Child Welfare System 

Improvement (CWSI)

AmeriCorps Program Evaluation Report | 2014-2016

Child Abuse Prevention Center

4700 Roseville Road 

North Highlands, CA 95660 

thecapcenter.org

January 2017

LPC Consulting Associates, Inc. 

2015 J Street, Suite 205 

Sacramento, CA 95811 

lpc-associates.com 
Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................1

II. Process Evaluation of CWSI Implementation..........................................................................................3

Description of CWSI Program ...................................................................................................................3

Profile of Four CWSI Counties...................................................................................................................4

III. CWSI Program Performance Measures..................................................................................................8

High Risk Parents Served...........................................................................................................................8

Parents Receiving Minimum Services.......................................................................................................8

Family Stress Assessment .........................................................................................................................9

Parents Who Experienced Reduction in Overall Family Stress.............................................................9

Nurturing Parent Program Outcomes.....................................................................................................10

Program Completion...........................................................................................................................10

Improved Parenting Knowledge and Risk Reduction..........................................................................10

Contact with Child Welfare System ....................................................................................................11

IV. Common Themes from Interviews ......................................................................................................12

CWSI Complements Existing Program Models ...................................................................................12

Introducing the NPP: Challenges and Successes.................................................................................13

Fidelity to the NPP Model ...................................................................................................................15

Benefits to the Families Served ..........................................................................................................16

Members as Program Assets ..............................................................................................................16

Most Critical Components and Future Steps......................................................................................17

V. Conclusions and Recommendations.....................................................................................................18

Attachment A | Child Welfare System Improvement AmeriCorps Program Interview Questions ............20

Attachment B | Pre-Post Comparison of AAPI Scores, the Assessment Tool of the NPP...........................22
Table of Figures & Tables

Figure 1 | Counties Participating in CWSI Program and Process Evaluation................................................4

Figure 2 | Percent of Parents in FY14/15 and FY15/16 Receiving at Least 5 Hours CWSI Services..............9

Figure 3 | Percentage of Parents Each Year Reporting Reduced Stress.....................................................10

Figure 4 | Percent of Parents with Improved Parenting Knowledge & Reduction in at Risk Behaviors: 

FY15/16.......................................................................................................................................................11

Figure 5 | Percent of Parents Who Had No CWS/CPS Contact after Completing NPP | FY15-16 ..............12

Table 1 | Overview of CWSI Process Evaluation Sites ..................................................................................7

Table 2 | Total Number of Parents Participating in the CWSI Program Each Fiscal Year.............................8

Table 3 | Number and Percent of Parents Each Year Completing a Stress Assessment ..............................9

Table 4 | Families Initiating and Completing NPP in FY15/16 ....................................................................10
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 1

I. Executive Summary

In FY14/15, Prevent Child Abuse California (PCA CA) implemented the Child Welfare System Improvement 

(CWSI) AmeriCorps Program in 14 sites throughout the state. A total of 60 AmeriCorps members per year 

are fulfilling their national service in this program as “Family Support Aides”. The CWSI Program was 

designed to provide primary prevention services to families who are at a high risk for child abuse and 

neglect, acknowledging that County Child Welfare Systems (CWS/CPS) in California do not have the 

capacity or mandate to provide preventative services. 

This summary report provides a process evaluation for two years of CWSI implementation (FY14/15 and 

FY15/16) and focuses on four of the 14 participating counties (i.e., Humboldt, Sacramento, Yolo, and Yuba) 

representing 30 member placements. Interviews were conducted in November 2016, with program 

managers in each of the four counties. Performance measure data were also collected by each of the 

counties and summarized by year. Several recommendations resulted from the experiences of the four 

counties implementing CWSI in their communities.

CWSI Program Description | The CWSI program uses AmeriCorps members to provide direct support 

services to parents who are presenting one or more risk factors for child abuse and neglect (CAN). The 

CWSI introduces AmeriCorps members into existing Family Resource Centers as Family Support Aides who 

provide: (1) intervention services to meet basic needs as sources of stress, as well as (2) parenting 

education to instill parental confidence and know-how. This combined approach has enormous potential 

to empower families and enhance their own capacity to provide for their families. 

CWSI Program Performance Measures | The CWSI program collected data across multiple performance 

measures for the FY14/15 and FY15/16 program years. Performance measures included in this report 

represent an overview of program implementation, reach, and outcomes from the four featured counties. 

Across the four counties, a total of 1,609 families were served in the first program year (FY14/15) and 

2,403 families were served in FY15/16. Parents receiving at least five hours of service from a CWSI member 

were asked to assess any change in their overall family stress from when they first entered the program. 

On average, over half of the parents reported a reduce stress levels with reported variations across sites 

and years. On average, three-fourths of parents completing at least eight hours of the NPP program, as 

well as having a pre and post-program Adolescent Adult Parenting Inventory (AAPI) assessment, reported 

improved parenting knowledge and a reduction in risk behaviors in FY15/16. Finally, 85 percent of parents 

completing the NPP program across the four sites, had no CWS/CPS contact up to one year after 

completing their program. 

Common Themes from Interviews | Each of the CWSI sites found that the parenting education feature of 

the CWSI was a natural complement to their other existing services. The parenting education component 

and the NPP in particular, enhanced their existing services to reduce risk factors for child abuse and 

neglect they already offered. Overall, the four sites found the NPP curriculum useful and a great resource 

for their families, although they are in need of the NPP parent materials in other languages in addition to 

English and Spanish. The integration of the NPP at the FRCs represented by this sample of CWSI sites 

comes with challenges and successes. 

Among the challenges are timing the delivery of the NPP training if only because the training staff from 

PCA-CA must manage scheduling multiple trainings and go on location for the convenience of the 

participating CWSI sites. At least one site noted that members need extensive training on the NPP, 

followed by supervision and reinforcement of the training. Some members lack confidence to deliver the 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 2

lessons in a class without training, and those who are not parents may feel they may lack credibility with 

their families. Among the reporting successes of implementing the CWSI program and the NPP in 

particular, were the ability to tailor the NPP lessons to the family needs and situation, particularly via 

home visits. The NPP is relatively easy to integrate into the existing home visiting service strategy.

Sites have mixed records of implementing the NPP with fidelity. The NPP is new to three out of four sites, 

and it is more likely to be implemented with fidelity when supervisors or the sites have familiarity and 

longer experience with it. For the more experienced site (with AmeriCorps and NPP) model fidelity is a 

function of regular check-ins with the members implementing the curriculum, as well as integrating AAPI 

results into a review of data and developing responses to family needs.

Interview respondents were unanimous in their regard for parenting education, and that the NPP is a 

model that suits the needs of their families. Furthermore, the CWSI has provided a unique opportunity to 

partner with local CWS/CPS agencies and to provide case management services to families with needs 

well beyond parenting education. Shared commitment to success has emerged as a vital element of the 

partnership between CWS/CPS and local community based organizations hosting CWSI AmeriCorps 

members. 

Recommendations | The sites were unanimous in their appreciation for the NPP training and materials, 

for having AmeriCorps members who represent the community, and for the support they receive from 

PCA-CA. As this program enters its third year, the following are some suggestions from the field.

