17 |
| Eligible for Review | 3 |
| Rated High | 0 |
| Rated Moderate | 2 |
| Rated Low | 1 |
| Reviewed Only for Risk of Harm | 0 |
| Outcome | Effect Size
 and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
0.02
0 |
2 (9) | 898 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Child permanency: Out-of-home placement |
0.26
10 |
2 (18) | 905 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 13 Unfavorable: 2 |
| Child permanency: Planned permanent exits |
1.07
35 |
1 (4) | 120 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.19
7 |
1 (3) | 634 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
0.06
2 |
1 (12) | 638 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0 |
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
| Outcome | Effect Size
and Implied Percentile Effect
|
N of Studies (Findings) | N of Participants | Summary of Findings |
Months after treatment when outcome measured
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child safety: Child welfare administrative reports |
0.02
0 |
2 (9) | 898 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 9 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU (Walton, 1998) | |||||
| Number of Referrals to DCFS |
Null
not calculated |
- | 113 | - | 69 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - New Jersey Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Any Substantiated Maltreatment (New Jersey Site) |
0.00
0 |
- | 442 | - | 11 |
| Days to First Substantiated Maltreatment (Survival Analysis, New Jersey Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 442 | - | 21 |
| Days to First Case Closure (Survival Analysis, New Jersey Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 442 | - | 21 |
| Any Substantiated Maltreatment (New Jersey Site) |
0.24
9 |
- | 442 | - | 21 |
| Any Child Protective Services Investigations (New Jersey Site) |
0.01
0 |
- | 442 | - | 21 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - Kentucky Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Any Substantiated Maltreatment (Kentucky Site) |
-0.09
-3 |
- | 343 | - | 21 |
| Any Child Protective Services Investigations (Kentucky Site) |
0.02
0 |
- | 343 | - | 21 |
| Days to First Substantiated Maltreatment (Survival Analysis, Kentucky Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 343 | - | 21 |
| Child permanency: Out-of-home placement |
0.26
10 |
2 (18) | 905 |
Favorable:
3 No Effect: 13 Unfavorable: 2 |
- |
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU (Walton, 1993) | |||||
| Days in Home |
1.90
*
47 |
- | 110 | - | 0 |
| Days in Home |
0.97
*
33 |
- | 110 | - | 6 |
| Days in Home |
0.89
*
31 |
- | 110 | - | 12 |
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU (Walton, 1998) | |||||
| Days of Public Agency Involvement |
Null
not calculated |
- | 120 | - | 69 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - New Jersey Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, New Jersey Site) |
-0.22
-8 |
- | 442 | - | 11 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, New Jersey Site) |
-0.30
*
-11 |
- | 442 | - | 23 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, New Jersey Site) |
0.12
4 |
- | 442 | - | 0 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, New Jersey Site) |
-0.08
-3 |
- | 442 | - | 7 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, New Jersey Site) |
-0.26
-10 |
- | 442 | - | 17 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Survival Analysis, New Jersey Site) |
Unfavorable
*
not calculated |
- | 442 | - | 21 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - Kentucky Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, Kentucky Site) |
-0.03
-1 |
- | 343 | - | 11 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, Kentucky Site) |
-0.15
-5 |
- | 343 | - | 23 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Survival Analysis, Kentucky Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 343 | - | 21 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, Kentucky Site) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 343 | - | 0 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only,Kentucky Site) |
0.00
0 |
- | 343 | - | 7 |
| Any Foster Care Placement (Administrative Data Only, Kentucky Site) |
0.00
0 |
- | 343 | - | 17 |
| Any Evidence of Foster Care Placement ( Administrative Data and Relative Placement File, Kentucky) |
0.15
5 |
- | 343 | - | 11 |
| Days in Foster Care (Kentucky Site) |
0.00
0 |
- | 343 | - | 11 |
| Child permanency: Planned permanent exits |
1.07
35 |
1 (4) | 120 |
Favorable:
4 No Effect: 0 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU (Walton, 1993) | |||||
| Reunification |
2.11
*
48 |
- | 110 | - | 0 |
| Reunification |
0.72
*
26 |
- | 110 | - | 6 |
| Reunification |
0.70
*
25 |
- | 110 | - | 12 |
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU (Walton, 1998) | |||||
| Family Stabilized at Termination of Public Agency Involvement |
0.75
*
27 |
- | 120 | - | 69 |
| Adult well-being: Parent/caregiver mental or emotional health |
0.19
7 |
1 (3) | 634 |
Favorable:
0 No Effect: 3 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - New Jersey Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Symptoms Checklist-90: Parent Depression (New Jersey Site) |
0.19
7 |
- | 343 | - | 0 |
| Symptoms Checklist-90: Parent Depression (New Jersey Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 271 | - | 11 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - Kentucky Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Symptoms Checklist-90: Parent Depression (Kentucky Site) |
Null
not calculated |
- | 291 | - | 0 |
| Adult well-being: Economic and housing stability |
0.06
2 |
1 (12) | 638 |
Favorable:
1 No Effect: 11 Unfavorable: 0 |
- |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - New Jersey Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Received Food Stamps Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
-0.07
-2 |
- | 344 | - | 1 |
| Received WIC Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
-0.07
-2 |
- | 344 | - | 0 |
| Received Aid for Dependent Families with Children Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
0.05
2 |
- | 344 | - | 0 |
| Received Housing Voucher Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
-0.04
-1 |
- | 344 | - | 0 |
| Received Social Security Disability Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
-0.12
-4 |
- | 344 | - | 0 |
| Emergency Shelter Stay Between Pre and Post-Treatment (New Jersey Site) |
0.43
16 |
- | 344 | - | 0 |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - Kentucky Site (Westat, 2002) | |||||
| Received Food Stamps Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
0.16
6 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
| Received WIC Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
0.33
*
13 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
| Received Aid for Dependent Families with Children Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
0.05
1 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
| Received Housing Voucher Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
0.21
8 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
| Received Social Security Disability Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
-0.13
-5 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
| Emergency Shelter Stay Between Pre and Post-Treatment (Kentucky Site) |
0.00
0 |
- | 294 | - | 0 |
*p <.05
Note: For the effect sizes and implied percentile effects reported in the table, a positive number favors the intervention group and a negative number favors the comparison group. Effect sizes and implied percentile effects were calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse as described in the Handbook of Standards and Procedures, Section 5.10.4 and may not align with effect sizes reported in individual publications. Effect sizes for some outcomes were not able to be calculated by the Prevention Services Clearinghouse.
