6 Acceder a oportunidades de trabajo digno

In the face of substantial measurement complexity it is not surprising that there is debate in

the child welfare literature as to the optimum approach. Within this discussion Magura &

Moses

( 1 986)

contrast client status variables are defined as changes in client (child or parent's) behaviour, knowledge or resources including changes in functioning. Case status variables are often referred to as proxy variables as they substitute for client status variables when other measures cannot be readily developed. Case status variables commonly used are rates of foster care placement change, discharge from care or adoption. As Magura & _{Moses ( 1 986)}

warn, while case status measures are useful they are only indicative of system change, or:

a transformation in the way clients are being serviced by the child welfare system. One m ust be careful not to conclude however, that changes in such performance indicators necessarily

connote changes in client situations (Magura & _{Moses, 1 986 p.6).}

J. G. Barber & _{Scott ( 1 996) outline four approaches to measuring child welfare outcomes}

and identify the probable error associated with each one. These are: client self report, key informant report, observation and inference from known facts, events or case history data. Self report, involves asking the individuals concerned about their feelings and behaviours whereas observation involves direct examination or study. Key informants are those people in positions of knowledge who act as sources of measurement. In respect of known events, inference is based on the case history events, which are used as proxies for measuring feelings or behaviour in the manner of case status variables. In order to deal with error, Barber and Scott recommend incorporating all measurement options into an outcomes framework (1. G. Barber & _{Scott, 1 996).}

Such mUltiple sources of measurement have wide support in the child welfare outcomes literature. Magura & _{Moses ( 1 986), Kolko ( 1 998) and McCroskey ( 1 997) recommend}

triangulated measurement of the same indicator and advocate the use of independent assessment by clients and workers. Agreement also exists across jurisdictions about the interim use of case event data sources as proxy measures, while improvements in other measurement options are made (Gain & _{Young, 1 998).}

The timing of outcome measurement is also important. Longitudinal designs are preferred over cross sectional studies, as they offer an overview of a child's intervention history, sequence of experience and can search for risk and resilience variables (Parker et ai., 1 99 1 ). Appropriate points to measure are needed across the intervention continuum, spanning notification, assessment, intervention, discharge and post discharge. The poles of this continuum are often controversial. Durie (200 1 ) for example, in discussing Maori health outcomes identifies five "clinical endpoints", arguing that even assessment, not normally considered an intervention in itself, can be considered therapeutic. Although outcome measurement in a child welfare context is usually concentrated on the period of intervention,

others argue that accurate assessment of quality of life requires post intervention measurement (S. J. Wells & _{Johnson, 200 1).}

The debate about timing is often referred to in terms of proximal and distal measurement, although both conceptual and temporal distinctions between these two poles can be found in the literature. As Gain & _{Young ( 1 998) explain, proximal measures include those indicators}

close in time to the intervention along with measures which are closely linked conceptually, for example family functioning measurement is proximal to the outcome of programmes designed to improve family functioning. Distal measures are those more distant in time (for example, post-discharge measurement) or less immediately linked conceptually. For example, out of home placement rates as a measure of outcomes of a family support programme. Others describe choices about timing in terms of the merits of summative evaluation (focused on a fIxed question about effectiveness using aggregated results) and formative evaluation (continuous, designed to influence practice) (patton, 2002). The Looking After Children framework was designed as a formative system offering social workers information about outcomes to feed into their practice (Parker et aI., 199 1 ).

The use of standardised measurement tools, of which scales, checklist and inventories are common, is also widely discussed (Gain & Young, 1 998). Standardised measurement is viewed by many as essential to the comparison of outcome data (Magura & _{Moses, 1 986;}

Rapp & _{Poertner, 1 987) and a wide range of tools have been developed to measure outcomes}

such as family functioning and child wel l-being. In the United States, for example, the use of standardised systems based on the principles of psychometric measurement is widespread, enabling direct client comparisons (Huxley, 1 994). This approach is less common in other parts of the world; such as New Zealand and Australia.

Criticism of the use of standardised tools is multifaceted. Some argue that they over-simplify complex phenomena and there are methodological problems to overcome such as validity and reliability (Parker et aI., 1 99 1 ). Scales can be viewed as time-consuming, alienating to clients and difficult to administer skilfully, their results require interpretation and they are

insufficiently endorsed by social work practitioners (Kuechler, Velasquez, & _{White, 1 988).}

Measurement questions have been raised about standardised scoring approaches, for example the extent to which scales have been normed for a child welfare popUlation (Parker et aI.,

1 99 1 ). Items of different degrees are sometimes summated without weightings, for example within the INCADEX instrument, a checklist of 1 34 items indicating abuse and neglect are scored as present or absent where seriousness ranges from skin damage to dismemberment or

are not useful either for one-time case assessment or for measuring case change" (Magura

& _{Moses, 1986 p. l 8).}

Despite the concerns above, standardised measures are common. A modified version of a scale for measuring emotional and behavioural problems can be found in the Looking After Children framework, although it relies on subjective judgement of a social worker. On this basis, Gain & _{Young ( 1 998) anticipate that standardised measurement will be a likely feature}

of future outcome development outside United States child welfare systems.