CWSI Training : The delayed training schedule for members proved to be a challenge for all of the sites, 

in terms of their ability to fully implement the NPP with fidelity. Some specific recommendations that 

came out of the interviews include:

 Reduce time gap between the AmeriCorps basic training, the NPP training, and receipt of all NPP

materials to ensure members are ready to implement what they learn.

 Provide opportunities for troubleshooting after the NPP training across sites, either via

conference call or periodic communications to share ideas and problem solve.

 Keep all sites current with training and materials, and provide ongoing support and re-fresher

trainings.

CWSI Administration: Other suggestions that surfaced from the experiences of the FRC implementing the 

CWI include the following:

 Learn from other sites, from FRCs that represent a mix of communities, family needs and

circumstances, and relationships with CWS/CPS. PCA-CA could harness some of the lessons

learned and share with sites via conference calls (or learn spontaneously via conference call).

 Provide more flexibility regarding ways to integrate the NPP (or at least, share options as they

arise).

 Seek ways to simplify and streamline data reporting requirements. Solicit input from sites that

seem to keep up with data reporting, to learn what they do, and how they do it.

 Facilitate the building of partnerships with CWS/CPS for those FRCs who do not already have an

established relationship with their county’s agencies.
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 3

II. Process Evaluation of CWSI Implementation

In FY14/15, Prevent Child Abuse California (PCA CA) implemented the Child Welfare System Improvement 

(CWSI) AmeriCorps Program in 14 sites throughout the state. A total of 60 AmeriCorps members per year 

are fulfilling their national service in this program as “Family Support Aides”. The CWSI Program was 

designed to provide primary prevention services to families who are at a high risk for child abuse and 

neglect, acknowledging that County Child Welfare Systems (CWS/CPS) in California do not have the 

capacity or mandate to provide preventative services. The CWSI program is critical to supporting at-risk 

families and addresses known stressors that precipitate child abuse and neglect, such as food insecurity, 

inadequate or unstable housing, lack of access to healthcare, limited knowledge of effective parenting 

practices and poor parenting behaviors. CWSI services mitigate these risks by connecting families to 

resources that meet their basic needs, and to reinforce nurturing parenting by teaching and modeling

effective parenting skills.

This summary report provides a process evaluation for two years of CWSI implementation (FY14/15 and 

FY15/16) and focuses on four of the 14 participating counties (i.e., Humboldt, Sacramento, Yolo, and 

Yuba). Interviews were conducted in November 2016, with program managers in each of the four 

counties. Performance measure data were also collected by each of the counties and summarized by year. 

Several recommendations resulted from the experiences of the four counties implementing CWSI in their 

communities.

Description of CWSI Program

The CWSI program uses AmeriCorps members to provide direct support services to parents who are 

presenting one or more risk factors for child abuse and neglect (CAN). For example, resource-poor families 

experience heightened stress when they do not know where they will get their next meal, when they are 

at risk for eviction or live in substandard housing, or when they need healthcare and have no insurance. 

Uncertainty about parenting or lack of confidence may exacerbate these family stressors, putting children 

in the home at greater risk for CAN and/or risk that their basic needs cannot be met by the family. The 

CWSI introduces AmeriCorps members into existing community-based organizations as Family Support 

Aides who provide: (1) intervention services to meet basic needs as sources of stress, as well as (2) 

parenting education to instill parental confidence and know-how. This combined approach has enormous 

potential to empower families and enhance their own capacity to provide for their families. 

Figure 1 is a map of California showing all 14 participating CWSI counties, as well as the four counties that 

are the focus of this process evaluation. CWSI sites are all established within their local communities as 

organizations that systematically provide a wide variety of services to families with children. There are 

various types of agencies and partnerships that make up CWSI sites, including non-profit Family Resource 

Centers (FRCs), Community Action Agencies, local Child Abuse Prevention Councils, and County CWS/CPS 

Departments. Most CWSI AmeriCorps members serve at FRCs, while a few serve at a public agency. These 

service providers All CWSI sites are well known in their respective communities as directservice providers.

Sites make referrals to other services in the community and serve as portals to access emergency services 

to fulfill these and other basic needs for families with limited resources. As partners in the CWSI, FRCs 

have the flexibility to customize their programs and staffing in order to meet the high need families and 

issues addressing their communities. FRCs can receive referrals directly from their local level CWS/CPS 

agencies, as well as from school systems, criminal justice systems, other service provider agencies, and 

via word of mouth. 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 4

Profile of Four CWSI Counties

Humboldt, Sacramento, Yolo, and Yuba Counties were selected to highlight the different ways in which 

CWSI was implemented across the state. The selection of these sites was based on recommendations 

from PCA-CA, to reflect sites with multiple AmeriCorps member placements, depth of experience with the 

NPP parenting education curriculum, and representation of varied program designs. Overall, these four 

counties account for half of all of the AmeriCorps members who are engaged in the CWSI Program and 

had average or above-average NPP data results. 

Figure 1 | Counties Participating in CWSI Program and Process Evaluation
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 5

The four sites represent a range of program placements within the communities served, in terms of the 

host organization that has AmeriCorps members providing the NPP curriculum through home visiting, 

family resource center (FRC) classes, or a combination of the two delivery mechanisms. All four of these 

parenting education initiatives operates out of some form of a family resource center, which has a history 

and a tradition of providing services in support of families. However, each site has specific circumstances 

and contexts in which they integrated the NPP parenting education component. Below each of the CWSI 

included in this evaluation are discussed and their implementation profiles are summarized in Table 1

below. 

Humboldt County

The CWSI program in Humboldt County is Assisting Families to Access Change Through Resources 

(AFACTR) and is administered by the Redwood Community Action Agency (RCAA) which contracts with 

seven FRCs throughout the county. The RCAA has been working in the county for close to 35 years, 

providing services to primarily rural, low-income families. A total of 10 AmeriCorps are in the CWSI 

program. The Humboldt FRCs have a long-term partnership with the Humboldt County CWS/CPS. They 

have a contract to engage referrals via Differential Response and function as an extended service for 

CWS/CPS families in need. 

Some of the FRCs had previously used the Parent Project curriculum but this was the first time that many 

of the FRCs offered parenting education. The RCAA reported that their FRCs used the curriculum 

somewhat “ad hoc and not universal”, with challenges in both delivering NPP and getting parents to sign 

up to participate. The primary reason given was the roll out of the NPP training which ended up not being 

sufficient for the members to feel prepared or comfortable to provide the lessons (this is discussed below). 

One strategy that was used to engage parents with NPP was to integrate the lessons into established 

playgroups. 

Parents from the playgroups and generating connections at that level, has proven to be a successful way 

to integrate the NPP with other programming. These parents are already there, it is more relaxed time 

for them, they are sharing ideas and challenges related to being a parent, and they are developing all of 

these social connections with one another even more with the NPP. These connections facilitate the 

potential for benefitting from the NPP lessons. Humboldt County

The RCAA FRCs also provide basic needs for families, including Adult Family Services, homeless shelter for 

adults and families, youth shelter, oral hygiene lessons, energy assistance, and natural resources. 

