1. The Role of Evaluation and Stakeholder Values in California’s Title IV-E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project Evaluations
Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D.
San Jose State University, School of Social Work
Evaluation 2011: Values and Valuing in Evaluation
November 2, 2011
Anaheim, CA

2. Acknowledgements
Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau
California Department of Social Services

3. Purpose of the Paper
Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Projects:
- Children’s Bureau: “generating new knowledge” about innovative and effective practices
- State and local stakeholders: means to develop and implement services
The paper explores:
- this conflict
- the sociopolitical contexts
- the role of values in evaluation planning and implementation

4. Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Projects
Congress granted Health and Human Services authority to approve waivers
Waivers give states flexibility in the use of Title IV-E funds (particularly maintenance)
Promote safety, permanency, and well-being for children in child protection and foster care

5. Key Features of Waiver One in California
Discrete interventions:
- Wraparound in five counties
- Family Group Decision-Making in two counties
Treatment/Comparison with Random Assignment mandated by Children’s Bureau
Multiple agencies and community-based organizations

6. Sociopolitical Context of Waiver One in California
California’s Child Welfare System has a shared governance structure
Seven different evaluations with multiple stakeholders
Passage of legislation for “state-eligible” children

7. Key Features of Waiver Two in California
Systems-level capped allocation in two counties
County child welfare and juvenile probation departments
Interrupted time-series with no comparison counties

8. Sociopolitical Context of Waiver Two in California
Systems-level stakeholders (e.g., Board of Supervisors)
Significant change in how child welfare is financed
Significant involvement by child advocacy organizations

9. Discussion of Values
Sponsor set the values tone: effectiveness
Involving stakeholders was complicated by two factors:
- negotiation process
- shared governance
Criteria/outcomes set by sponsor
- first waiver: too distal
- second waiver: concern about missing important outcomes
Unhappiness with evaluation designs
- first waiver: unethical; treatment works
- second waiver: not rigorous enough

10. Conclusion
Change the timing and the focus of the development process: efficiency to inclusion
Keep an open mind about alternative ideas
Remain flexible with data collection
Reserve resources
On-going communication/education re: the evaluation

11. San Jose State University
Thank you
Charlie Ferguson, Ph.D.
School of Social Work
San Jose State University