Research Evidence Use in the Child Welfare System

Abstract

What is Research Evidence?In our study, we adopted the view that is that was gathered with a purpose in mind and according to generally accepted methods defined as falling within a (social) science rubric. As such, and the studies that produce are diverse in method and subject matter. Research includes, but is not limited to, findings pertaining to the use and effectiveness of evidence-based interventions. Moreover, can be generated from such as electronic records (Holzinger, Dehmer, & Jurisica, 2014; McBeath et al., 2015).Within academic and scientific communities, scholars identify various types of (e.g., basic research, applied research, evaluation, etc.). Although the definitions of different activities are open to some degree of interpretation, they share common fundamental principles, characterizing as systematic, objective, and focused on the generation or application of new knowledge (Bloome, 2009; National Institutes of Health, n.d.; National Science Foundation, n.d.; Rabin, Brownson, Haire-Joshu, Kreuter, & Weaver, 2008).Davies and Nutley (2008) reduce these core principles to a framework. They research as a process (explicit, systematic, and open to scrutiny), the outputs of which are findings. When these findings are used in support of an argument or position, they are being treated as evidence (p. 2, emphasis original). In its work, the W.T. Grant Foundation weaves these strands together: is empirical findings derived from systematic methods and analyses. In establishing the activities that may lead to such findings, the Foundation casts a relatively wide net, including descriptive, intervention, evaluation, meta-analytic, and cost-effectiveness studies done by researchers working within or outside policy or practice organizations (William T. Grant Foundation, 2011). These activities include studies that examine the effectiveness of particular interventions with children and families as well as the analysis of systematically prepared administrative data and reports (Administration for Children and Families, 2012; Barth, 2008; Tseng, 2009; McBeath et al., 2015).The quality of is a reflection of how methodologically rigorous the is. Social scientists determine that rigor by holding against scientific standards related to instrument design, sampling, statistical analysis, and other technical criteria. Knowledge brokers in the field of child welfare promote these standards to some extent; for example, in assessing the evidence-base for child welfare interventions; both the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare (n.d.) and the National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (2007) grade interventions based on the strength of the done to test the efficacy of the interventions. Federal policy guidance takes a similar view, casting evidence-based interventions as those that show measurable improvements in the outcomes they are designed to affect, though falling short of defining standards for measurement or required degrees of improvement (Administration for Children and Families, 2012).Recent studies also show that policymakers and practitioners of child- and youth-serving agencies hold a range of definitions for (Palinkas, Finno, Fuentes, Garcia, & Holloway, 2011), that they do not always distinguish from other forms of (Nelson, Leffler, & Hansen, 2009), and that they use many different types and of (researchbased and otherwise) when making policy and practice decisions (Asen, Gurke, Solomon, Conners, & Gumm, 2011; Honig & Coburn, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009; Palinkas, Finno, et al., 2011).For example, Nelson and colleagues (2009) found that education policymakers define broadly as local research, local data, personal experience, information from personal communications, gut instinct or intuition, and the experience of others, in addition to evidence and that they did not draw a distinction between and general derived from these other sources (p. …