Sacramento County

The Birth & Beyond (B&B) AmeriCorps program has existed for nearly 20 years and is well established and 

delivered through nine FRCs located in neighborhoods identified as having the highest rates of CAN in the 

county. The program is coordinated through the Child Abuse Prevention Center, which contracts with five 

community-based organizations to operate the FRCs. The FRCs are located in primarily urban 

neighborhoods that are home to some of the most diverse populations in the state, including many 

Hispanic, African American, Russian, Hmong, and recent immigrant and refugee families. 

B&B has a close working relationship with Sacramento County Child Protection Services, and receives 

differential response referrals and other referrals through a network of partnerships with other 

community service providers. Sacramento CWS/CPS is also currently funding the B&B program’s 

expansion to serve families with children six years and older. While the B&B AmeriCorps program applied 

to CaliforniaVolunteers/Corporation for National and Community Service for additional slots for the 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 6

2016/19 grant cycle (and was subsequently awarded), CWSI members were utilized to launch the pilot 

expansion.

B&B has used the NPP (0-5 years) curriculum since 2010, and delivers parenting education through 

structured home visitation and FRC classes. Likewise, B&B has integrated the delivery of the 0-5 NPP 

curriculum into the policies and procedures, along with a robust data collection system. Sacramento 

County was selected for this evaluation because their CWSI members implemented a brand new NPP 

curriculum, NPP for School Age Children in FY14/15. Even though CWSI members will no longer be serving 

at B&B sites going forward, the lessons learned from Sacramento County can be applied to all CWSI sites.

In addition to parenting lessons, B&B provides case management for their families as well as crises 

intervention service to meet pressing needs. The B&B FRCs also operate as community centers, offering 

a large range of stress-relief and recreational services such as play-dates, celebrations, exercise classes, 

and support groups, along with providing free childcare as needed while parents attend these activities. 

Yolo County

Yolo County Children’s Alliance (YCCA) is the CWSI partner in the county, and the only FRC in the area. 

They are surrounded by three elementary schools in a primarily suburban community and serve a 

population of largely Spanish and Russian speaking families, as well as recent immigrants. YCCA has been 

in the community since 2012. 

YCCA is in the process of forming a relationship with their County CWS/CPS agency, as most of the family 

services in the county have been mainly delivered through community health clinics (FQHCs). The NPP 

curriculum is the first attempt for YCCA to implement open parenting classes with their FRCs. They are 

currently providing classes at two schools, and the classes provided in Spanish are especially popular. 

With the CWSI, YCCA has been able for the first time to hold community events, which have greatly helped 

in their outreach efforts to introduce their FRC and services to families. The FRC also provides resources 

and referrals to their family, early childhood education, developmental screenings, and access to quality 

food. 

Yuba County

GraceSource is the implementing partner of the CWSI program in Yuba County, and has been operating 

the FRC in the community since 1998. This FRC serves families who have all had some contact with child 

welfare, though the investigation did not result in CWS/CPS opening a case. Yuba County is predominately 

Caucasian and Hispanic, and struggles with poverty and substance abuse.

GraceSource currently has a differential response contract for Path 1 and Path 2 referrals, and is the only 

county with a CWS/CPS worker embedded in the project who works on site at the FRC. The CWS/CPS 

worker is responsible for reviewing all evaluated-out referrals to determine if they should be referred to 

the FRC, and logging and tracking referrals for data collection purposes. The CWS/CPS worker also assigns 

referrals at the Multi-Disciplinary Team meeting each week and is involved in scheduling home visits, and 

facilities the initial contact with parents.

The FRC has an established home visiting program in which they used the NPP curriculum. In the first 

year, they found it challenging to integrate the 10 lessons they were limited to, and find the full 55 

lessons provide the ability to customize the lessons to the particular needs of the families they are 

serving. The NPP classes are also being provided to the general community (i.e., families who are not 

currently being case managed) and these classes have been held at the local library. 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 7

The CWSI program in Yuba is focused on the differential response families and providing case 

management and crisis intervention services. 

Table 1 | Overview of CWSI Process Evaluation Sites

Site Characteristics Humboldt

County

Sacramento

County

Yolo

County

Yuba

County

Host organization

Redwood 

Community Action 

Agency (RCAA)

Birth & Beyond 

Program, via CAPC 

contracts with 5 

CBOs

Yolo County 

Children’s Alliance GraceSource FRC

Total FRC Sites 7 FRCs 9 FRCs 1 FRC 1 FRC

Total AmeriCorps 

Members

10 total

1-2 per site

15 total

1-3 per site 3 total 2 total

Years in Community 35 years 20 years 4 years 18 years

Community 

Characteristics Primarily rural

Urban

Ethnically Diverse

Recent Immigrants

Suburban

Ethnically Diverse

Recent Immigrants

Rural

Relationship with 

CWS/CPS

 Long-term

partnership

 DR referrals and

some funding.

 Long-term

partnership

 DR referrals

 Receives

program funding

for 6+ families

 Initial stages of

forming

relationship

 CWS contracts

with organization

for FRC funding

 Contract with

CWS for DR

referrals. CWS

social worker

“embedded” at

FRC site

NPP Parenting Education 

 Sporadically

Implemented

 Integrated into

Play Groups

 Introduced

school-aged

curriculum after

history with 0-5

lessons.

 Home visitation

 FRC classes

 Some lessons (0-

5 and Schoolaged) integrated

into home

visitation

 Classes provided

at neighboring

schools

 Home visitation

to DR referred

families

 Community

classes at schools

Other Services Provided

 Basic needs for

low income

families

 Case

management via

home visiting

 Family Resource

Centers

 Crisis

Intervention

 Referral and

resources for

Medi-Cal,

CalFresh,

CalWorks

 Case

management

 Case

management via

home visiting

 Multi-disciplinary

Team

 Family Resource

Centers

While the four CWSI implementing partners all implemented the program to address their current 

program capacities and needs in their communities, the sites also shared many similarities. All four of 

these counties have established family resource centers in their respective communities prior to the 

introduction of the CWSI; some have long history with AmeriCorps placements. All have AmeriCorps 

members who have received training for the CWSI to provide parenting education via the Nurturing 

Parenting Program (NPP) model, including use of the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Index (AAPI) as a 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 8 

measure of change along five constructs of parenting. And all sites partner with their local CWS/CPS 

agency in one way or another, and they integrate the NPP with existing service modalities at their 

respective FRCs. 

III. CWSI Program Performance Measures

The CWSI program collected data across multiple performance measures for the FY14/15 and FY15/16 

program years. Performance measures included in this report represent an overview of program 

implementation, reach, and outcomes. The following tables and graphics present findings for each of the 

four counties, as well as cumulative totals for each program year. Note that data is reported by program 

year and may include the same families if they participated in both FY14/15 and FY15/16. 

High Risk Parents Served 

Those families targeted for the CWSI program were identified as at risk for child abuse and neglect, due 

to an inability to meet their family’s basic needs and/or demonstrating unhealthy parenting behaviors and 

attitudes. Parents self-identified their risk level by indicating any of the following risk factors at intake: 

 Disabling Condition

 Homelessness

 Lack of Food

 Lack of Medical Care

 Lack of Parenting Skills/Knowledge

 Referred by Child County Welfare Services

 Single Parent

 Social Isolation

 Teen Parent

 Unemployment

Table 2 shows the number of parents who completed a Beneficiary Information Form with a CWSI 

AmeriCorps member during FY14/15 and FY15/16 and indicated at least one risk factor. Families who 

were served in both fiscal years are counted in each. Humboldt and Sacramento counties reported the 

largest numbers of parents served in each year. Between FY14/15 and FY15/16, Humboldt County 

increased the total number of parents served in a year by 34 percent; Sacramento County increased the 

total number of parents served during a program year by 61 percent. 

