RUNNING HEAD: PHASE 3

Phase 3
Ashley Merrill
Fk8083
SW3810
Wayne State University

PHASE 3

Families can experience moments of crisis that can involve the children being removed
from the parent or guardians custody. Supervised visitation is intended to provide a safe
environment for the parent and child or children to formulate a bond with the parent and for the
parent to regain custody of the child. The following question regarding a supervised visitation
strategy has been formulated. If parents who have lost custody of their children receive visitation
provided by a supervised visitation agency versus those who did not participate with a supervised
visitation agency, will it result in regained custody for the parents and safe environment for the
children?
This intervention is specifically used for families and more specifically the parent/child
relationship. The need for this social service is important. Without this social service there does
not seem to be another way to integrate a parent and child relationship safely. Family crisis of
physical and emotional abuse, neglect, substance abuse or incarceration need ways to rebuild
after the crisis diminishes. The intervention would take place in a grant funded social family
services agency. For study purposes this intervention was practiced at Floridas Department of
Children and Families. The test of this intervention is whether or not it is effective in rebuilding
these relationships between the parent and child.
This is a retrospective research study to ensure it did not interferer with the actual
treatment. All data was gathered over 4 months after the participants supervised visitation was
terminated. The research used two groups consisting of European Americans and African
Americans. The group also consisted of families participating in a supervised visitation program
versus families not participating in a visitation program. The study shows overall effectiveness
for families that participated in a supervised visitation agency.

PHASE 3

In the study, The Effectiveness of a Visitation Program in Fostering Visits with

Noncustodial Parents (Ansay & Perkins, 1998) the researchers used a posttest-only control
group design. According to Babbie & Rubin (2013), A variation of the classic experimental
design that avoids the possible testing effects associated with pretesting by testing only after the
experimental group receives the intervention, based on the assumption that the process of
random assignment provides for equivalence between the experimental and control groups on the
dependent variable before the exposure to the intervention (p. 238). The researchers in the
study collected the data used only after the families had completed their visitation period. The
researchers did not want the outcome to be skewed on account of the families participating
knowing that there outcomes were being tested.
The internal validity was primarily intact throughout the study due to the
conditions of exposure to the families. Ansay & Perkins (1998) explained that, Although
families were not randomly assigned to participate in the supervised visitation center, threats to
internal validity are minimized with the case being that families in both groups are exposed to
the same environmental conditions (such as agency protocol and politics). Due to the fact the
families selected were all involved in a social system that made them all prospective participants
it did not have a variable in which one is or is not the cause of the other because they were all the
in the same system. While there were not threats to the internal validity if the researchers were
to change a variable there could be possible threats. Maturation or the passage of time could be a
threat to the internal validity of this study. Had the researchers used families in which one of the
children went from 17 years old to 18 years old over the course of the three months the
supervised visitation went on it could have threated the outcome. At 18 a child becomes an adult
and if they child had chosen to, they could decide for themselves not to participate in the

PHASE 3

supervised visitation any longer. Thus the outcome would have changed due to early
termination.
The external validity was controlled by using only those families in which a Judge
determined the supervised visitation was necessary. The determination was based on the severity
of abuse in each families case. The Judge was in control of which families would be in need of
the services. To make the findings generalizable the researchers used two groups consisting of
European Americans and Africa Americans. This validates that not just once race will have had
the opportunity to benefit from the services.
The sample consisted of families in the state of Florida from Floridas Department of
Children and Families that participated in supervised visitation under the supervision of a case
worker within the supervised visitation agency (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). There were two groups
used in this intervention. One group was European American and the other group was African
Americans (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). The study was not to show which race/ethnicity was more
effective but the overall effectiveness for all families involved. The overall cases in the study
used for effectiveness included those families that participated in the intervention and those
families that did not. Over the course of three months an initial 101 families made up the sample
size (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). Due to incomplete records for eighteen of the families that were
recommend to the supervised visitation agency, they were omitted from the study (Ansay &
Perkins, 1998). The result of incomplete cases left 83 families out of the initial 101 to be used in
the study (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). Out of the 83 families left, 48 participated in supervised
visitation and 35 did not (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). According to Ansay and Perkins (1998),
Families involved in the supervised visitation center did not statistically differ from families
who were not involved in the supervised visitation center in terms of ethnicity, marital status, or

