Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Project presentation 2013


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Project presentation 2013

  1. 1. Developing adult social workeffectiveness evaluation
  2. 2. THL, FinSoc-team 2Goal-oriented adult social workas a target for evaluation
  3. 3. 3THL, FinSoc-team 3The characteristics of goal-oriented adult social work• The goal of social work• The object of social work• Social work methods• Contextual and situational factors• Mechanisms
  4. 4. THL, FinSoc-team 4Adult social-work effectivenessevaluation project
  5. 5. THL, FinSoc-team 5The EEA-project (2011-2012)Coordination:The National Institute for Health and WelfareSeinäjoki: Developing aneffectiveness evaluationmeasure for adult socialworkThe Centre OfExcellence OnSocial Welfare InThe OstrobothnianArea (SONetBotnia)Helsinki: Focusing ondata from clientmonitoring forms at WestHelsinki Social CentreTuusula:Evaluating rehabilitativesocial work
  6. 6. THL, FinSoc-team 6Design: single-case evaluation
  7. 7. THL, FinSoc-team 7• Single-case design allows social workers to evaluate howwell the social work‟s goals have been reached, whatmethods and procedures have been used, and howimportant different contextual and situational factors andmechanisms are for the goal attainment• The method was originally developed as a practical toolfor social workers rather than as a research method• Single-case evaluation also seems to be suitablebecause it follows the basic idea of empirical research,but without a control group• It is possible to gain information about single clients‟goals but also to obtain quantitative data. It is alsopossible to track the client‟s situation using repeatedmeasurements.
  8. 8. Example of how the goals could be evaluatedordinallyGoal number 5: Subsistence or financial situation managementQuestion: Managing the subsistence or financial situation.Choose one of the following options:Options:• The goal is to improve the situation• The goal is that situation remains unchanged• The item is not a goalTHL, FinSoc-team 8
  9. 9. THL, FinSoc-team 9A framework for the measure:realist evaluation
  10. 10. THL, FinSoc-team 10• Generative mechanisms• Generative causality
  11. 11. THL, FinSoc-team 11Developing the KEY-measure foradult social-work effectivenessevaluation
  12. 12. • Questions about the goals, methods andprocedures of social work and about theclient‟s situation.• Testing period: November 2011 – August2012 (10 months)• Single-case design: Evaluation phase I &Evaluation phase II• Evaluation I: 209 client-cases• Evaluation II: 172 casesTHL, FinSoc-team 12
  13. 13. THL, FinSoc-team 13Basic informationformReasons whyevaluation is notdone
  14. 14. THL, FinSoc-team 14Results from adult social-workeffectiveness evaluation
  15. 15. THL, FinSoc-team 150 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90Concern about the close personal relationshipsLeisure activities and opportunities for participationThe consequences of anti-social behaviourPhysical problems caused by illnessChilds needsSubstance abuse and consequencesProblems related to mental illnessessRental housing situation in the areaSubstance useSocial skillsClients relationshipsMental healthDevelopment of service systemProceeding with further educationClients possibility to access housingInclusion and participation (eg. hobbies)Self-esteemAwareness of the problems due to the societyGetting in to further educationFluency of everyday lifeLife managementAccess to housing; keeping itClearing up the debt situationPromoting the employment situation (for long-term…Supporting clients occupational capabilitiesSupporting clients problem-solving capabilitiesService management for a clientEmployment, searching for a jobClients control over his/her economic situationWomen (%)(N=110)Goals set by clients; stratified by gender (%)Kivipelto, Blomgren & Suojanen 2013, 43
  16. 16. THL, FinSoc-team 16Goal reached admirably; percentage of levels of achieving goals(%)Kivipelto, Blomgren & Suojanen 2013, 44051821212324242526282930333335363638393941414242454949530 10 20 30 40 50 60Clients possibility to access housingRental housing situation in the areaLeisure activities and opportunities for participationPhysical problems caused by illnessPromoting the employment situation (for long-term unemployment-people)The consequences of anti-social behaviourConcern about the close personal relationshipsMental healthClearing up the debt situationClients relationshipsProblems related to mental illnessAwareness of problems due to the societyEmployment situation, searching for a jobInclusion and participation (eg. hobbies)Development of service systemClients control over his/her economical situationLife managementProceeding with further educationSocial skillsGetting into further educationSubstance useSubstance abuse and consequencesSupporting clients occupational capabilitiesSelf-esteemFluency of everyday lifeAccess to housing; keeping itSupporting clients problem-solving capabilitiesChilds needsService management for a clientSituation improved
  17. 17. THL, FinSoc-team 170 20 40 60 80 100Controlling the clientSupporting clients participationSupporting clients awareness of social problemsCase managementDealing with the clients problemsService plan for the clientSolution focused workSupportive discussionSupervision and guidanceNeeds assessmentDecision makingSocial assistanceWomen (%) Men (%)Most used social work methods. Percentage of all methods; stratifiedby gender (%)Kivipelto, Blomgren & Suojanen2013, 44