Only publications with eligible contrasts that met design and execution standards are included in the individual study findings table.
Full citations for the studies shown in the table are available in the "Studies Reviewed" section.
The participant characteristics display is an initial version. We encourage those interested in providing feedback to send suggestions to preventionservices@abtglobal.com.
The table below displays locations, the year, and participant demographics for studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Participant characteristics for studies with more than one intervention versus comparison group pair that received moderate or high ratings are shown separately in the table. Please note, the information presented here uses terminology directly from the study documents, when available. Studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution that did not include relevant participant demographic information would not be represented in this table.
For more information on how Clearinghouse reviewers record the information in the table, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
| Characteristics of the Participants in the Studies with Moderate or High Ratings | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Study Location
|
Study Year
|
Age or Grade-level
|
Race, Ethnicity, Nationality
|
Gender
|
Populations of Interest*
|
Household Socioeconomic Status
|
| Study 10597 - Family Reunification Services vs. TAU | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Utah, USA | -- | Mean age: 10.7 years; Age range: 1-17 years | 83% White | -- | 15% Sexual abuse | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Utah, USA | -- | Average age: 34.6 years | 88% Caucasian | 86% Female | -- |
54% Families had an annual income less than $10,000 61% Families had at least one employed adult |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - New Jersey Site | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| New Jersey, USA | 1996 | Mean age of youngest child: 7 years; Age distribution of youngest child: 15% under 1 year, 26% 1-4, 37% 5-12, 23% 13 and over; Mean age of oldest child: 13 years; Age distribution of oldest child: 2% under 1 year, 5% 1-4, 30% 5-12, 63% 13 and over | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| New Jersey, USA | 1996 | Mean age: 39 years |
47% Caucasian (not Hispanic) 42% African-American (not Hispanic) 9% Hispanic 2% Other |
88% Female 12% Male |
89% Allegation of maltreatment prior to referral; 64% Substantiated report of maltreatment prior to referral; Type of allegation: 42% Physical abuse, 11% Lack of supervision, 20% Other neglect, 5% Sexual abuse, 5% Emotional abuse; 53% Substantiated report of maltreatment before the allegation prior to referral; 22% Prior substitute care placement | -- |
| Study 10598 - Homebuilders vs. Control - Kentucky Site | ||||||
| Characteristics of the Children and Youth | ||||||
| Louisville, KY, USA | 1996 | Mean age of youngest child: 5 years; Age distribution of youngest child: 19% under 1 year, 42% 1-4, 33% 5-12, 6% 13 and over; Mean age of oldest child: 10 years; Age distribution of oldest child: 3% under 1 year, 16% 1-4, 42% 5-12, 39% 13 and over | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Characteristics of the Adults, Parents, or Caregivers | ||||||
| Louisville, KY, USA | 1996 | Mean age: 32 years |
55% Caucasian (not Hispanic) 43% African American (not Hispanic) 1% Other 1% Hispanic |
93% Female 7% Male |
96% Investigated for maltreatment; 77% At least one substantiated allegation of maltreatment; Reason for most recent maltreatment allegation: 44% Physical abuse, 34% Dependency, 32% Neglect, 24% Sexual maltreatment, 5% Emotional maltreatment; Reason for most recent substantiated maltreatment allegation: 41% Physical abuse, 34% Dependency, 34% Neglect, 19% Sexual maltreatment, 3% Emotional maltreatment |
3% Household income of $40,000 or more 16% Household income between $20,000 and $40,000 43% Household income between $10,000 and $20,000 23% Household income between $5,000 and $10,000 15% Household income less than $5,000 38% Employed 33% Unemployed and not looking for work 29% Unemployed and looking for work |
“--” indicates information not reported in the study.