Table 2 | Total Number of Parents Participating in the CWSI Program Each Fiscal Year 

Families Served Humboldt Sacramento Yolo Yuba TOTAL 

FY14/15 870 543 0* 196 1,609

FY15/16 1,170 872 160 201 2,403

*Yolo County was not a participating county in CWSI in FY14/15

Parents Receiving Minimum Services 

CWSI program was designed to support parents over a duration of time in order to provide greater impact, 

compared to simple “one shot” approaches to resolving an immediate crisis. A five-hour minimum service 

level is designed to ensure families have achieved greater stability or reduced risk as a function of 

repeated and/or sustained contact with a Family Support Aide. Figure 2 presents an overview of the 

percent of parents receiving at least five hours of services from the CWSI Family Support Aides, each year. 

As expected, the percentage of families receiving at least five hours of services increased in the second 

year of programming, with more parents having the opportunity to achieve the minimum program 

dosage. 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 9 

Figure 2 | Percent of Parents in FY14/15 and FY15/16 Receiving at Least 5 Hours CWSI Services 

*Yolo County was not a participating county in the CWSI in FY 14/15

Family Stress Assessment 

Parents were asked to self-assess any changes in their overall family stress levels, after receiving fivehours of services from a CWSI member. Specifically, they were asked, “Has the household's overall stress 

level decreased, stayed the same, or increased since they began services?” Table 3 presents the 

percentage of parents who were assessed for changes in their overall family stress levels. For those 

parents receiving at least five hours of service, the rate at which parents were assessed ranges widely 

across counties and over the two program years. Yuba had the highest assessment rates of their parents 

(95% and 87% respectively), while Sacramento County assessed nearly 20 percent of their families the 

first year, and 44 percent the second. Across all counties, 69 percent of all families served in the CWSI 

program the first year, and 54 percent of families were assessed in the following year. It should be noted 

that the Sacramento CWSI sites started half-way through FY14/15 and had to make adjustments to their 

data system in order to collect the Stress Assessment data, which attributed to the very low results (19) 

and rate (19%). 

 Table 3 | Number and Percent of Parents Each Year Completing a Stress Assessment 

Stress Assessments 

Completed 

Humboldt Sacramento Yolo Yuba TOTAL 

# % # % # % # % # % 

FY14/15 198 86% 19 19% 0* 0%* 39 95% 256 69%

FY15/16 192 50% 100 44% 86 76% 33 87% 411 54%

*Yolo County was not a participating county in the CWSI in FY 14/15

Parents Who Experienced Reduction in Overall Family Stress 

The minimum “dosage” of five hours is expected to provide sufficient intervention and support to 

reduce the immediate stress that brought a family to seek assistance from the Family Resource Center 

and the Family Support Aides. Figure 3 provides the percentage of parents each year, who reported 

reduced stress when they were assessed following their initial five hours of intervention and support 

services. 

26%

18% 21% 23%

33%

26%

71%

19%

32%

Humboldt Sacramento Yolo* Yuba All Sites

FY14/15

FY15/16

230

99 41 370

382

229

113

38

762
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 10

Figure 3 | Percentage of Parents Each Year Reporting Reduced Stress 

*Yolo County was not a participating county in the CWSI in FY14/15

Figure 3 shows that the majority of families at each site self-reported an overall reduction in their stress 

levels after 5 hours of program services. For the most part, at least three quarters of these families 

reported less stress, over the two program years. 

Nurturing Parent Program Outcomes 

In addition to crisis intervention and support services, the CWSI has promoted and supported the 

implementation of the Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP) to provide parenting education for families 

presenting risk for child abuse and neglect. The CWSI sites introduced the NPP in FY14/15 and continue 

to receive training and support to integrate this parenting education curriculum into their daily 

operations. This evidence-based curriculum provides a standardized approach as well as measures of 

parenting knowledge, using the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory (AAPI) pre- and post-lessons, which 

measures changes in parenting knowledge and attitudes known to contribute to child abuse and neglect. 

Program Completion 

Parents completing the program have received at least eight hours of the NPP curriculum and a second 

AAPI score in FY15/16 (see Table 4 below). 

Table 4 | Families Initiating and Completing NPP in FY15/16 

FY15/16 Humboldt Sacramento Yolo Yuba All Sites 

Families starting NPP 57 223 42 44 366

Families completing NPP 38

(67%) 

100

(45%) 

20

(48%) 

19

(43%) 

177

(48%) 

Across all sites, about half of the families (48%) completed the program, with Humboldt reporting the 

highest completion rate of two-thirds of their families (67%). Note, those families who did not complete 

a pre/post AAPI, after receiving at least 8 hours of lessons are not included in the numbers above. 

Improved Parenting Knowledge and Risk Reduction 

For the parents receiving at least eight NPP parenting education hours, nearly all have demonstrated 

improvements in improved parenting knowledge and reduced risk behaviors as measured by the AAPI on 

a 10-point scale with a lower score indicating a higher risk. Parents who increased their pre to post score 

78%

100%

85%

78% 81%

65%

83%

76% 75%

Humboldt Sacramento Yolo* Yuba All Sites

FY14/15

FY15/16

155 149

19

65

71 33

25 207 310
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 11

in the parenting knowledge constructs (i.e., A. Expectations of Children, D. Parent-Child Role, and E. 

Children’s Power) were identified as having improved their knowledge1. Overall, three-fourths (77%) of 

the participants completing the NPP improved their parenting skills. Parents who increased their pre to 

post score on the risk behavior constructs (i.e., B. Parental Empathy towards Children’s Needs, and C. Use 

of Corporal Punishment) were identified as having reduced their risky parenting behaviors.2 Similar to the 

improvement in knowledge, about three-fourths (76%) showed reduced risks. FY14/15 was the first year 

of NPP implementation within CWSI, and it was found that a more robust NPP curriculum was needed. An 

adjustment was made at the start of the second year (FY15/16) and CWSI members now had access to 

two different curricula with 50+ lessons each rather than just the basic curriculum with only 10 lessons. 

Sites struggled to keep parents engaged and in FY14/15 fell far short of reaching data targets. For these 

reasons, only NPP data from FY 15/16 was analyzed for this report. 

Figure 4 | Percent of Parents with Improved Parenting Knowledge & Reduction in at Risk Behaviors: FY15/16 

Contact with Child Welfare System 

The last performance measure includes all parents receiving at least eight hours of NPP and who have not 

entered/reentered County CWS/CPS after completing the program in FY 15/16. Figure 5 shows the 

percent of these parents who went without any CWS/CPS contact for 1-12 months after their last AAPI 

(i.e., exit from the program). 

1

 This performance measurement was defined as parents who complete NPP and increase their parenting knowledge 

by 20 percent, as measured by an increased AAPI pre to post score by at least one point in at least two of the three 

constructs (A,D,E), or an increase score by at least two points in one of the three constructs. 

