Progress 09/01/19 to 08/31/20
Outputs
Target Audience:? The target audience reached by our efforts included the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: 1) FAP staff (i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) 2) Unit commanders that attended CRC meetings 3) Non-FAP CRC members that the attended CRC meetings (e.g., chaplains, doctors, JAG, CID, MPs) and (4) IMCOM and MEDCOM headquarters clinical team members. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Outcome reports of all baseline, CRC, and IDC data summaries and comparisons were distributed to MEDCOM, IMCOM, and Army HQ stakeholders/leadership teams. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Analyses summarizing and comparing baseline, CRC, and IDC data on all outcomes were conducted, and reports generated and shared with Army stakeholders.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Evaluation of Two Approaches for Responding to Allegations of Family Maltreatment in the U.S. Army: Fairness,
Satisfaction, and Costs
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Clear, Fairly Decided Criteria Significantly Reduce Family Maltreatment Recidivism
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
The Impact of Process Fidelity When Implementing an Evidence-Based Approach to Family Maltreatment Allegation Determinations
|
Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/20
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached by our effortsincluded the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: 1) FAP staff (i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) 2) Unit commanders that attended CRC meetings 3) Non-FAP CRC members that the attended CRC meetings (e.g., chaplains, doctors, JAG, CID, MPs) and (4) IMCOM and MEDCOM headquarters clinical team members. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement the CRC & IDC models in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. The NYU team worked with Army MEDCOM leadership to develop IDC training materials, including slide decks for online and in-person trainings, and conduct multiple in-person "bootcamps". How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Outcome reports ofall baseline, CRC, and IDC data summaries and comparisons were distributed to MEDCOM, IMCOM, and Army HQ stakeholders/leadership teams. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. The research team completed a comprehensive literature review on the approaches to substantiating allegations of partner and child maltreatment and was submitted to Army Headquarters as requested. 2. The research team conducted a total of 10 site visits with each of the participating Army bases (i.e., Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Riley, Joint Base Lewis McChord, Fort Stewart, Fort Campbell, Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Schofield Barracks, Fort Drum) between February 2016 and May 2016. The purpose of these visits were to conduct focus groups and interviews with nonFAP and FAP CRC members to assess current CRC functioning. The research team had the opportunity to attend a CRC meeting at each of the 10 sites to observe current CRC processes. A formal site-visit report was drafted to summarize the outcome of the 10 site-vists and sent to Army Headquarters as requested. 3. The research team assessed the baseline functioning of the CRCs at all 10 participating sites. We collected baseline data from FAP social workers (one-time assessment, post-CRC assessments), CRC members (one-time assessment, post-CRC assessments), and commanders who attend CRC (assessment each time they attended CRC). We collected data on (a) satisfaction with and perceived fairness of the CRC process; (b) perception of their own impact on the CRC process; (c) support by commanders for treatment plans (e.g., commander perceptions, commander attendance record, FAP Social Worker reports of how often they were able to reach commanders); (d) interagency collegiality and coordination; (e) FAP perceptions of case attention; (f) case presentation and assessment quality. In total, we collected 923 assessments for the baseline period. In addition, we collected substantiation decisions at approximately 95 CRCs, which comprised approximately 1000 cases. 4. The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement the Case Review Committee (CRC) model in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. In-person trainings at each of ten garrisons took place starting 09 Nov 2016 and ending 01 Feb 2017. Biweekly teleconferences were held between the FAP-Cs of each site and NYU's Ms. Paulette Graham for two months following in-person training to ensure each site's understanding of the newly implemented CRC Reboot procedures. During these meetings, Ms. Graham reviewed with the FAP-C's common errors in their write-ups and in their understanding and use of the DTA. A document with a list of the most common mistakes was sent to Ms. Cindi Geeslin (MEDCOM) after the final meeting. 