Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness

Future of Children

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 54-71

  McCroskey, Jacquelyn ^a   Meezan, William ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD ABUSE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HOME CARE; HUMAN; NEGLECT; PHILOSOPHY; REARING; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL SUPPORT;

EID: 0031784083     PISSN: 10548289     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/1602628     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. O'Hare, W.P. Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1996; Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. Starting points: Meeting the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994.
2. O'Hare, W.P. Kids count data book: State profiles of child well-being. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1996; Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. Starting points: Meeting the needs of our youngest children. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York, 1994.
3. National Commission on Children. Beyond rhetoric: A new American agenda for children and families. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991.
4. Brown, J. Family practice: The model and its application. In Family practice: A curriculum plan for social services. J. Brown and M. Weil, eds. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1992, pp. 43-77.
5. Wynn, J., Costello, J., Halpern, R., and Richman, H. Children, families and communities: A new approach to social services. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1994.
6. U.S. General Accounting Office. Child welfare: Complex needs strain capacity to provide services. GAO/HEHS-95-208. Washington, DC: GAO, September 26, 1995.
7. Bruner, C. Realizing a vision for children, families and neighborhoods: An alternative to other modest proposals. Des Moines, IA: National Center for Service Integration, and Child and Family Policy Center, 1996.
8. Garbarino, J., and Kostelny, K. Family support and community development. In Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change. S.L. Kagan and B. Weissbourd, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 297-320.
9. Fraser, M.W., Nelson, K.E., and Rivard, J.C. Effectiveness of family preservation services. Social Work Research (1997) 21,3:138-53.
10. Pecora, P., Fraser, M., Nelson, K., et al. Evaluating family-based services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1995.
11. U.S. General Accounting Office. Child welfare: Opportunities to further enhance family preservation and support activities. GAO/HEHS-95-112. Washington, DC: GAO, June 1995.
12. Adams, P. Marketing social change: The case of family preservation. Children and Youth Services Review (1994) 16,5/6:417-31.
13. Program instruction ACYF-PI-94-01, issued January 18, 1994, by the Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/policy/pi9401.htm.
14. Ahsan, N. The family preservation and support services program. The Future of Children (Winter 1996) 6,3:157-60.
15. Ingrassia, M., and McCormick, J. Why leave children with bad parents? Newsweek, April 25, 1994, pp. 52-58; Lykken, D.T. Giving children a chance in life. Chronicle of Higher Education. February 9, 1996, at B1, B2.
16. Ingrassia, M., and McCormick, J. Why leave children with bad parents? Newsweek, April 25, 1994, pp. 52-58; Lykken, D.T. Giving children a chance in life. Chronicle of Higher Education. February 9, 1996, at B1, B2.
17. MacDonald, H. The ideology of "family preservation." The Public Interest (1995) 115:45-60, quote from p. 45.
18. Besharov, D.J. When home is hell, we are too reluctant to take children from bad parents. Washington Post. December 1, 1996, at C1, C5, quote from p. C5.
19. Kagan, S.L., and Shelley, A. The promise and problems of family support programs. In America's family support programs. S.L. Kagan, D.R. Powell, B. Weissbourd, and E.F. Zigler, eds. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987, pp. 3-20.
20. Weiss, H., and Halpern, R. Community-based family support and education programs: Something old or something new? New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, 1990.
21. Allen, M.L., Brown, P., and Finley, B. Helping children by strengthening families: A look at family support programs. Washington, DC: Children's Defense Fund, 1992.
22. Family Resource Coalition. Guidelines for family support practice. Chicago: FRC, 1996.
23. Weiss, H.B., and Jacobs, F.H. Family support and education programs: Challenges and opportunities. In Evaluating family programs. H.B. Weiss and F.H. Jacobs, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988, pp. xix-xxix.
24. Cameron, G., and Vanderwoerd, J. Protecting children and supporting families: Promising programs and organizational realities. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997; Gullotta, T.P. Operationalizing Albee's incidence formula. In Primary prevention works. G.W. Albee and T.P. Gullotta, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997, pp. 23-37.
25. Cameron, G., and Vanderwoerd, J. Protecting children and supporting families: Promising programs and organizational realities. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1997; Gullotta, T.P. Operationalizing Albee's incidence formula. In Primary prevention works. G.W. Albee and T.P. Gullotta, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997, pp. 23-37.
26. Albee, G.W., and Gullotta, T.P. Primary prevention's evolution. In Primary prevention works. G.W. Albee and T.P. Gullotta, eds. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1997, pp. 3-22.
27. Kagan, S.L., Cohen, N., Hailey, L., et al. Toward a new understanding of family support: A review of programs and a suggested typology. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1996.
28. Bruner, C. State government and family support: From marginal to mainstream. In Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change. S.L. Kagan and B. Weissbourd, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 338-57.
29. Rice, N.B. Local initiatives in support of families. In Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change. S.L. Kagan and B. Weissbourd, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 321-37.
30. Powell, D.R. Evaluating family support programs: Are we making progress? In Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change. S.L. Kagan and B. Weissbourd, eds. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1994, pp. 441-70.