2

 This performance measure was defined as parents who complete NPP and reduce their risk for child abuse and 

neglectful behaviors by one level, as measured by an increased AAPI score by at least one point in either constructs 

B or C. 

 

 

 

 

 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 12

Figure 5 | Percent of Parents Who Had No CWS/CPS Contact after Completing NPP | FY15-16

Overall, 85 percent of the parents had no contact with CWS/CPS for 1-12 months after they completed 

the NPP lessons. This CWS/CPS contact rate varied between specific counties with Humboldt reporting 

that none of their parents had CWS/CPS contact to Yuba reporting 26 percent had some contact. While 

based upon a sample of participating counties, the data from the last year of the CWSI program 

implementation suggest strong positive outcomes for parents completing the NPP lessons. Taken to scale 

and over time, this approach could result in fewer referrals to CWS/CPS and avoiding higher level and 

more punitive interventions. 

IV. Common Themes from Interviews

The evaluation team interviewed representatives from the participating sites in November 2016. The goal 

of the interviews was to gain an understanding of how CWSI was uniquely implemented in each of the 

four sites and to identify strengths and challenges that emerged during the initial two years of the grant. 

(The interview protocol used is included as Attachment A). 

CWSI Complements Existing Program Models 

The common theme among these sites is the emphasis on providing “family support services” which 

ranges from connecting families with resources for basic needs like shelter, food, and financial assistance, 

to facilitating enrollment with community partners that provide healthcare, education, and employment 

readiness. Three of the sites provide case management support services through home visitation in 

addition to their center-based parenting education. 

Each of the CWSI sites found that the parenting education feature of the CWSI was a natural complement 

to their other existing services. The parenting education component and the NPP in particular, enhanced 

their existing services to reduce risk factors for child abuse and neglect they already offered. The 

AmeriCorps members come from the FRC communities, and know the struggles of families served. 

We have largely taken the NPP culture and laid it down over our whole agency. (With) the NPP curricula 

offered both in home visit and site-based settings, our intention is to meet folks where they're at, see 

what they say they need, check what resources we have to offer, be honest about our commitments, 

and see how we can begin. – FRC Site Supervisor 

For example, the Redwood Community Action Agency of Humboldt County, reported that the NPP has 

enhanced their home visitation support by providing a more structured approach with a curriculum, 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 13

meaningful milestones, and expectations (though the home visiting component is not funded by the local 

CWS/CPS agency).

Introducing the NPP: Challenges and Successes

The evidence-based parenting education curricula NPP, was a central component of the CWSI 

implementation, providing structures and strategies integrated into the lessons. Three of the sites were 

introducing this curriculum for the first time at their FRCs. The Birth & Beyond sites, had already integrated 

the 0-5 NPP curriculum into their FRC, but expanded the implementation of NPP to serve families with 

school-aged children. 

NPP Curriculum: Overall, the four sites found the NPP curriculum useful and a great resource for their 

families. Though NPP parent materials are available in English and Spanish, however, some staff note that 

the Spanish version’s translation is not consistent with the English version and has confusing language to 

their Spanish-speaking populations. Also, there is no NPP translation for other populations frequently 

served, like Russian and Hmong; CWSI AmeriCorps members may serve as translators and interpreters for 

these families.

B&B Staff implementing the NPP curriculum for parents of older children noted that some lessons in the 

curriculum were not well aligned to children 6-17 years (e.g., discussing ‘holding’ your child when feeding 

them). Likewise, the issues and topics that relate to the older aged children, are much more complex to 

teach (e.g., sexuality, gangs, drug use). Despite these issues, the need for implementing the NPP parenting 

education for school-aged children was underscored, by the fact that many of the FRCs already work with 

families with children across the entire age span and the curriculum provides a foundation to start 

addressing these particular needs. 

NPP Training: The integration of the NPP at the FRCs represented by this sample of CWSI sites comes 

with challenges and successes. Among the challenges are deploying the training and materials that are so 

critical to its implementation. Timing the delivery of the NPP training is a challenge if only because the 

training staff from PCA-CA must manage scheduling multiple trainings and go on location for the 

convenience of the participating CWSI sites. PCA-CA is keenly aware of the logistical challenges of rolling 

out the training and providing curricula and materials that totals nearly 2,000 pages. Two of these sites 

discussed delays with either getting the NPP training, or gaps between receipt of the training and receipt 

of the materials for the lessons. PCA-CA continues to address these challenges in response to the site 

needs. In contrast, one site with a highly experienced FRC supervisor with prior history using the NPP, 

recognizes the immense value of having already had training and experience implementing the curricula. 

Sites that have experienced delays related to implementing the NPP have substituted other types of 

training available at the local level, as well as observations and field trips to learn about resources and 

service delivery systems. The following quotes provide three unique views of the NPP training:

In Year 1, the week-long training included a lot of time talking about the philosophy and doing exercises. 

The last five hours of that training actually focused on how to administer the NPP lessons; I think we 

should have had more time for that. Our members need training in-depth for the entire week about how 

to administer the lessons, to try it out, how to get families involved. – FRC Site Supervisor

It has been difficult for us to have to wait for the NPP training until November, but actual materials not 

arrive until January. This has forced our members to wait until the materials come before they can 

actually implement the NPP. With that time lapse, we could not integrate what they learned in training 

right away; the delay is a challenge. – FRC Site Supervisor
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 14

For our first year we were limited to use only the 10 community lessons, which were fine, but when we 

got the full menu of more choices (from the 55 lessons) that was way better. This did change for year 

two, and we had access to all 55 lessons. – FRC Site Supervisor

Responding to Family Needs: One site has noted that family crises may interrupt the plans for NPP 

lessons in the home, in order to address immediate crisis at hand. Given the demographics of the families 

that the FRCs serve and their life circumstances, sometimes the immediate plan to deliver an NPP lesson 

may be delayed until the crisis has been averted and the family or parent can pay attention to the lesson. 

These FRCs all have partnerships with other service providers in their communities, or may have 

representatives from partners on a multi-disciplinary team that augments the capacity of the AmeriCorps 

members to respond to family needs. 

We help relieve their stresses as parents with the NPP... sometimes we need to help them pay bills or 

get diapers and that [crisis] is more important than delivering the NPP but we are always modeling it.

– FRC Staff

Other Parenting Education Resources: At least one site has struggled with implementing the NPP, due 

to multiple challenges and the predecessor parenting education that has been available and is familiar. 

Though all sites appreciate the value of the NPP lessons and strategies, in the absence of NPP training 

and/or materials ready to use, those with experience in other parenting education will defer to what they 

already know. 

Member Readiness: At least one site noted that members need extensive training on the NPP, followed 

by supervision and reinforcement of the training. Some members lack confidence to deliver the lessons 

in a class, and those who are not parents may feel they may lack credibility with their families. Though 

college education, life experience, and the NPP training and supervision are all elements of preparing 

members to be part of the CWSI model, members may require continuous supervision and support as 

well. Site supervisors and Multi-Disciplinary Team partners are part of the program model that provides 

support to the AmeriCorps members as they engage in direct parenting education, and when they 

discover other needs of the family. At least two site supervisors have served as AmeriCorps members 

themselves, which brings an additional level of understanding and awareness of the requirements and 

challenges of the work undertaken by these members. 