5. The research team performed all on-going quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to test the CRC model, such as database extracts, interviews, surveys, and/or direct observation in accordance with the evaluation plan. 6. The research team performed all on-going quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to test the IDC model, such as database extracts, interviews, surveys, and/or direct observation in accordance with the evaluation plan. Sites began launching into their IDC data collection phases in October 2017, with all 10 sites having launched by March, 2018. NYU personnel traveled to each site during their launch to assist with IDC/CCSM model training, and provided feedback. In order to give each site time to adjust to the new model, protocol 1 data collection for the IDC phase was delayed at each site until they had spent at least 10 hours in IDC meetings. NYU continued to support each site following their launch by monitoring IDCs/CCSMs and providing feedback. By August 2018, all sites had concluded their IDC data collection phase. In order to complete data collection for the first IDC phase prior to retraining, Ft. Drum, Ft. Stewart, Schofield Barracks, Ft. Riley, Ft. Bragg, and JBLM all stopped data collection ahead of schedule, but their IDC phases still included two global assessment timepoints as well as cost studies. Site coordinators continued to collect substantiation decisions prior to, during, and after the IDC phase. In an effort to maximize our participation, data collection with Soldiers and Families continues to proceed across all sites. Protocols 2 and 3 were unchanged between the CRC and IDC phases. 7. In an effort to ensure fidelity to the Department of Defense Manual, NYU and MEDCOM staff began completing fidelity checklists detailing required components of Incident Assessment Review (IAR), Clinical Case Staffing Meetings (CCSM), and IDC meetings beginning in July 2018, giving sites feedback and coaching as necessary. 8. Analyses summarizing and comparing baseline, CRC, and IDC data on all outcomes were conducted, and reports generated and shared with Army stakeholders.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Evaluation of Two Approaches for Responding to Allegations of Family Maltreatment in the U.S. Army: Fairness, Satisfaction, and Costs
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
Clear, Fairly Decided Criteria Significantly Reduce Family Maltreatment Recidivism
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2021
Citation:
The Impact of Process Fidelity When Implementing an Evidence-Based Approach to Family Maltreatment Allegation Determinations
|
Progress 09/01/18 to 08/31/19
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached by our efforts during this reporting period included the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: FAP staff (i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) Unit commanders that attended IDCmeetings Non-FAP IDC members that the attended IDC meetings (e.g., JAG, CID, MPs) IMCOM and MEDCOM headquarters clinical team members Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement the IDC model in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. The provided coaching and written feedback on IARs, CCSMs, and IDCs to all 10 sites, alongside MEDCOM representatives. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?IDC resultswere shared via a report submitted in January 2019.Results from these reports were discussed with the Army MEDOMC and IMCOM leadership teams. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In the next reporting period, we will conduct all analyses to compare baseline, CRC, and IDC phases and share those results in a series of outcome reports with MEDCOM/IMCOM stakeholders.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The research team performed all on-going quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to test the IDC model, such as database extracts, interviews, surveys, and/or direct observation in accordance with the evaluation plan. In an effort to ensure fidelity to the Department of Defense Manual, NYU and MEDCOM staff continued to complete fidelity checklists detailing required components of Incident Assessment Review (IAR), Clinical Case Staffing Meetings (CCSM), and IDC meetings. Along with NYU staff, the MEDCOM team listened to IARs, IDCs, and CCSMs in order to provide specific feedback, monitor meeting functioning/performance, and ensure that all meeting components were addressed. This coaching continued until each site met fidelity standards or until August 2019. At all 10 sites, site coordinators reviewed FAP case records to collect data on case closure and treatment status 6 months after being presented to the CRC/IDC.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached by our efforts during this reporting period included the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: FAP staff (i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) Unit commanders that attended CRC meetings Non-FAP CRC members that the attended CRC meetings (e.g., chaplains, doctors, JAG, CID, MPs) IMCOM and MEDCOM headquarters clinical team members Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement the IDC model in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. The NYU team continues to work with Army MEDCOM leadership to develop IDC training materials, including slide decks for online and in-person trainings. A video shoot to film video training material for the IDC roll-out occurred 15-May-2017. In-person "bootcamps" were