31. Barnett, W.S. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:25-50.
32. Yoshikawa, H. Long-term effects of early childhood programs on social outcomes and delinquency. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:51-75.
33. Olds, D., and Kitzman, H. Review of research on home visiting for pregnant women and parents of young children. The Future of Children (Winter 1993) 3,3:53-92.
34. Gomby, D.S., Larner, M.B., Stevenson, C.S., and Behrman, R.E. Long-term outcomes of early childhood programs: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children (Winter 1995) 5,3:6-24.
35. Weiss, H.B. Family support and education programs: Working through ecological theories of human development. In Evaluating family programs. H.B. Weiss and F.H. Jacobs, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988, pp. 3-37.
36. Barnes, H.V., Goodson, B.D., and Layzer, J. National evaluation of family support programs: Review of research on supportive interventions for children and families. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, 1995.
37. Whittaker, J.K., Kinney, J., Tracy, E.M., and Booth, C., eds. Reaching high-risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.
38. Kinney, J., Haapala, D., and Booth, C. Keeping families together: The Homebuilders Model. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990.
39. Pecora, P.J., Whittaker, J.K., and Maluccio, A.N. The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1992.
40. Wells, K., and Tracy, E. Reorienting intensive family preservation services in relation to public child welfare practice. Child Welfare (1996) 75,6:667-92.
41. Barth, R.P. Theories guiding home-based intensive family preservation services. In Improving practice technology for work with high risk families: Lessons from the "Homebuilders" social work education project. J.K. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E.M. Tracy, and C. Booth, eds. Seattle, WA: Center for Social Welfare Research, School of Social Work, University of Washington, pp. 91-114.
42. Grigsby, R.K. Theories that guide intensive family preservation services: A second look. In Advancing family preservation practice. E.S. Morton and R.K. Grigsby, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, pp. 16-28.
43. Nelson, K.E., Landsman, M.J., and Deutelbaum, W. Three models of family-centered placement prevention programs. Child Welfare (1990) 69,1:3-22.
44. McCroskey, J. Family preservation and child protection: Finding a better balance. In Family preservation and support services and California's families: Background briefing report. Sacramento, CA: California State Library Foundation, 1996, pp. 104-36.
45. Whittaker, J.K., and Tracy, E.M. Family preservation services and education for social work practice: Stimulus and response. In Reaching high risk families: Intensive family preservation in human services. J.K. Whittaker, J. Kinney, E.M. Tracy, and C. Booth, eds. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1990, pp. 1-11.
46. Rossi, P.H. Assessing family preservation programs. Children and Youth Services Review (1992) 14,1/2:77-98; Rossi, P.H. Strategies for evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review (1992) 14,1/2:167-92.
47. Rossi, P.H. Assessing family preservation programs. Children and Youth Services Review (1992) 14,1/2:77-98; Rossi, P.H. Strategies for evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review (1992) 14,1/2:167-92.
48. Behavioral Science Institute. Homebuilders evaluation summary. Federal Way, WA: Behavioral Science Institute, 1990.
49. Blythe, B.J., Salley, M.P., and Jayaratne, S. A review of intensive family preservation research. Social Work Research (1994) 18,4:213-24.
50. Walton, E., Fraser, M.W., Lewis, R.E., et al. In-home family focused reunification: An experimental study. Child Welfare (1993) 72,5:473-87.
51. McCroskey, J., and Meezan, W. Family preservation and family functioning. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1997.
52. Meezan, W., and McCroskey, J. Improving family functioning through family preservation services: Results of the Los Angeles experiment. Family Preservation Journal (Winter 1996) pp. 9-29.
53. Berry, M. The relative effectiveness of family preservation services with neglectful families. In Advancing family preservation practice. E.S. Morton and R.K. Grigsby, eds. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993, pp. 70-98.
54. Henggler, S.W., Melton, G.B., Smith, L.A., et al. Family preservation using multisystemic treatment: Long-term follow-up to a clinical trial with serious juvenile offenders. Journal of Child and Family Studies (1993) 2,4:283-93.
55. Friedman, R. What's working in family-based services? - or, What's left to believe in during a time of such doubt? Family Preservation Journal (Summer 1997) 2,1:9-19.
56. Young, N., Gardner, S., Coley, S., et al. Making a difference: Moving to outcome-based accountability for comprehensive service reforms. Resource brief no. 7. Falls Church, CA: National Center for Service Integration, 1994.
57. English, D.J., and Pecora, P.J. Risk assessment as a practice method in child protective services. Child Welfare (1994) 73,5:451-73; Lyons, P., Doueck, H.J., and Wodarski, J.S. Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research (1996) 20,3:143-56.
58. English, D.J., and Pecora, P.J. Risk assessment as a practice method in child protective services. Child Welfare (1994) 73,5:451-73; Lyons, P., Doueck, H.J., and Wodarski, J.S. Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research (1996) 20,3:143-56.
59. Stephens, S.A., Leiderman, S.A., Wolf, W.C., and McCarthy, P.T. Building capacity for system reform. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development, 1994; Illig, D. Integrating services for children. Sacramento, CA: California Elected Women's Association for Education and Research, 1995.