PHASE 3

reasons for placement in foster care. The split between European Americans and African
Americans was almost fifty-fifty (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). Most of the household were female
headed with almost a quarter of the families households being two parent (Ansay & Perkins,
1998). Forty-nine percent of the households only consisted of a single child while almost thirtytwo had two children (Ansay & Perkins, 1998).
All of the children participating were involved in foster care due to harmful risks in their
homes. The reason for a child to be placed outside of their home was abuse physically, medical
neglect, any other form of neglect as well as substance abuse by the parents (Ansay & Perkins,
1998). Physical abuse placed the highest out of all variables of child placement (Ansay &
Perkins, 1998). The family member that inflicted most of the abuse in these cases were the
mother (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). This is not surprising as mentioned earlier 69% of the
households were female headed. The father was the second most likely perpetrator followed by
the grandfather, boyfriend and other (Ansay & Perkins, 1998).
The advantage to the sampling strategy is that it only uses cases in which a judge
recommend the supervision. It did not include the families that were not in the system such as
families of divorce cases and marital separation. Using families that are not in the system can
skew the results as we are studying the effectiveness in children who are taken out of the home.
Using children in divorce or marital cases could still be in the care of one of the parents and thus
may not need the intervention as severely as the other families in the system. Parents of marital
separation or divorce may not need this actual intervention but an intervention of family therapy,
individual, couples or group counseling instead. There does not appear to be any disadvantages
to this sampling strategy as it covers the groups that are in need of the particular intervention.

PHASE 3

As once employed as a supervised visitation monitor at Livingston Family Center, this

sample is similar in some ways and different in others. At Livingston family Center the noncustodial parents were court ordered to supervised visitation by a Judge. It was the choice of the
non-custodial parent whether they would participate as it was not a requirement but a
recommendation if they wanted to see their child. The non-custodial parents also were in the
system due to physical child abuse, domestic violence, neglect and substance abuse. The
children at this agency differed from the study as they were not children in foster care. They
lived with either the custodial parent or guardian which usually was a grandparent, aunt or uncle.
The key variable in the study were neglected children and abuse by the parent. The study
used both male and female children as well as male and female parents. The ethnicity was
European American and African American. In terms of measurement there not a scale by which
families were candidates but by at the discretion of a Judge in court. The Judge examined the
abuse and severity of each case to conclude whether or not the family would benefit from
supervised visitation. The results were measured by reexamining case notes on the families. Did
the case close or remain open? Is the child still in foster care? Was there reunification between
the parent and child? Did the child turn 18? The many variables factor in to the measurement of
the effectiveness of the supervised visitation. The study does not indicate if there was any follow
up evaluation between the families or caseworkers by the researchers.
From December 1996 through March 1997 data was collected for four months (Ansay &
Perkins, 1998). The data included the intervention that was performed for a three month period
prior to data collection (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). The intervention was performed from July 1st
through September 30th (Ansay & Perkins, 1998). The advantages of the data collection by using
case notes and legal documents is that the results would not be manipulated in anyway. If a child

PHASE 3

was reunited with their parent or not, is a clear cut answer of the outcome. The disadvantage of
this data collection method is that there was no way to get feedback from the actual clients on
whether or not they believed the intervention was effective. If the data had been collected by
using a different method the results could have been false or manipulated, thus not giving an
accurate outcome. For example, if the data collected was done by the participants and not by the
legal documents as case notes, the participants could have not told the truth. Using a phone
interview, face to face interview or any type of survey to gather results could provide false
answers and is at the trusting of the person taking the survey to tell the truth. A parent that was
once a substance abuser could lie and say they are sober and regained custody of their child on a
piece of paper or over the phone. In reality they could still be using drugs and alcohol and the
child could be in custody of a relative or still in the foster care system. The best thing the
researchers could have done was collect the data they way they did by using case notes.
The intervention in in the article would prove effective with the target population of
concentration, which is families, particularly in the system as well as, families out of the system.
It may be more effective if a family is court ordered over a family that is not. A family that is not
court ordered may be dealing with issues not as sever such as divorce or marital issues which
may be resolved with family therapy. The intervention activities and processes are sensitive to
the unique cultural characteristics of the chosen population because it does not take away any of
the cultural characteristics from a family. In the process of supervised visitation families are able
to interact as normal. They are able to bring in games, pictures, videos, meals and clothing as
they would in their own culture. An extra set of eyes is the only difference in their interactions
regarding their ethnicity and culture. The supervised visitation process is not intended to strip
families of their cultural identity but to encourage them in a healthy manner.

