Expanding State Research Capacity in Child Welfare: The Need for State Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

Elisabeth Wilson, Heather Hendley, Rachel Russell, Heather Kestian, Terry Stigdon
{"title":"Expanding State Research Capacity in Child Welfare: The Need for State Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)","authors":"Elisabeth Wilson, Heather Hendley, Rachel Russell, Heather Kestian, Terry Stigdon","doi":"10.38126/jspg190113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, funding for child welfare programs drastically changed under the Bipartisan Budget Act: Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). To pull Title IV-E funding for prevention programs, all states must evaluate outcomes of children and families involved in child welfare. To meet these guidelines, state agencies need research structures, including internal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). IRBs allow state governments to conduct ethical research, and expand research within the discipline. As researchers pursue careers outside of academia, these structures are pivotal and lead to policy contributions and knowledge in the discipline. This study evaluates the following in all 50 US states: How many states have internal IRBs? How many states have IRBs that are accessible to the state’s child welfare agency? How have states set-up internal IRBs to function within a government context? The analysis found 34 states have at least one federally registered IRB of which 31 appear active within the state. However, only 11 of the 31 states have an IRB accessible to child welfare departments. These 11 states provide a blueprint for how to establish and maintain an IRB that supports child welfare agencies. Three distinct set ups emerged: holistic multi-department IRB, singular department/agency IRB, or those governed by an inter-agency sharing agreement. These findings show multiple states use an internal IRB to support state researchers. However, these IRBs are not currently accessible to the child welfare agency. For agencies to meet the requirements of FFPSA, IRBs must be expanded to the child welfare agency or built within the state.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg190113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2018, funding for child welfare programs drastically changed under the Bipartisan Budget Act: Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). To pull Title IV-E funding for prevention programs, all states must evaluate outcomes of children and families involved in child welfare. To meet these guidelines, state agencies need research structures, including internal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). IRBs allow state governments to conduct ethical research, and expand research within the discipline. As researchers pursue careers outside of academia, these structures are pivotal and lead to policy contributions and knowledge in the discipline. This study evaluates the following in all 50 US states: How many states have internal IRBs? How many states have IRBs that are accessible to the state’s child welfare agency? How have states set-up internal IRBs to function within a government context? The analysis found 34 states have at least one federally registered IRB of which 31 appear active within the state. However, only 11 of the 31 states have an IRB accessible to child welfare departments. These 11 states provide a blueprint for how to establish and maintain an IRB that supports child welfare agencies. Three distinct set ups emerged: holistic multi-department IRB, singular department/agency IRB, or those governed by an inter-agency sharing agreement. These findings show multiple states use an internal IRB to support state researchers. However, these IRBs are not currently accessible to the child welfare agency. For agencies to meet the requirements of FFPSA, IRBs must be expanded to the child welfare agency or built within the state.
扩大国家在儿童福利方面的研究能力:需要国家机构审查委员会(irb)
2018年,根据《两党预算法:家庭第一预防服务法案》(FFPSA),儿童福利项目的资金发生了巨大变化。为了减少对预防项目的资助,所有州都必须评估参与儿童福利的儿童和家庭的结果。为了满足这些指导方针,国家机构需要研究结构,包括内部机构审查委员会(irb)。伦理委员会允许州政府进行伦理研究,并扩大学科范围内的研究。当研究人员追求学术界以外的职业时,这些结构是关键的,并导致该学科的政策贡献和知识。这项研究评估了美国所有50个州的以下情况:有多少个州有内部审查委员会?有多少州的irb对该州的儿童福利机构开放?各州如何在政府背景下建立内部审计委员会来发挥作用?分析发现,34个州至少有一个联邦注册的IRB,其中31个似乎在州内活跃。然而,在31个州中,只有11个州有儿童福利部门可以访问的IRB。这11个州为如何建立和维持一个支持儿童福利机构的IRB提供了蓝图。出现了三种不同的设置:整体多部门IRB,单一部门/机构IRB,或由机构间共享协议管理的IRB。这些发现表明,许多州使用内部IRB来支持州研究人员。但是,儿童福利机构目前无法获得这些irb。为了满足FFPSA的要求,irb必须扩展到儿童福利机构或在州内建立。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信