60. Stephens, S.A., Leiderman, S.A., Wolf, W.C., and McCarthy, P.T. Building capacity for system reform. Bala Cynwyd, PA: Center for Assessment and Policy Development, 1994; Illig, D. Integrating services for children. Sacramento, CA: California Elected Women's Association for Education and Research, 1995.
61. McCroskey, J. Private sector services for families and children in Los Angeles County. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Roundtable for Children, 1991.
62. Feud, T. Managed care and child welfare: Will it work? Public Welfare (Summer 1996) 54,3:4-10, quote on p. 9.
63. McCroskey, J., Sladen, A., and Meezan, W. Family assessment form: A practice-based approach to assessing family functioning developed by the Children's Bureau of Southern California. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1997.
64. Schorr, L., Farrow, F., Hornbeck, D., and Watson, S. The case for shifting to results-based accountability. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1995; Johnson, W. Risk assessment research: Progress and future directions. Protecting Children (1996) 12,2:14-19.
65. Schorr, L., Farrow, F., Hornbeck, D., and Watson, S. The case for shifting to results-based accountability. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1995; Johnson, W. Risk assessment research: Progress and future directions. Protecting Children (1996) 12,2:14-19.
66. Pelton, L.H. A functional approach to reorganizing family and child welfare interventions. Children and Youth Services Review (1992) 14,3/4:289-303, quote from p. 295.
67. Hutchinson, E.D., Dattalo, P., and Rodwell, M.K. Reorganizing child protective services: Protecting children and providing family support. Children and Youth Services Review (1997) 16,5/6:319-38.
68. Jones, M.A., Neuman, R., and Shyne, A. A second chance for families: Evaluation of a program to reduce foster care. New York: Child Welfare League of America, 1976.
69. Hodges, V.G. Providing culturally sensitive intensive family preservation services to ethnic minority families. In Intensive family preservation services: An instructional sourcebook. E.M. Tracy, D.A. Haapala, J. Kinney, and P.J. Pecora, eds. Cleveland, OH: Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1991, pp. 95-116; Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council. Ethnic community profiles: Planning for a new Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, 1996.
70. Hodges, V.G. Providing culturally sensitive intensive family preservation services to ethnic minority families. In Intensive family preservation services: An instructional sourcebook. E.M. Tracy, D.A. Haapala, J. Kinney, and P.J. Pecora, eds. Cleveland, OH: Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 1991, pp. 95-116; Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council. Ethnic community profiles: Planning for a new Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles County Children's Planning Council, 1996.
71. Kretzman, J., and McKnight, J. Building communities from the inside out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community's assets. Chicago: ACTA Publishers, 1994.
72. See note no. 56, Feild, p. 4.
73. Halpern, R. Rebuilding the inner city: A history of neighborhood initiatives to address poverty in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, quote on p. 198.
74. Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J.E., and Su, M. Measuring neighborhood context for young children in an urban area. American Journal of Community Psychology (1996) 24,1:5-32.
75. Chaskin, R.J. The Ford Foundation's neighborhood and family initiative: Toward a model of comprehensive neighborhood-based development. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1992; see also Chaskin, R.J. Defining neighborhood: History, theory, and practice. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1995.
76. Chaskin, R.J. The Ford Foundation's neighborhood and family initiative: Toward a model of comprehensive neighborhood-based development. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1992; see also Chaskin, R.J. Defining neighborhood: History, theory, and practice. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children, 1995.
77. Nelson, D.W. The path of most resistance: Lessons learned from "new futures." In Children and their families in big cities: Strategies for service reform. A.J. Kahn and S.B. Kamerman, eds. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work, 1996, pp. 163-84.
78. Center for the Study of Social Policy. Building new futures for at-risk youth. Findings from a five-year multi-site evaluation. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1995.
79. Connell, J.P., Kubish, A.C., School, L.B., and Weiss, C.H., eds. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995; Cousins, J.B., and Earl, L.M. Participatory evaluation: Enhancing evaluation use and organizational learning capacity. The Evaluation Exchange (1995) 1,3/4:2-3; Lopez, M.E., and Anderson, C. Evaluating community-based initiatives. The Evaluation Exchange (1996) 2,4:3-5.
80. Connell, J.P., Kubish, A.C., School, L.B., and Weiss, C.H., eds. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995; Cousins, J.B., and Earl, L.M. Participatory evaluation: Enhancing evaluation use and organizational learning capacity. The Evaluation Exchange (1995) 1,3/4:2-3; Lopez, M.E., and Anderson, C. Evaluating community-based initiatives. The Evaluation Exchange (1996) 2,4:3-5.
81. Connell, J.P., Kubish, A.C., School, L.B., and Weiss, C.H., eds. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods and contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995; Cousins, J.B., and Earl, L.M. Participatory evaluation: Enhancing evaluation use and organizational learning capacity. The Evaluation Exchange (1995) 1,3/4:2-3; Lopez, M.E., and Anderson, C. Evaluating community-based initiatives. The Evaluation Exchange (1996) 2,4:3-5.