Some have life experience, some come with some college education or a degree, as well as an interest 

in human services or social work careers. The members are very enthusiastic, but lack deep experience; 

without my support for the AmeriCorps members, this program might not be as successful serving 

families. – FRC Site Supervisor

Relationship with CWS/CPS at the Local Level: All of the sites have a relationship with the local county 

CWS/CPS agency, albeit to varying degrees ranging from ‘difficult’ to ‘fully embedded’ at the FRC. At least 

one site has had a unique opportunity to enhance this relationship, building on a referring relationship 

from a CWS/CPS social worker and a shared commitment to keep families out of the system. The CWS/CPS 

staff is actually on site at the FRC and works side by side with the FRC staff and the AmeriCorps members. 

This relationship has facilitated the ability of the CWSI Program to obtain data from CWS/CPS to 

participate in the recidivism data collection and analysis. In other FRC sites, there is a reciprocal 

relationship between the program and the local CWS/CPS agency. CWS/CPS makes referrals to the FRC 

specifically for the families to receive NPP (and/or other) parenting education, for families known to be at 

risk for child abuse and neglect or for having a new case opened with CWS/CPS. Sometimes this 

relationship extends to joint supervision and shared case management for in-home services.
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 15

Those sites with strong working relationships with CWS/CPS have been able to integrate the recidivism 

data into their analysis of outcomes for the CWSI. The statewide “CWS/CPS Redesign” and its annual 

“System Improvement Plan” process (which began in about 2004) has evolved to change the environment 

at the local level, opening communication between CWS/CPS agencies and community based partners. 

The FRCs became the natural partner to the CWS/CPS, and AmeriCorps members were already an integral 

component of FRC staffing. Local CWS/CPS agencies began to recognize that FRCs were the place where 

families at risk for child abuse and neglect were already seeking support. Similarly, home visitation came 

to be recognized as an extension of support for the prevention of child abuse and neglect. 

The County (CWS agency) supports this program wholeheartedly, and we are very well regarded; people 

call us all the time and we always get a huge response at member recruitment time. We have to have 

a contract with CWS to engage referrals via Differential Response. I believe we stand out as a partner 

with CWS, and with the [local network] of FRCs and our relationship with the [host organization] as well 

as with PCA-CA. – FRC Partner

Other Successes: Among the positive reflections about the CWSI program and the NPP in particular, 

were the ability to tailor the NPP lessons to the family needs and situation, particularly via home visits. 

The NPP is relatively easy to integrate into the existing home visiting service strategy. One site has 

extended its reach beyond home visitation and is now hosting classes open to the general community, 

minus the case management feature. Refresher training on the NPP is a bonus, for supervisors and 

members alike. And any and all support for maintaining documentation is a plus, based on feedback from 

sites where those systems seem to be in place and integral to overall operations. 

(What has been successful has been the) integration of the NPP; it has been so easy to integrate into 

what we did already. For new members, we have those big NPP binders, and they looked at them first, 

before they went to the training. The members get a preview of the training first, which then reinforces 

what they actually learn and retain from the training. – FRC Partner

Site supervisors frequently noted that first time parents and caregivers are engaged in ongoing 

conversations about parenting, and ‘we’re working at a level we might not provide without the 

AmeriCorps members.’ AmeriCorps members make it possible to integrate an evidence-based parenting 

education curriculum into other organization services and strategies. In one site, this has increased their 

capacity to host and exhibit at community events where families and children turn out for holidays and 

school events. In addition, members continue to pursue interests in higher education that is clearly a 

reflection of the experience they are getting through their participation in the CWSI.

Fidelity to the NPP Model

Sites have mixed records of implementing the NPP with fidelity. By their own accord, there have been 

challenges associated with the receipt of training and materials, preparedness of the AmeriCorps 

members and their own life experience (e.g., especially if they lack confidence because they are not 

parents), and the demands of families in crisis which may detract from rolling out a parenting education 

curriculum with regularity and consistency. The NPP is new to three out of four sites (non-B&B), and it is 

more likely to be implemented with fidelity when supervisors or the sites have familiarity and longer 

experience with it. For the more experienced sites (B&B, with AmeriCorps and NPP) model fidelity is a 

function of regular check-ins with the members implementing the curriculum, as well as integrating AAPI 

results into a review of data and developing responses to family needs.

One site (Humboldt) has modified the way they implement NPP, and adapted it to the way the site 

functions and to fit into services in which the families are already engaged. Another site (Yuba) uses close 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 16

weekly supervision to ensure model fidelity, and to plan lessons week to week. Another site (Yolo) freely 

calls upon the CWSI Project Manager at PCA-CA, to troubleshoot and resolve questions. Supervision seems 

to be the common thread for NPP model fidelity. 

We do supervision on a regular basis. There are frequent check-ins also. The members meet with the 

Multi-Disciplinary Team each month; when they start teaching classes, they have to show us the scores 

on AAPIs as they begin their work with a family. We decide together what options for lessons or classes 

are best for each participant. There are many ways that they keep us in the loop on what is going on. 

PCA-CA has provided NPP progress forms which are also helpful, and we have a closure form where we 

record the AAPI scores as well. There is a system for everything, and we make clear our expectations for 

what and when has to be done. No estimating. – FRC Partner

Benefits to the Families Served

The sites were universal in their assessment that the NPP was making a difference with the parents who 

may be at risk for child abuse and neglect. Some noted improvements directly from a comparison of scores 

on the baseline and a subsequent AAPI; others note that demand and interest in parenting education has 

increased over time, since they introduced parenting classes. Spanish speaking families have been 

especially responsive to parenting education (though having the NPP in other languages would help 

extend reach to other cultures). One site has developed a creative way to integrate NPP lessons into play 

groups, which has also resulted in advancing social support from other parents. 

Parents from the playgroups are generating connections at that level, so playgroups have proven to be 

a successful way to integrate the NPP with other programming. These parents are already there, it is a 

more relaxed time for them, they are sharing ideas and challenges related to being a parent, and they 

are developing all of these social connections with one another even more with the NPP. These 

connections facilitate the potential for benefitting from the NPP lessons. – FRC Site Supervisor

Another respondent offered a different perspective on benefits to the families:

It is a different approach to parenting classes, it is research-based, and it is just great to have another 

option in the county for families who are required to take parenting (by the family court). We are the 

only ones taking parenting education into the home. We love that providing NPP lessons in the home 

visits removes barriers, such as transportation or for participants who are afraid to leave home. We 

meet them at their level, set the pace of the lessons to fit their needs and capacities. – FRC Partner

By all accounts, parents respond positively to the NPP lessons. The curriculum provides opportunity for 

modeling and practicing appropriate parenting responses to children, and permits parents to proceed 

through the lessons at a reasonable pace. 

Members as Program Assets 

All of the sites discussed the importance of their AmeriCorps members to their programs’ success, and 

identified several strategies for recruitment and support to ensure the best possible placement 

experience and fit for the members and the CWSI. For example, in those FRCs with a mix of AmeriCorps 

members and other agency staff, site level managers do not distinguish between the members and the 

other staff; everyone is considered part of the “team.” Members serve in a different capacity from staff 

with a different set of activities being delivered to the parents. Most describe AmeriCorps members as 

fresh, eager to learn, and enthusiastic. Other staff may have more experience and longer time on the job, 

which may result in occasional “complacency” or habituation. The mix of agency and AmeriCorps staff 

seems to contribute to a culture of creativity and innovation; some FRC sites reported that they hired 
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 17

directly from their AmeriCorps pool when terms concluded. Recruitment from the community to be 

served is a major emphasis for all sites. Members show enthusiasm and want to learn as much as they can 

on the job. Many are refining their career choices based on this experience. 

