Jesse C. Suter

The family bereavement program: efficacy evaluation of a theory-based prevention program for parentally bereaved children and adolescents.

This article presents an experimental evaluation of the Family Bereavement Program (FBP), a 2-component group intervention for parentally bereaved children ages 8-16. The program involved separate groups for caregivers, adolescents, and children, which were designed to change potentially modifiable risk and protective factors for bereaved children. The evaluation involved random assignment of 156 families (244 children and adolescents) to the FBP or a self-study condition. Families participated in assessments at pretest, posttest, and 11-month follow-up. Results indicated that the FBP led to improved parenting, coping, and caregiver mental health and to reductions in stressful events at posttest. At follow-up, the FBP led to reduced internalizing and externalizing problems, but only for girls and those who had higher problem scores at baseline.

Effectiveness of the Wraparound Process for Children with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders: A Meta-Analysis

Wraparound is a team-based service planning and coordination process intended to improve outcomes for children and youth with serious emotional and behavioral disorders and support them in their homes, schools, and communities. Given the substantial resources devoted to implementing wraparound, a meta-analysis of outcome studies was conducted to better understand current empirical support for this process. A literature search identified seven studies between 1986 and 2008 that documented the effects of youth receiving wraparound compared to control groups. Mean treatment effects across outcome domains ranged from medium for youth living situation (0.44) to small for mental health outcomes (0.31), overall youth functioning (0.25), school functioning (0.27), and juvenile justice-related outcomes (0.21). The overall mean effect size across studies was 0.33. Interpretation of results was complicated by the lack of consistent documentation of implementation fidelity across studies and conditions, variations in target population and intended outcomes, and methodological concerns. The authors conclude that, though the published wraparound research base is expanding and findings are largely positive, it continues to be in a preliminary state of development. However, there are insufficient data to support calls for wraparound’s acceptance or dismissal based on the strength of existing studies.

Guidelines for Selecting Alternatives to Overreliance on Paraprofessionals: Field-Testing in Inclusion-Oriented Schools:

This 5-year multisite mixed-methods evaluation study chronicles the field-testing of the planning process Guidelines for Selecting Alternatives to Overreliance on Paraprofessionals in 26 schools (Grades K—12) in six states. Evaluation of the utilization and outcomes of the guidelines process was based on data from 472 study participants. Findings highlight (a) reasons why schools decided to utilize the process; (b) self-assessment ratings, selected priorities, and actions pursued by the schools; (c) consumer feedback; and (d) the impact of the guidelines process in the schools. Primary areas of impact included changes in special educator caseloads and paraprofessional utilization, extension of inclusive opportunities, and improvement in classroom collaboration and practices. Implications for schools and future research are discussed.

Is It Wraparound Yet? Setting Quality Standards for Implementation of the Wraparound Process

The wraparound process has increasingly been used as a mechanism to plan and coordinate services for children with behavioral health needs and their families. This has led to growing interest in assessing wraparound implementation against standards for quality. However, there has been little consideration of how best to establish such benchmarks or guidelines. Using both a norm-referenced and criterion-referenced approach, this study established preliminary criteria for assessing the adequacy of wraparound implementation using the Wraparound Fidelity Index, version 3, a multi-informant interview that assesses conformance to wraparound principles. The evaluation system was then applied to ten wraparound programs and 11 different study samples assessed via the Wraparound Fidelity Index version 3 in research studies. The system was constructed to discriminate different wraparound conditions assessed in research studies while still being attainable by the ten established wraparound programs. Implications for evaluating wraparound programs and for setting fidelity benchmarks in behavioral health services research are discussed.

Constructively Responding to Requests for Paraprofessionals We Keep Asking the Wrong Questions

Paraprofessional utilization has steadily risen in an effort to meet the needs of students with disabilities in inclusion-oriented classrooms. To date, no widely accepted processes exist to assist schools in determining when the use of paraprofessional staff is warranted. Many schools have attempted to fill this void by developing local processes designed to justify paraprofessional assignment. This article describes how justification approaches to paraprofessional decision making operate from a reactive posture, include inherently problematic criteria, and perpetuate socially constructed myths that certain students need one-to-one paraprofessionals. An alternative framework for making decisions is offered through a series of school/district- and classroom/team-level concepts and corresponding actions that can be pursued in developing proactive processes and practices tailored to local contexts.