held the final three weeks of August, and the final training took place in September, 2017. During the week of each site's IDC launch, NYU and MEDCOM staff again traveled to each site in order to assist with launch, provide additional training on the IDC model, and ensure new member's understanding of their roles. These visits began in October 2017 with the first site launch at Schofield Barracks, and continued at each site until Bragg finally launched in March 2018. Site coordinators all began training in the record review protocol by completing mock assignments involving deidentified, sample records provided by FAP. Site coordinators were also required to join weekly record review meetings with NYU staff to share questions and be informed of protocol updates. Five site coordinators completed master review training for CRC voting decisions between September 1st, 2017 and August 31st, 2018. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?CRC results as well as preliminary IDC results were shared via a report submitted on 29 January 2018]. Results from these reports were discussed with the Army MEDOMC and IMCOM leadership teams on 31 January 2018. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The research team will continue to train the remaining site-coordinators to become master reviewers of IDC voting decisions. We anticipate that all remaining full-time site-coordinators will meet criteria in the next reporting period. Due to staffing turnover, three new site coordinators (one full-time, two part-time) have been hired and will be trained in the next reporting period. Staff will continue record review calibration meetings and trainings through the next reporting period. In addition, NYU personnel will continue implementing quality assurance measures as well as on-going data collection for the PF-IDC phases at all ten participating garrisons.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The research team performed all on-going quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to test the CRC model, such as database extracts, interviews, surveys, and/or direct observation in accordance with the evaluation plan. All sites completed their CRC phase data collection in 2017. Sites began launching into their IDC data collection phases in October 2017, with all 10 sites having launched by March, 2018. NYU personnel traveled to each site during their launch to assist with IDC/CCSM model training, and provided feedback. In order to give each site time to adjust to the new model, protocol 1 data collection for the IDC phase was delayed at each site until they had spent at least 10 hours in IDC meetings. NYU continued to support each site following their launch by monitoring IDCs/CCSMs and providing feedback. By August 2018, all sites had concluded their IDC data collection phase. In order to complete data collection for the first IDC phase prior to retraining, Ft. Drum, Ft. Stewart, Schofield Barracks, Ft. Riley, Ft. Bragg, and JBLM all stopped data collection ahead of schedule, but their IDC phases still included two global assessment timepoints as well as cost studies. Site coordinators continued to collect substantiation decisions prior to, during, and after the IDC phase. In an effort to maximize our participation, data collection with Soldiers and Families continues to proceed across all sites. Protocols 2 and 3 were unchanged between the CRC and IDC phases. In an effort to ensure fidelity to the Department of Defense Manual, NYU and MEDCOM staff began completing fidelity checklists detailing required components of Incident Assessment Review (IAR), Clinical Case Staffing Meetings (CCSM), and IDC meetings beginning in July 2018 and continuing to date. Once each site passes each fidelity check, they will proceed into an additional phase of data collection, the post-fidelity IDC phase (PF-IDC). As of August 31st, 2018, all sites were still under fidelity monitoring. Along with NYU staff, the MEDCOM team has recently begun listening to IARs, IDCs, and CCSMs in order to provide specific feedback, monitor meeting functioning/performance, and ensure that all meeting components were addressed. This coaching will continue until each site meets fidelity standards. At all 10 sites, site coordinators began reviewing FAP case records to collect data on case closure and treatment status 6 months after being presented to the CRC. Site coordinators will begin reviewing IDC phase records after at least 6 months have passed since the end of their site's IDC data collection phase.