Improving the Quality of Teaming from Multiple Stakeholder Perspectives

Introduction.  Child and family team meetings have increasingly been utilized in the child welfare system to empower families and provide effective individualized services through community partnerships. Previous studies have shown that the quality of team processes is essential to promote service delivery and child outcomes. However, little empirical research has been conducted to investigate significant factors for team formation and functioning. Furthermore, there is little understanding of how differently members perceive the processes of teaming. This study explores the two unanswered questions using multiple sources of data in order to identify effective strategies for the quality improvement of teaming from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Methods.  This study used two different datasets collected in a Midwestern state as part of the evaluation of Title IV-E Waiver Demonstration: Quality Service Review (QSR) and community stakeholder surveys. The QSR was managed by a state child welfare agency (CWA) to assess service quality (e.g., teaming) and child outcomes using a peer-review method. It included a total of 491 cases randomly selected across the state from 2013 to 2015. Community surveys were administered to three stakeholder groups in 2005: children/families (n = 300), service providers (n = 551), and Court Appointed Special Advocates/Guardian ad Litem (CASA/GAL; n = 478). Participants were asked to rate the processes and outcomes of family team meetings in which they had been involved.

Results.  The QSR data showed that team formation and functioning were influenced by somewhat different factors. For example, team formation was negatively associated with case characteristics, such as placement moves (β = -.10) and domestic violence (β = -.12). In contrast, team functioning was positively associated with frequent team meetings (β = .28), mother engagement (β = .29), and father engagement (β = .24). From the results of the community survey study, youth/families were more likely than other stakeholder groups to perceive that the location and time of team meetings were easy and convenient; service providers more frequently missed team meetings. Similarly, youth/families had significantly higher scores on certain aspects of team functioning, such as a facilitator’s encouragement and valuing their opinion. However, service providers and CASA/GALs perceived that their outlook of cases was highly different from parents’ outlook. In particular, this significant difference was higher for CASA/GALs than service providers.

Conclusion.  The integrated findings of these data suggest several implications to improve team formation and functioning. For successful team formation, team coordinators require more careful preparation in creating and coordinating effective family team meetings for children who have frequent placement moves or experience domestic violence. An additional effort is also necessary to promote service providers’ consistent attendance. For effective team functioning, active family engagement and frequent interactions between members are necessary to create a coherent case plan for children and families. However, there may be substantial tensions between families and community stakeholders (e.g., CASA/GAL) in this collaborative process. Team coordinators should encourage members to respect varied views and use team differences as a catalyst to create collaborative, family-centered case plans.