Our AmeriCorps members receive a great opportunity for training, to develop high quality skills. They 

come eager and ready to serve. Many are college grads and they live the experience of being lowincome, share that experience with the families they serve. They know the struggles of life too, and can 

relate to the clients that way. They have a passion for building strong families. They become experts in 

finding resources in the community and bring their experiences into their work. Our members are able 

to do more in depth services, like case management, as a result. – FRC Site Supervisor

And from another interview respondent: 

We love the AmeriCorps member willingness and enthusiasm to serve their community, they all want 

to learn what they can, are working toward career goals, and feel it is really, really important to give 

back to the community that they live in. AmeriCorps members are an integral part of the program; we 

could not do it without them. – FRC Partner

Training is an essential component of the CWSI and the strategy to staff the NPP parenting education 

program with AmeriCorps members. Sometimes sites feel they are addressing training gaps either from 

prior years of basic training, or until NPP training reaches their team. These sites all augment the basic 

AmeriCorps training and the NPP training, to build up the skills and confidence of their members. They 

acknowledge that they do not expect PCA-CA to address all training needs. That said, 

I feel like the initial training is just, very broad, it is the tip of the iceberg. Working with families takes a 

lot of skills, sometimes you just have to learn as you go, no matter how much you learn (just like in 

school). Just like getting a degree, direct service is where the real lessons are learned. Not every family 

situation is the same. – FRC Site Supervisor

At least one program reported that they have experience hiring AmeriCorps members once their term of 

service concludes, which has been an additional asset for staffing the NPP classes. Whether members 

are hired on or pursue social work education, CWSI is helping communities develop their next 

generation of social service professionals.

Most Critical Components and Future Steps

Interview respondents were unanimous in their regard for parenting education, and most concur that the 

NPP is a model that suits the needs of their families. Some interview respondents were strong advocates

for implementing NPP with complete fidelity, while others appreciated adaptations that conformed to 

their organizational operations or population needs. The program attracts high caliber applicants for few 

AmeriCorps positions, and provides extensive training and a stepping stone to career goals. Furthermore, 

the CWSI has provided a unique opportunity to partner with local CWS/CPS agencies and to provide case 

management services to families with needs well beyond parenting education. Shared commitment to 

success has emerged as a vital element of the partnership between CWS/CPS and local community based 

organizations hosting CWSI AmeriCorps members. 

To replicate this program, they would have to do NPP, have a strong parenting education component. 

With NPP comes child development education, I love the curriculum. It is non-negotiable. Also the case 

management piece, we find that you just have to case manage people. Some folks think they just want 

one thing, but as you talk with them you find you have to support the whole family. You always find 

there are multiple issues to address. Give them concrete supports, like getting their health insurance, 

food, some form of monetary income. – FRC Site Supervisor
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 18

One of the limitations of the CWSI Program model is that the needs of families vary from one county to 

the next, where circumstances and challenges may be unique to one community and not another. 

Allowing some flexibility to adapt to the local needs and nuances has been critical for these FRC sites. 

Sites emphasize the importance of training, refresher training, and continuous support for their members. 

However, some long time supervisors question the value of sending returning AmeriCorps members 

through the basic training again. Data collection and reporting requirements are ambitious, though some 

sites have addressed these challenges successfully. 

Sites have made inroads with other community service systems, either with their CWS/CPS partners, the 

representatives on their Multi-Disciplinary Teams, or through community outreach events and reaching 

out to school administrators who might also become referral sources. Two of these sites have noted that 

their reach to serve veteran families is confounded by the structure of the military and other services for 

veterans. For example, where there are readily available services for veterans (e.g., a nearby military 

installation) families seek any and all types of assistance there first. Secondly, CWS may not have direct 

jurisdiction on military bases where families reside. The military has its own systems for addressing 

criminal activity, including all forms of family violence. 

V. Conclusions and Recommendations

A review of data from four FRC sites and interviews with key site supervisors or other partners has 

confirmed that the CWSI has elevated the importance of parenting education, as well as case management 

through home visitation, using the NPP as a core element. This sample of CWSI sites provided a variety of 

approaches to implementation that are tailored to the situations and circumstances of each county site. 

The sites were unanimous in their appreciation for the NPP training and materials, for having AmeriCorps 

members who represent the community, and for the support they receive from PCA-CA. As this program 

enters its third year, the following are some suggestions from the field.

CWSI Training | The delayed training schedule for members proved to be a challenge for all of the sites, 

in terms of their ability to fully implement the NPP with fidelity. Some specific recommendations that 

came out of the interviews include:

 Reduce time gap between the AmeriCorps basic training, the NPP training, and receipt of all NPP

materials to ensure members are ready to implement what they learn.

 Provide opportunities for troubleshooting after the NPP training across sites, either via

conference call or periodic communications to share ideas and problem solve.

 Keep all sites current with training and materials, and provide ongoing support and re-fresher

trainings.
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 19

CWSI Administration | Other suggestions that surfaced from the experiences of the FRC implementing 

the CWSI include the following:

 Learn from other sites, from FRCs that represent a mix of communities, family needs and

circumstances, and relationships with CWS/CPS. PCA-CA could harness some of the lessons

learned and share with sites via conference calls (or learn spontaneously via conference call).

 Provide more flexibility regarding ways to integrate the NPP (or at least, share options as they

arise).

 Seek ways to simplify and streamline data reporting requirements. Solicit input from sites that

seem to keep up with data reporting, to learn what they do, and how they do it.

 Facilitate the building of partnerships with CWS/CPS for those FRCs who do not already have an

established relationship with their county’s agencies.

Data Collection | Implementing a comprehensive data collection system into an environment where 

members are serving high need families at risk for child abuse and neglect has come with challenges:

 A high number of performance measures led to a complex data collection system that members

had to learn in addition to completing their service activities. CWSI needs to train members on

the importance of data collection, and simplify and streamline the data reporting requirements

to ensure a balance between serving families and data collection/reporting.

 CWSI also needs to facilitate peer-to-peer learning opportunities so that the entire partnership

can learn from the sites that are able to keep up with the data collection and reporting

requirements.
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 20

Attachment A | Child Welfare System Improvement 

AmeriCorps Program Interview Questions 

CWSI Partner/Site: Date: 

Program Manager/AmeriCorps Supervisor: 

Interviewer: 

Purpose of the Interview: Prevent Child Abuse America’s (PCA CA) Child Welfare System (CWSI) 

AmeriCorps Program is recompleting at the Federal Corporation for National Service and Community 

Service level for another 3 years of funding for program years 2017/2020. An important element of our 

program design is to build CWSIs’ evidence of effectiveness. To this end PCA CA is conducting a CWSI 

Process Evaluation for the two program years of 2014/15 and 2015/16. The purpose of the evaluation 

is to: 1) test whether CWSI is effective and what makes it effective; 2) ensure that federal dollars are 

invested wisely; and most importantly to 3) inform continuous improvement of CWSI so that we can 

change what isn’t working and do more of what IS working. We appreciate your time in answering 

several questions.

