Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Background and Purpose: The Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE) is a standardized home study method for assessing prospective adoptive and foster families, and currently operates in 8 states. SAFE represents a significant change in home study practices as a possible model for standardizing studies across states. This standardization is an explicit goal of the federal government in its endeavors to increase inter-jurisdictional adoptions. The current study is the first empirical examination of SAFE, and measures whether caseworkers and supervisors prefer SAFE over conventional methods.

Methods: Researchers sent an online survey to child welfare staff in 4 states implementing SAFE (CO,NJ,NV,UT; N=209). Researchers collected demographic information and used a scale that measured preferences for SAFE versus conventional methods on indicators within the areas of professional practice, parent recruitment and parent selection. Responses were summed to create an overall preference score for SAFE, and were compared for differences using chi-square tests. Open-ended responses solicited staff persons' opinions over the relative benefits of SAFE. A logistic regression model measured the likelihood of a respondent's providing a comment based on their demographic information and preference for SAFE.

Results: The internal consistency of the overall scale was found to be highly reliable (a=0.94). Respondents were significantly more likely to believe SAFE was more comprehensive (p<.001) and concise (p<.01) than conventional methods. Respondents also believed that SAFE promoted better professionalism (p<.001), concurrent planning (p<.05), minimized cross-jurisdictional barriers more effectively (p<.001), and represented best practice (p<.01). Respondents believed SAFE was fairer (p<.001), promoted more accurate assessments (p<.001), encouraged greater candidness about the past (p<.05), and was more meaningful (p<.001). Those without degrees in Social Work tended to prefer SAFE over those with Social Work degrees (p<.05). Respondents from the 4 states differed significantly regarding professionalism (p<.05), parent recruitment (p<.05), and selection (p<.05). Opinions over SAFE's greater recruitment abilities also differed by years of experience (p < .05) with newer workers preferring SAFE. Workers with fewer completed studies preferred SAFE for parent recruitment (p<.05) and selection (p<.05). Of open-ended responses, those preferring SAFE were less likely to comment (p<.01) and workers from CO were more likely to comment (p<.01). Responses tended to be more critical of SAFE, especially when respondents felt that family autobiographies were a critical component. Several respondents also remarked that the training, skills, and abilities of individual workers were more important, regardless of whether SAFE or conventional methods were used.

Implications: These results suggest that child welfare staff persons tend to prefer SAFE over conventional methods as they believe it promotes more professional practice. Yet, many respondents also miss aspects of home study practice such as autobiographies, and believe that the quality of evaluations is mostly dependent on the quality of an individual's work. The findings will be discussed in light of existing research on the effectiveness of structured risk assessments, as well as literature from the fields of business and psychology on the recruitment and selection of applicants.