2. Trends in research on intensive family preservation programs Leuven, april 10, 2003 Bert Van Puyenbroeck Coordination IFPS Flanders

3. IFPS-program Crisis = minor is about to be placed out of home (residential care; foster care;..) At home service Short term program, during 4 to 6 weeks Family can reach family worker 24h/day, 7d/ week ; family worker can also reach supervisor at any time Intensive: 8h/week, 10 meetings/ week at home +/- 60% of contacts after 6 pm To prevent out of home placement

4. IFPS in Europe & USA IFPS programs in USA (Seattle) (Homebuilding) Netherlands (Families First) U.K. Germany Finland Flanders (Crisishulp aan Huis)

5. Research items 1.What’s the target group reached by IFPS? 2.Intervention characteristic features? 3.What are the results of an IFPS program? = outcome based research = comparative material: FF– CaH – IFPS – FPS (Homebuilding-based programs)

6. Target group 82% to 91% acute crisis situation (family) 87% to 100% educational problems (parents) 29% to 48% problems with social competence 55% to 72% marital problems 77% to 80% behavioral problems (minor) 69% to 74% emotional problems 62% to 81% problems social competence

7. Intervention characteristic features Intervention of 27 to 33 days (brief) Intensity: 6 to 12 h/week (intensive) Availability of family worker: 50 to 53% of contacts after 6 p.m., 10% in the weekend

8. Out of home placement of minor

9. Basic results It seems that: –Comparable results of these ‘homebuilding based IFPS programs’ –In the Netherlands, Flanders, Seattle = in different cultures?

10. Critical thinking How does that come? What is ‘result’: outcome based, quantitative research: index of out of home placement? What is the role of ‘culture’ in ‘perspectives on helping and being helped’?

11. So… –How does these families experience ‘being helped’ through IFPS-program? –How does the family worker experience ‘helping families in crisis through IFPS-program’? –In USA, Netherlands, Flanders, Germany, Finland? –Research design: University Brussels (prof Loots), University Leuven (prof Grietens)(2003 – 2006): social-constructionism as matrix for renewed and fundamental research on these topics in Flanders –Waiting for government to give permission

12. So… –How does these families experience ‘being helped’ through IFPS-program? –How does the family worker experience ‘helping families in crisis through IFPS-program’? –In USA, Netherlands, Flanders, Germany, Finland? –Research design: University Brussels (prof Loots), University Leuven (prof Grietens)(2003 – 2006): social-constructionism as matrix for renewed and fundamental research on these topics –Waiting for government to give permission (euro’s)

13. Any way: (hope to) see you on the next EUSARF- congress for some ‘results’ http://www.sporen.be/crisishulpwww.sporen.be/crisishulp cah.vlaanderen@sporen.beah.vlaanderen@sporen.be bert@sporen.beert@sporen.be Bert Van Puyenbroeck, Leuven april 10th 2003