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached by our efforts during this reporting period included the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: FAP staff (i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) Unit commanders that attended CRC meetings Non-FAP CRC members that the attended CRC meetings (e.g., chaplains, doctors, JAG, CID, MPs) IMCOM and MEDCOM headquarters clinical team members Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The research team conducted two one-hour remote video trainings (with FAP chiefs, clinical supervisors, and assessment staff) at each of the 10 participating sites between 08 September and 26 October 2016. The purpose of the first remote training was to (1) summarize some of the challenges and variations that were seen at different sites during the initial site visits and (2) provide FAP clinicians and supervisors with a strong and detailed understanding of the criteria in the Decision Tree Algorithm (DTA). The purpose of the second remote training was to (1) provide updated guidance (i.e., guidance on reasonable suspicion of maltreatment, determining which cases get brought to CRC, how to assign case numbers, when to vote on cases separately or together); (2) provide training on assessment of acts and impacts (especially on problematic DTA criteria to ensure thorough assessment of all DTA criteria; and (3) train personnel on the revised DTA write-up structure. Additionally, the research team lead 10 in-person trainings at each study site prior to their CRC phase launch between 9 November 2016 and 31 January 2017. This training included FAP staff, non-FAP CRC members, and all potential alternate CRC members. The purpose of these trainings were to (1) discuss and fine-tune understanding from the video trainings as applied to current cases; (2) problem solve any issues with new guidance as applied to current cases; (3) review cases to be presented at first CRC meeting and fine-tune as necessary; (4) review guidance on CRC process that resulted from initial site visits; (5) review CRC purpose; (6) review CRC process guidance for the rebooted CRC condition; (7) review DTA criteria; (8) practice 3-4 mock cases using new guidance; (9) review the background of CRC; and (10) review roles and responsibilities of CRC members. The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement the IDC model in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. The NYU team continues to work with Army MEDCOM leadership to develop IDC training materials, including slide decks for online and in-person trainings. A video shoot to film video training material for the IDC roll-out occurred 15-May-2017. In-person "bootcamps" were held the final three weeks of August, and the final training took place in September, 2017. All IDC additional launch training will take place in the next year of the project. Six site coordinators completed master review training for CRC voting decisions. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Baseline findings were shared via a report submitted on 20 Jan 2017. Results from this report were discussed with the Army MEDCOM and IMCOM leadership teams on 24-25 Jan 2017. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The research team will continue to train the remaining site-coordinators to become master reviewers of CRC voting decisions. We anticipate the remaining site-coordinators will meet criteria in the next reporting period. Due to staffing turnover, three new site coordinators have been hired and will be trained in the next reporting period. In addition, NYU personnel will continue to train, help launch, and implement quality assurance measures as well as on-going data collection for the IDC launches at all ten participating garrisons.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The research team completed a comprehensive literature review on the approaches to substantiating allegations of partner and child maltreatment and was submitted to Army Headquarters as requested on 29 Nov 16 as part of Y1 deliverables. The research team performed a baseline assessment at all sites in accordance with the evaluation plan. Data collection for Protocol 1 (involving CRC members, commanders, social workers, and outside social service agencies) was completed for the baseline assessment as of 24 Oct 2016. The research team performed quantitative and qualitative analyses of Year 1 available data in accordance with the evaluation plan and the analysis plan. The NYU team analyzed data on satisfaction with and perceived fairness of the CRC process, perception of their own impact on the CRC process, support by commanders for treatment plans (e.g., commander perceptions, commander attendance record, FAP SW reports of how often they were able to reach commanders), interagency collegiality & coordination, FAP perceptions of case attention, case presentation and assessment quality, and decision agreement b/w CRC and master reviewers. As requested by Army MEDCOM HQ, a brief summary was submitted on 29 Nov 16 as part of the Y1 deliverables. A more comprehensive data collection report was submitted on 20 Jan 2017 to include the entirety of all data that was collected through 01 November 2016. Results from this report were discussed with the Army MEDCOM leadership team at San Antonio on 24-25 Jan 2017. The research team trained, monitored, and mentored government personnel at each site to ensure they implement theCase Review Committee (CRC) model in accordance with the respective model policies and procedures. In-person trainings at each of ten garrisons took place starting 09 Nov 2016 and ending 01 Feb 2017. Biweekly teleconferences were held between the FAP-Cs of each site and NYU's Ms. Paulette Graham for two months following in-person training to ensure each site's understanding of the newly implemented CRC Reboot procedures. During these meetings, Ms. Graham reviewed with the FAP-C's common errors in their write-ups and in their understanding and use of the DTA. A document with a list of the most