  18. 18. THL, FinSoc-team 180 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Values and attitudes in the living areaAccess to the environmentClients cultural backgroundThe demographic structure of living areaSubstance abuse of family membersConcern about the close peopleSubstance abuse / addictionsClients mental healthMental health and well-beingClients employment situationSatisfaction of relationships/adequacyClients lifestyleClients economic situationClients physical healthPossibility to access health related technologyAwareness of the bacground determinants behind…Possibility to influenceLeisure activities and opportunities for participationClients ability/motive to plan his/her economic situationClients occupationSeeing solutions and alternativesEmployment and occupational situationsInternet connectivityClients self-esteemLiving conditionsClients motivationPossibilities to be heardService provision / availability of servicesClients attitudes towards the servicesMen (N=99)Women (N=110)Kivipelto, Blomgren & Suojanen2013, 46Factors contributing to reaching goals. Stratified by gender (%)
  19. 19. THL, FinSoc-team 19261048142744Supportive methods were not used * Used 1-2 supportive methods)* Used 3-4 supportive methods*Men (%) Women (%)Effectiveness of supportive methods to the clients problem-solvingcapabilities. Comparison of men and women %Kivipelto, Blomgren & Suojanen 2013, 50
  20. 20. THL, FinSoc-team 20Single-case evaluation fits wellfor evaluating social-work withadults
  21. 21. Advantages• It was seen as important to integratesystematic inquiry within adult socialwork• The evaluation measure developmentwas also an attempt to make the datacollection easier and more systematicTHL, FinSoc-team 21
  22. 22. Difficulties• Social workers found it difficult to incorporate the use of themeasure into practical social work, even though theinformation required for the measure was largely the sameinformation they needed in client work• Single-case evaluation is best suited for those situations thatrequire long-term social work• Many clients just “disappeared” and the second phase ofevaluation could not be undertaken• More work is still needed to develop a programme theory thatworks wellTHL, FinSoc-team 22
  23. 23. THL, FinSoc-team 23Towards evidence-basedsocial work
  24. 24. THL, FinSoc-team 24Processing the data into evidence-based knowledge
  25. 25. References• Blomgren S, Kivipelto M (2012) Valtaistus. Aikuissosiaalityön valtakunnallinenkartoitus [National Survey of Adult Social Work], Report 27, Helsinki: NationalInstitute for Health and Welfare (THL).• Bloom M, Fischer J, Orme J G (2009) Evaluating practice: Guidelines for theaccountable professional, 6th edition, Boston: Allyn & Bacon.• Cohen B J (2011) Design-based practice: A new perspective for social work, SocialWork, 56(4): 337–346.• Fischer J, Corcoran K (2007) Measures for Clinical Practice and Research. Asourcebook. Volume 1. Couples, Families and Children, Fourth Edition, New York:Oxford University Press.• Gray M, Plath D, Webb S (2009) Evidence-based social work. A criticalstance, London: Routledge.• Howe D (2009) A brief introduction to social work theory, Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.• Juhila K (2008) ‟Aikuisten parissa tehtävän sosiaalityön yhteiskunnallinen paikka‟[Social Locus of Social Work With Adults], in A Jokinen and K Juhila(eds), Sosiaalityö aikuisten parissa [Social Work With Adults], Tampere: Vastapaino:48–81.THL, FinSoc-team 25
  26. 26. • Julnes G, Mark M M (1998) „Evaluation as sensemaking: Knowledge construction ina realist world‟, in G T Henry, G Julnes and M M Mark (eds) Realist Evaluation: AnEmerging Theory In Support Of Practice: New Directions For Evaluation 1998(78):33–52.• Kazi M, Wilson J (1996) „Applying single-case evaluation in social work‟, BritishJournal of Social Work 26(5): 699–717.• Kivipelto M, Blomgren S, Suojanen R (2013)‟ AVAIN-mittarin kehittäminen Seinäjoensosiaalivirastossa‟ [Developing the KEY-measure in Seinäjoki social security office].In M Kivipelto, S Blomgren, P Karjalainen and P Saikkonen. Vaikuttavaaaikuissosiaalityötä – arviointimalleista mittareihin. [Effective adult social work – fromevaluation models to evaluation measures] Research and development project; finalreport. Report 8, Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL).• Kivipelto M, Blomgren S (2012) „Social work with adults as a tool for tacklingexclusion‟, in S Karvonen, I Keskimäki, M Kuronen and K Wilskman (eds) Annualreview, Helsinki: National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), 21–23.• Pawson R, Manzano-Santaella A (2012) „A realist diagnostic workshop‟. Evaluation8(2), 176–191.• Pawson R, Tilley N (1997) Realistic Evaluation, London: Sage.• Payne M (2005) Modern Social Work Theory, 3rd edition, Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.• Pedersen L, Rieper O (2008) „Is realist evaluation a realistic approach for complexreforms?‟ Evaluation 14(3), 271–293.• Wong S E (2010) ‟Single-case evaluation designs for practitioners‟, Journal of SocialService Research, 36(3): 248–259.• THL, FinSoc-team 26