PHASE 3

An ethical issue that the study addressed was the lack of case management
documentation. The study noted how thirteen percent of families from the original 101 that were
selected had to be dismissed from the study because of incomplete cases (Ansay & Perkins,
1998). As a social worker it is very important and ethical to keep clear and accurate case notes.
In this case the caseworkers are failing the clients. This could be due to overloading of cases.
Accurate case notes could have been done to include the families dismissed from the study,
causing the sample to be larger.
The intervention identified in this paper addresses that there is a need for the intervention
in specific practice. The results did prove that supervised visitation is an effective way to get
children out of foster care and back into a safe environment which can include reunification with
the non-custodial parent, adoption, custody by a relative or the child becoming a legal adult
(Ansay & Perkins, 1998). According to Ansay and Perkins (2013), Seventy-one percent or 34
of the families who participated in the supervised visitation center had their cases closed
compared to 43% or 25 cases where the family did not [participate in the Family Visitation
Center. The intervention activities of the program strongly relates to the problem. The goal of
the intervention is to take children that were placed out of their homes due to an unsafe
environment at home on the parents behalf reform a relationship and give the parents a second
chance to form a safe environment for the child. The supervised visitation activities of having a
parent and child interact is as close to being at home everyday as they can get without actually
being at home. There is no other intervention that safely places a child and parent that has lost
custody together without the risks of harm.
To implement this intervention the practitioner would need expertise in certain areas.
First the practitioner must have the required credentials such as a Bachelors of Social work or a

PHASE 3

Masters of Social work. A special concentration of families would be a benefit as well as being
familiar with the laws and referrals. In the case of supervised visitation many families are
referred by a court order. A practitioner must be competent in the area of court proceedings.
Also there may be cases in which a practitioner will be subpoenaed by court to show proof of
completion to the Judge before a families case is closed. Also a practitioner must be competent
in documentation of case notes. At every visit there needs to be record of dates and times. Also
needing to be recorded in a document are interactions during the supervised visits as well as the
parents and the childs demeanor. A practitioner should also have expertise in a disclosure
statement, confidentiality, informed consent, assessment, information gathering, implementation,
and evaluation.
One major challenge to making it difficult to implement this intervention into practice
would be lack of funding. Most supervised visitation programs are funded by grants. There
needs to be proof that the intervention strategy is effective in order to get the grants needed to
implement the intervention. The parents that are coming in to supervised visitation have mostly
been court ordered therefore they are more than likely to lack the financial resources to pay for
the services on their own. Many parents may have been incarcerated or in a rehabilitation center
which prevents them from being able to have an income, so funding for programs like supervised
visitation is very important.
A second possible challenge that would make it difficult to implement the intervention of
supervised visitation is that lack of participants. There may be non-custodial parents who even if
they are court ordered to supervised visitation they may not be willing to participate. Neglect of
the child can be a reason the parent is in the legal system in the first place and the parent may
chose to continue neglecting the child and the opportunities given to them.

PHASE 3

10

In the beginning of this research paper there was a practice problem formulated around a
service need. The question formulated was: If parents who have lost custody of their children
receive visitation provided by a supervised visitation agency versus those who did not participate
with a visitation program, will it result in regained custody for the parents and safe environment
for the children? The intervention study was done by using a posttest-only control group design.
The sampling was not random. There was not one ethnic background chosen but two. The
measurement of results was done by evaluating case notes after the families participated in three
months of supervised visitation. Overall the conclusion of the intervention proved as an effective
evidence based practice.

PHASE 3

11
References

Perkins, D., & Ansay, S. (1998). The Effectiveness of a Visitation Program in Fostering Visits
with Noncustodial Parents. Family Relations, 253-253. doi:10.2307/584974
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2013). Essential Research Methods for Social Work (4th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.