common mistakes was sent to Ms. Cindi Geeslin (MEDCOM) after the final meeting. The research team performed all on-going quantitative and qualitative data collection procedures to test the CRC model, such as database extracts, interviews, surveys, and/or direct observation in accordance with the evaluation plan. As of 31 August 2017, the following sites completed their CRC phase data collection with CRC Members, Social Workers, Commanders, and Outside Social Service Agencies: Hood, JBLM, Bragg, Riley, Schofield, Bliss, Drum and Campbell; In an effort to maximize our participation, data collection with Soldiers and Families continues to proceed across all sites. One additional protocol launched during this phase: Assessing the cost of each maltreatment substantiation model (CRC vs. IDC). Time sheets were handed out to FAP staff twice during each phase to capture the amount of time and money spent on CRC- and IDC-related activities. All sites have completed their second wave of data collection. These data were collected from mid-April to July. The data are now being prepared for analysis.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/16
Outputs
Target Audience:The target audience reached by our efforts during this reporting period only included the following from each of the 10 participating Army sites: 1) FAP staff(i.e., FAP-Chiefs, Deputy FAP-Chiefs, Clinical Supervisors, Social Workers) 2) Unit commanders that attended CRC meetings 3) Non-FAP CRC members that the attended CRC meetings (e.g., chaplains, doctors, JAG, CID, MPs) Changes/Problems:The original proposal indicated that the NYU research team would compare 3 distinct maltreatment case review models (i.e., CRC, IDC, Modified IDC model) As instructed by Army Headquarters, we have dropped the third model and will have 2 distinct models for comparison (i.e., CRC and IDC). What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The research team conducted two one-hourremote video trainings (with FAP chiefs, clinical supervisors, and assessment staff) at each of the 10 participating sites between 08 September and 26 October 2016.The purpose of the first remote training was to (1) summarize some of the challenges and variations that were seen at different sites during the initial site visits and (2) provide FAP clinicians and supervisors with a strong and detailed understanding of the criteria in the Decision Tree Algorithm (DTA). The purpose of the second remote training was to (1) provide update guidance (i.e., guidance on reasonable suspicion of matreatment, determining which cases get brought to CRC, how to assign case numbers, when to vote on cases separately or together); (2) provide training on assessment of acts and impacts (especially on problematic DTA criteria to ensure thorough assessment of all DTA criteria; and (3) train personnel on the revised DTA write-up structure. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The research team will continue to train the remaining 6 site-coordinators to become master reviewers of CRC voting decisions. We anticipate the remaining 6 site-coordinators will meet criteria in the next reporting period.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
1. The research team completed a comprehensive literature review on the approaches to substantiating allegations of partner and child maltreatment and was submitted to Army Headquarters as requested. 2. The research team conducted a total of 10 sitevisits with each of the participating Army bases (i.e., Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, Fort Riley, Joint Base Lewis McChord, Fort Stewart, Fort Campbell, Fort Bliss, Fort Carson, Schofield Barracks, Fort Drum) between February 2016 and May 2016. The purpose of these visits were to conduct focus groups and interviewswith non-FAP and FAP CRC members to assess current CRC functioning. The research team had the opportunity to attend a CRC meeting at each of the 10 sites to observe current CRC processes.A formal site-visit report was drafted to summarize the outcome of the 10 site-vists and sent to Army Headquarters as requested. 3. The research team assessed the current, baseline functioning of the CRCs at all 10 participating sites. We collected baseline data from FAP social workers (one-time assessment, post-CRC assessments), CRC members (one-time assessment, post-CRC assessments), and commanders who attend CRC (assessment each time they attended CRC). We collected data on (a) satisfaction with and perceived fairness of the CRC process; (b) perception of their own impact on the CRC process; (c) support by commanders for treatment plans (e.g., commander perceptions, commander attendance record, FAP Social Worker reports of how often they were able to reach commanders); (d) interagency collegiality and coordination; (e) FAP perceptions of case attention; (f) case presentation and assessment quality. In total, we collected 923 assessments for the baseline period. In addition, we collected substantiation decisions at approximately 95 CRCs, which comprised approximately 1000 cases. We instituted procedures for training our research sitecoordinators at each site to become master reviewers and 4 of the 10 individuals have successfully met the criteria for being signed off as a master reviewers.
Publications
|
|