Program Delivery 

1. We are interested in gaining an understanding about how your CWSI program operates as a

community-based model for the delivery of services to families. How would you describe that

model?

2. How would you characterize your CWSI program/AmeriCorps service site and its relationship to

the community you serve? What do you think makes your program stand out from others?

Program Model 

3. Describe how your CWSI Program fits in your agencies service array.

4. Starting with the 2014/15 program year, CWSI began using the Nurturing Parenting Program

(NPP) evidence-based model. What have been some of the challenges and successes in

integrating NPP into your existing model and the parents you serve? Are there components of

NPP your service site finds challenging to implement?

5. Are resources adequate to implement CWSI and/or NPP? If not, where are the gaps in resources?

6. Have CWSI NPP activities been delivered as intended?

7. Based upon your experience, what have been the most important benefits that parents and

families have received from CWSI NPP?

8. Which families are more likely to complete their program goals? Do you think its related to a

known factors (such as family risk level) or specific circumstances of a family (e.g., personalities,

etc.)?
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 21

AmeriCorps Members

9. What do you think AmeriCorps members bring to your program/service site? What, if any, are the

differences you’ve seen between AmeriCorps members and direct staff?

10. AmeriCorps involves mandatory training for members. Did you feel that available training

prepares members for their service? Are there elements that members had to learn ‘on the job’

that were not covered in PCACA formal training?

11. How do you ensure quality and fidelity to the NPP model with your AmeriCorps members?

Child Welfare System (CWS/CPS)

12. We are very interested in how CWSI and NPP work within the existing support system for families

within your county. Can you talk a little bit about how you work with your county child welfare

and how the CWSI NPP model fits into a continuum of services?

Accomplishments/Replication

13. What are some elements, related to AmeriCorps, that your service site has accomplished in the

last year, that you are the most proud of?

14. For communities that might want to replicate this model, what program components do you think

are the most critical for model fidelity, in order to optimize positive outcomes for families at risk

of child abuse and neglect?’

15. What are some of the goals or future steps that you’d like to see CWSI or NPP next few years?
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 22

Attachment B | Pre-Post Comparison of AAPI Scores, the

Assessment Tool of the NPP

The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory - 2 (AAPI) is a 40 item, norm-referenced, Likert scale designed 

to assess the parenting beliefs and practices of parent and pre-parent populations. It was developed to 

assess the Nurturing Parenting Program (NPP). Responses to the AAPI provide an index of risk for child 

maltreatment in five parenting constructs known to result in child abuse/neglect (see Table 5).

Table 5 | Description of AAPI Parenting Constructs

CONSTRUCT High Risk

Low AAPI Score Description

Low Risk

High AAPI Score Description

A.

Expectations of 

Children

 Expectations exceed developmental 

capabilities of children.

 Lacks understanding of normal child 

growth and development.

 Self-concept as a parent is weak and 

easily threatened.

 Tends to be demanding and controlling.

 Understands growth and development.

 Children are allowed to exhibit normal 

developmental behaviors.

 Self-concept as a caregiver and provider

is positive.

 Tends to be supportive of children

B.

Parental Empathy 

towards Children’s 

Needs

 Fears spoiling children.

 Children's normal development needs 

not understood or valued.

 Children must act right and be good.

 Lacks nurturing skills.

 May be unable to handle parenting 

stresses.

 Understands and values children's 

needs.

 Children are allowed to display normal 

developmental behaviors.

 Nurtures children and encourage

positive growth.

 Communicates with children.

 Recognizes feelings for children.

C.

Use of Corporal 

Punishment

 Hitting, spanking, slapping children is 

appropriate and required.

 Lacks knowledge of alternatives to

corporal punishment.

 Lacks ability to use alternatives to

corporal punishment.

 Strong disciplinarian, rigid.

 Tends to be controlling, authoritarian.

 Understands alternatives to physical

force.

 Utilizes alternatives to corporal 

punishment.

 Tends to be democratic in rule making.

 Rules for family, not just for children.

 Tends to have respect for children and 

their needs.

 Values mutual parent-child relationship.

D.

Parent-Child 

Family Roles

 Tends to use children to meet selfneeds.

 Children perceived as objects for adult

gratification.

 Tends to treat children as confidant and 

peer.

 Expects children to make life better by

providing love, assurance, and comfort.

 Tends to exhibit low self-esteem, poor

self-awareness, and poor social life.

 Tends to have needs met appropriately.

 Finds comfort, support, companionship 

from peers.

 Children are allowed to express 

developmental needs.

 Takes ownership of behavior.

 Tends to feel worthwhile as a person,

good awareness of self.

E.

Children’s Power 

and Independence

 Tends to view children with power as 

threatening.

 Expects strict obedience to demands.

 Devalues negotiation and compromise 

as a means of solving problems.

 Tends to view independent thinking as

disrespectful.

 Places high-value on children's ability to

problem solve.

 Encourages children to express views 

but expects cooperation.

 Empowers children to make good 

choices.
CWSI Process Evaluation Report | 23

Scores from the earliest and latest administrations of the AAPI were matched for those CWSI participants 

who had closed after receiving at least 8 hours of programming. A total of 148 pairs across the four 

counties were available for analysis (see Table 6). 

Table 6 | CWSI Participants Receiving at Least 8 Hours of NPP Programming

with Match Pre and Post AAPI Assessments in FY15-16

Humboldt

# (% group)

Sacramento

# (% group)

Yolo

# (% group)

Yuba

# (% group)

Total

# (% group)

Matched Pre-Post 

AAPI Scores

33 (3%) 89 (10%) 13 (10%) 13 (6%) 148 (6%)

A paired-samples t-test3 was conducted to compare pre-program and post-program AAPI scores, within 

the five parenting constructs (see Table 7). Participants’ average (mean) scores increased between the 

pre- and post-assessment within each of the five constructs and these increases were found to be 

statistically significant at the p<0.05 level. 

Table 7 | Pre-Post Comparison of AAPI Assessment Scores for All CWSI Parents

AAPI CONSTRUCTS

Pre Test Post Test

Paired t

Mean *p <.05

Standard

Deviation Mean

Standard

Deviation

CWSI Parents n = 148

A. Expectation 5.29 1.991 6.01 1.859 -4.549*

B. Empathy 4.63 2.081 6.02 2.522 -7.104*

C. Punishment 6.00 1.852 6.71 1.910 -4.389*

D. Roles 5.87 2.281 6.67 2.428 -4.200*

E. Power 5.80 2.336 6.28 2.153 -2.095*

The results suggest that parenting skills and attitudes improved over the course of their participation in 

the Nurturing Parenting Program facilitated by CWSI AmeriCorps members as measured by the AAPI

assessment tool. Similar gains were seen across the five parenting constructs of the assessment with the 

average increase of .82 points.

3 The paired t-test calculates the difference within each before-and-after pair of measurements, determines the 

average of these changes, and reports whether this average of the differences is statistically significant. The 

improvement measured between the average pre/post AAPI in all constructs were found to be statistically 

significant at the p<.05 level.