Policy & Practice | October 2021

Any seismic shift of this nature takes considerable time, resources,

General not only listened, but provided the avenue for a pilot rollout of the 30 Days to Family® program in Ohio through the use of Victims of Crime Act funding. The rollout was ambitious: installation of the program in nine counties, spread all throughout the state, in just one year. The program, living in this bridge space, met a need for the state. But then the challenge of scaling the program came into intense relief. The success of 30 Days to Family® Ohio was based largely in part on the stage-based implementation process. With so many counties interested in replicating, the first step was to have a solid Exploration Process. This process started with speaking to each interested county and going through a Goodness of Fit assess- ment. Review of things like: what are the current intake numbers; how many of those children are not placed with family when they enter care; what is the county’s current buy-in to the importance of family place- ment; and most important; does the county’s policy allow for a child to be placed with family in 30 days? With Ohio being a county-administered system, the answers varied widely county-by-county. Once the Exploration Phase of the first few counties was complete, we moved into the Installation Phase. This included engagement with the key stakeholders of each county, hiring of the 30 Days to Family® staff, and training on the program. While in Installation with Phase 1 counties, Exploration of Phase 2 counties was also taking place. There were many moving parts, and there was not much time to take into account the lessons learned from the initial counties before interacting with subsequent counties. In essence, with a rollout this large, we were building the plane while we were flying. We didn’t realize how complicated and nuanced replication of the program on a large scale would be. With each new county coming on board, the processes became a little more defined, and then even more refined. When there are so many people doing the work, there must be one clear process and answers must be readily available at everyone’s

intentionality, and examination. Obvious, right? But sadly, our systems often cannot account for the logical difficulty and time it takes for systemic change to occur.

safer one for children, families, com- munities, and workforces. The 30 Days to Family® program was recently accepted into

fingertips. There were not enough hours in the day for a small replica- tion team to provide personalized attention to each and every question. Replication manuals were bolstered, supplemental trainings and Learning Communities were held, and fidelity measures were established. Once a tried and true process was in place, for each step of the implementation, 30 Days to Family® was easily integrated into the next county. Kinnect has supported 17 counties in the replication of 30 Days to Family® Ohio and is in the process of adding at least 5 more counties! 30 Days to Family® Ohio has also transitioned into a formal partnership directly with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. An independent study on the replication of 30 Days to Family® in Ohio was conducted and has been submitted for publication. The study demonstrates the same stellar results in Ohio, proving that the program and the results can be replicated! So now we return to the main thematic thread of this article, the need for programs that gently, but with evidence, guide the child welfare system “upstream.” The use of 30 Days to Family® gives one example of how a program can adapt and scale in a needed space. Now to the bigger message that the “space” is the unbuilt bridge. Globally, systems have seen decreased positive outcomes for children and families as rapid or drastic changes are rolled out on inhumane timelines. Our message of hope is that programs like 30 Days to Family® and many others exist in this unbuilt bridge and can help make the transition—that the Families First Act and other legislative pushes ask for—a

the California Evidence Based Clearinghouse with a rating of

“3—Promising Research Evidence,” under Permanency Enhancement Interventions for Adolescents, and a “High” relevance to the field of child welfare. The program is currently under consideration by the Title IV- E Prevention Services Clearinghouse. Please visit our website at www.forchildwelfare.org to learn more or contact Melanie Moredock at melanie@forchildwelfare.org . For information about Kinnect, please visit www.kinnectohio.org or contact Stephanie Beleal at stephanie.beleal@ kinnectohio.org. Reference Notes 1. United Nations General Assembly. (2019). Promotion and Protection of the Rights of Children. Seventy-fourth session. United Nations General Assembly. (2010, February 24). Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children: Resolution/adopted by the General Assembly, A/RES/64/142 | United Nations General Assembly. (1989). United Nations General Assembly Convention on 2. van IJzendoorn, M., Bakermans- Kranenburg, M., Duschinsky, R., Fox, N., Goldman, P., Gunnar, M., Johnson, …Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S. (2020). Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 1: A systematic and integrative review of evidence regarding effects on development. The Lancet Psychiatry , S2215-0366. 3. Atkinson, A.J. (2019). 30 Days to Family®: Confirming theoretical and actual outcomes. Child Welfare, 97 (4), 97–129. the Rights of the Child, UN document A/RES/44/25 United Nations (1989).

19

October 2021 Policy&Practice