Revisiting Personnel Utilization in Inclusion-Oriented Schools:

Implementing research-based curricula and instruction in inclusion-oriented schools is helped or hindered by having coherent models of service delivery accounting for the full range of student diversity. The current investigation offers data from 174 participants in 32 schools, analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation, and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). The findings offer replication of special education service delivery data from an earlier study, new descriptive data, and HLM analyses that identify special educator school density (the number of special educator full-time equivalents to total school population) and individual special educators’ Individualized Education Program (IEP) caseload size as variables predictive of special educators’ ratings of the conduciveness of their working conditions to providing effective special education for students on IEPs.

Special Education Personnel Utilization and General Class Placement of Students with Disabilities: Ranges and Ratios

2006a), approximately six million U.S. students with disabilities (Ages 6–21) were being served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). Approximately 54% had their primary placement (80% of the time or more) in general education classes (U.S. Department of Education , 2006b). Although this represented a 21% increase since 1990 (see Figure 1), variability across states remained wide, ranging from under 10% in Virginia to nearly 78% in North Dakota. Variability across disability categories was similarly wide. For example , over 84% of students identified with speech or language impairments had their primary placement in general education classes, whereas less than 16% with intellectual disabilities (labeled by the federal government as mental retardation) had primary placements in general education. Personnel (e.g., special educators, related services providers, paraprofessionals) represents a key resource to support the education of students with disabilities across settings. To explore relationships among personnel utilization in full-time equivalents (FTEs) and general class placement rates, we compiled data from federally reported sources to present a series of ratios and correlations (Sable & Noel, 2008; U.S. Department of Education 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2006d). These data may begin to illuminate the availability of personnel supports for students with disabilities (see Table 1). The ratio of special educator FTEs to the number of students with disabilities in the United States receiving special education in 2006 was approxi-WA, WY). Sometimes special educators have responsibilities in addition to working with students receiving special education. Therefore, another way to consider the availability of special educators is the ratio of special educator FTEs to total enrollment (students with and without disabilities). Nationally , in the 2006–2007 school year, there was one special educator FTE for every 121 students ofcial educators in some states served nearly twice as many students with disabilities compared with other states, and some states had only half as many special educators per total enrollment as others. Nationally, there was a ratio of one special education paraprofessional FTE for nearly every 17 students with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education , 2006a, 2006d). In all but two states (OH, NJ), the ratios ranged from approximately 1:4 in Vermont to 1:37 in Texas. Although all of the federally reported data likely include some level of inaccuracy , paraprofessional data should be viewed with extra caution because interpretative and defi-nitional differences may have resulted in underre-porting. Questionable outliers (e.g., OH, 1:155; NJ, …

Precarious or Purposeful? Proactively Building Inclusive Special Education Service Delivery on Solid Ground

The absence of unified and inclusive special education service delivery models represents a longstanding challenge to the education of students with the full range of disabilities in inclusive schools and classrooms. An exemplar model is offered for elementary schools within a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) framework. To establish its practicality and cost-neutrality, the development of the exemplar model was based on personnel utilization data from 69 schools. After building a case for the importance of proactively developing inclusive models of special education service delivery, this article describes: (a) the types and source of the data upon which the exemplar model is based, (b) a set of underlying assumptions, (c) school demographic parameters upon which the exemplar model is based, (d) a comparison of 13 key variables between their actual averages in sampled schools with their proposed status in the exemplar model, and (e) nine conceptual and programmatic shifts designed to accompany the structural changes presented in the exemplar model. The article concludes with implications for practice and future research. Overall, the exemplar model is offered as a starting point to spur discussion, creative problem solving, and action planning to explore model development suited to local contexts.

Foster Youth Perceptions on Educational Well-Being:

Educational outcomes for youth in foster care are concerning. The achievement gap is close to 1 school year between youth in foster care and the general population (Smithgall, Gladden, Howard, Goerge, & Courtney, 2004). Although there has been research on the educational disparities between youth in foster care and the general population, the field has not yet heard the voices of youth within the system about their educational experiences while in custody. The purposes of this manuscript are to (a) describe a study which engaged youth in foster care in sharing experiences and opinions about their educational successes in a participatory manner, (b) explore the relationship between perceived student engagement and educational outcomes, and (c) harness the suggestions of these youth in policy and practice improvements supporting their educational well-being.