* The information about disabilities is based on initial coding. For more information on how the Clearinghouse recorded disability information for the initial release, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings. The Clearinghouse is currently seeking consultation from experts, including those with lived experience, and input from the public to enhance and improve the display.
Note: Citations for the documents associated with each 5-digit study number shown in the table can be found in the “Studies Reviewed” section below. Study settings and participant demographics are recorded for all studies that received moderate or high ratings on design and execution and that reported the information. Studies that did not report any information about setting or participant demographics are not displayed. For more information on how participant characteristics are recorded, please see our Resource Guide on Study Participant Characteristics and Settings.
Studies Rated Moderate
Study 10597Walton, E., Fraser, M. W., Lewis, R. E., & Pecora, P. J. (1993). In-home family-focused reunification: An experimental study. Child Welfare, 72(5), 473-487.
Walton, E. (1996). Family functioning as a measure of success in intensive family preservation services. Journal of Family Social Work, 1(3), 67-82.
Walton, E. (1998). In-home family-focused reunification: A six-year follow-up of a successful experiment. Social Work Research, 22(4), 205-214. doi:10.1093/swr/22.4.205
Fraser, M. W., Walton, E., Lewis, R. E., Pecora, P. J., & Walton, W. K. (1996). An experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow-up. Children and Youth Services Review, 18(4-5), 335-361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(96)00009-6
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Study 10598
Westat, Chapin Hall Center for Children, & James Bell Associates. (2002). Evaluation of Family Preservation and Reunification Programs: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Westat, Chapin Hall Center for Children, & James Bell Associates. (2001). Evaluation of family preservation and reunification programs: Interim report
This study was conducted in a usual care or practice setting (Handbook Section 6.2.2)Studies Rated Low
Study 10591Kirk, R. S., & Griffith, D. P. (2004). Intensive family preservation services: Demonstrating placement prevention using event history analysis. Social Work Research, 28(1), 5-16.
This study received a low rating because baseline equivalence of the intervention and comparison groups was necessary and not demonstrated.Studies Not Eligible for Review
Study 10583
Administration for Children, Youth, and Families (1991). Boysville of Michigan Family Reunification Project. Final Report, May 17, 1989 - June 30, 1991. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10584
Bath, H. I., & Haapala, D. A. (1993). Intensive family preservation services with abused and neglected children: An examination of group differences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17(2), 213-225. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(93)90041-3
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10585
Biehal, N. (2005). Working with adolescents at risk of out of home care: The effectiveness of specialist teams. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(9), 1045-1059. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.031
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10586
Evans, M. E., Boothroyd, R. A., & Armstrong, M. I. (1997). Development and implementation of an experimental study of the effectiveness of intensive in-home crisis services for children and their families. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 5(2), 93-105. doi:10.1177/106342669700500204
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10587
Fraser, M. W., Pecora, P. J., Popuang, C., & Haapala, D. A. (1992). Event history analysis: A proportional hazards perspective on modeling outcomes in intensive family preservation services. Journal of Social Service Research, 16(1-2), 123-158.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10589
Forrester, D., Copello, A., Waissbein, C., & Pokhrel, S. (2008). Evaluation of an intensive family preservation service for families affected by parental substance misuse. Child Abuse Review, 17(6), 410-426. doi:10.1002/car.1048
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10590
Forrester, D., Holland, S., Williams, A., & Copello, A. (2016). Helping families where parents misuse drugs or alcohol? A mixed methods comparative evaluation of an intensive family preservation service. Child & Family Social Work, 21(1), 65-75. doi:10.1111/cfs.12111
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10592
Lewis, R. E. (2005). The effectiveness of Families First services: An experimental study. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(5), 499-509. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.10.009
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10593
Littell, J. H. (1997). 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), 17-39. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(97)00004-2
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10594
Littell, J. H. (2001). Client participation and outcomes of intensive family preservation services. Social Work Research, 25(2), 103-114. doi:10.1093/swr/25.2.103
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10595
Pecora, P. J., Fraser, M. W., & Haapala, D. A. (1992). Intensive home-based family preservation services: An update from the FIT project. Child Welfare, 71(2), 177-188.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10596
Raschick, M., & Critchley, R. (1998). Guidelines for conducting site-based evaluations of intensive family preservation programs. Child Welfare, 77(6), 643-660.
This study is ineligible for review because it does not use an eligible study design (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.4).
Study 10599
Walton, E. (1997). Enhancing investigative decisions in child welfare: An exploratory use of intensive family preservation services. Child Welfare, 76(3), 447-461.
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).
Study 10600
Walton, E. (2001). Combining abuse and neglect investigations with intensive family preservation services: An innovative approach to protecting children. Research on Social Work Practice, 11(6), 627-644. doi:10.1177/104973150101100601
This study is ineligible for review because it is not a study of the program or service under review (Study Eligibility Criterion 4.1.6).