School of Social Work Faculty Lead Evaluation of State’s Co-located Services for Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence
CORE TEAM
Cynthia Fraga Rizo, Tonya Van Deinse, Julia Metz, Christine Murray (UNC Greensboro), Dayana Bermudez
Family justice centers (FJCs) — a type of co-located service center in which providers from different sectors and agencies come together under one roof to support clients, including survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual violence (IPV/SV) — are proliferating in the United States and internationally.
But the complexity of this service model and the sensitivity of client experiences has left a key question unanswered: what makes these models work?
Now, funded by the National Institute of Justice ($539,232), an evaluation team led by two University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Social Work faculty members is drawing on IPV/SV population expertise and implementation science to help answer this question.
Co-located service models like FJCs are founded on the assumption that placing services together makes it easier for providers to collaborate, allows clients (who are often experiencing acute crises) to efficiently access services, and promotes positive client outcomes. A survivor of IPV/SV, for instance, could access domestic violence services, court services and law enforcement in a single visit — and, crucially, would only have to recount their traumatic story one time.
“The model makes a lot of sense on paper,” said Associate Professor Cindy Fraga Rizo (M-PI), who is co-leading the study with her colleague, Research Associate Professor Tonya Van Denise (M-PI). Yet she noted that the limited evaluations of these models can cause challenges for funders who want to implement these resource-intensive models in strategic ways that improve their success and sustainability. “The evidence base hasn’t really caught up.”
There’s a reason for the lack of research evaluating co-located service models for IPV/SV survivors: it’s extremely difficult to do.
Because clients can be served by different combinations of agencies at different centers, it’s challenging to isolate which services are benefiting which clients. Though co-located, the agency partners within a center can also have distinct data gathering and privacy protocols, limiting their ability to share data with each other or researchers. Further, IPV/SV survivors seeking services often have trauma and immediate needs that make it difficult to participate in research focused on their experiences.
Clients are coming to the centers in a time of crisis. All our data collection needs to be trauma-informed to respect clients’ needs and contexts.
TONYA VAN DEINSE, Ph.D., MSW
“Clients are coming to the centers in a time of crisis,” Van Deinse said. “All our data collection needs to be trauma-informed to respect clients’ needs and contexts.”
To meet these challenges, Rizo and Van Deinse have built relationships with FJCs and other co-located service providers to learn about FJCs’ core programming and their goals for evaluating their services — a process that began as a series of road trips taking them to service sites hundreds of miles across the state.
Since then, beyond conducting a systematic review of co-located services for IPV/SV survivors, their team convened a summit of FJC stakeholders and established a quarterly workgroup for researchers and FJC staff to share resources and ideas for evaluating their impact on clients. These partnerships are not only building a network among the state’s FJCs; they also provided the research team with essential information about providers’ goals and ideas for conducting these evaluations.
Following this community-engaged groundwork, Rizo and Van Deinse’s team are now piloting a trauma-informed data collection process that invites FJC clients to enroll in a study and, if they consent, choose to provide data on their own or with the researcher and the data collection format (e.g., online, over the phone, paper copy). The 41 people they’ve enrolled in this process so far provide initial evidence that their research methods work: that it is possible to evaluate co-located service centers in ways that are sensitive to IPV/SV survivors’ experiences.
Building on to this important finding, this team is using implementation science methods that will offer a road map for identifying and measuring core components of the co-located service model and developing a process for measuring model fidelity (meaning whether the program was implemented as intended) that allows for necessary tailoring and adaptation to the local context.
“Complex and co-located models are used in lots of sectors,” Van Deinse said. “And I think what we learn in this study will be applicable in other areas, too.”
This process provides their partners with tools to gather and evaluate data that can help them make decisions about their service model and secure funding by providing evidence of the impact of their services on client outcomes.
“People working within FJCs believe that they work because we’re seeing and feeling the differences,” noted Beth McCollum, manager of a partnering FJC in North Carolina’s Guilford County. “But feelings don’t lead to funding decisions.”
Rizo sees the project’s potential benefits as the direct result of service providers’ continued input and engagement and clients’ willingness to discuss their own sensitive information to help improve services for all.
“This project could not have happened without the partners and clients who trusted us,” she said.
by Jordan Wingate
Stakeholder Interview
Beth McCollum, Manager, Guilford County Family Justice Center – High Point
SSW: What are some of the key benefits to co-located service centers you’ve observed or experienced in your role as FJC manager?
BM: In our two locations we have 17 different partner agencies on site and about 100 professionals. And our model makes it easier for professionals to do their work. For example, if I have a question about a police report, I can call out of my office and the entire SVU (Sexual Victims Unit) for High Point PD can hear me. Our access to information is different because of how we can talk to each other. We’re not playing phone tag or only contacting each other when we need something. And it’s easier for our clients. We operate as a walk-in service, there’s no fee for services, we don’t ask about insurance or immigration status, we have language services, and playrooms so people can bring their kids. They come here, go to one room and stay in that room getting connected to everything that they need. Even with multiple agencies on site, they’re not getting bounced around. It lets our systems and our professionals work harder so that people who have experienced crime can work a little bit less.
SSW: It makes sense that people who work and receive services at FJCs already believe that, at a fundamental level, the service model works. What do you hope to learn from this evaluation study?
BM: One thing that’s really exciting about the work they (Profs. Rizo and Van Denise) have taken on is that there’s not a lot of research about co-located services like FJCs. Is it working, how is it working, how do we know it’s working, and how do you measure impact when all of these people are working together? We’re excited about having a process for gathering data and quantitative information, and learning how we communicate out about the impacts of FJCs beyond or after the direct on-site service experience. That information could impact state-level funding decisions, grant opportunities and opportunities for advocacy around collaborative work.
SSW: Do you have an example of the types of outcomes that FJCs can promote for clients?
BM: In Guilford County we serve about 13,000 people each year through our 2 FJC locations, so we have the privilege of seeing successes every day. Sometimes there are little wins, like when someone is willing to tell you their story and welcome you into the most terrible thing that’s ever happened on their worst day and then trust you to connect them to people who can help. We had a client with a child referred to us by CPS (Child Protective Services) who had experienced significant trauma throughout her childhood and young adulthood. At that point they were only talking to the social worker through a crack in the door. We pooled our connections and resources to make sure that that family had what they needed, like food and clothing, and slowly built trust. Finally, they came to our center. And we went from that person not being willing to talk to a social worker face-to-face to that person connecting to 15 different resources within a week. We were able to build trust and consistency and a relationship that ultimately allowed them and their child to be safe and the perpetrator to be held accountable in a way that wouldn’t have been possible without that coordinated care.
Advancing equity. Transforming systems. Improving lives.
UNC School of Social Work
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building
325 Pittsboro Street | Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550