Information of Interest
This preliminary research conducted for the CW/AOD/COMMUNITY Work Group. This review is not intended to be exhaustive or final, but rather to serve as a "working" list that can be modified as the research agenda develops. All suggestions are welcome and should be addressed to the Child Welfare League of America. The outline for the review is as follows:
- AOD/CW General Information
- Public Awareness/Public Education
- Prevention/Early Intervention
- Treatment and Services Coordination
- Recovery and Integration
- Consumer-driven Approaches, Community-Building
- Funding Issues
I. AOD/CW General Information:
American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 181-183.
Arthur, C.R. & Gerken, K.C. (1998). Prenatal Exposure and Public Policy: Implications for Pregnant and Parenting Women and Their Families; Infants and Young Children, 10(4):23-35.
Azzi-Lessing, L., & Olson, L. (1996). Substance abuse-affected families in the child welfare system: New challenges, new alliances. Social Work, 41, 15-23.
Besharov, D.J. (1996). The Children of Crack: A Status Report: Have the Children of Drug-Addicted Parents Been Forgotten?; American Enterprise Institute Public Policy Research, 1150 17th St. NW, Suite 1100, Washington DC.
Besinger, B.A., Garland, A.F., Litrownik, A.J., & Landsverk, J.A. (1999). Caregiver Substance Abuse Among Maltreated Children Placed in Out-of-Home Care; Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice and Program, 78(2).
Bloom, Martin, (1998). The Bridges of Child Welfare/Substance Abuse County; in Hampton, R.L., Senatore, V. & Gullotta, T.P. (Eds); Substance Abuse, Family Violence, and Child Abuse: Bridging Perspectives; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320; pp. 124-142.
Brooks, D. (1999). Kinship Care and Substance-Exposed Children; ????, 9(1):1-2, 20-21.
Buchi, K.F. (1998). The Drug-Exposed Infant in the Well-Baby Nursery; Clinics in Perinatology, 25(2):335-350.
Bush, I. R., & Kraft, M. K. (2001). Self-sufficiency and sobriety: Substance-abusing women and welfare reform. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 1 (1) 41-64. *
Bush, I.R. & Sainz, A. (1997). Preventing Substance Abuse from Undermining Permanency Planning: Competencies at the Intersection of Culture, Chemical Dependency, and child Welfare; Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 5(1-2):79-97.
Calley, S.M. and Murell, W. (1998). Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Services: From Barriers to Collaboration; in Hampton, R.L., Senatore, V. & Gullotta, T.P. (Eds); Substance Abuse, Family Violence, and Child Abuse: Bridging Perspectives; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320; pp. 188-219.
Chasnoff, I.J. & Lowder. L.A. (1999). Prenatal AOD use and Risk for Maltreatment: A Timely Approach for Intervention, pp. 132-155; in Dubowitz, H. (Editor) Neglected Children: Research, Practice, and Policy; Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.
Chico, David M. (1999). The Differences in Perception Regarding the Substance Abuse Client Between the Child Welfare System and the Chemical Dependency System; a Master's Thesis, San Diego State University.
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services/SAMSHA (1999). Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection; United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Washington, DC.
HHS/SAMHSA (1999A). 1998 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse; United States Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admininstration, Washington, DC.
DOJ/BJS (1998). 1998 Annual Report; United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics; Washington, DC.
Department of Justice. (1998). La Bodega de la Familia: Reaching Out to the Forgotten Victims of Substance Abuse; U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Washington, DC.
Dodge, Karen & Potocky, Miriam (2000). Female Substance Abuse: Characteristics and Correlates in a Sample of Impatient Clients; Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 18:1, pp.59-64.
Dore, M. M., Doris, J. M., & Wright, P. (1995). Identifying substance abuse in maltreating families: A child welfare challenge. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 531-543.
Dore, M.M. (1998). Impact and Relationship of Substance Abuse and Child Maltreatment: Risk and Protective Factors. What Research Teaches Us; Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics (1999). America's Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Feig, L. (1998). Understanding the problem: The gap between substance abuse programs and child welfare services. In R. L. Hampton, V. Senatore, & T. P. Gullotta. (Eds.), Substance abuse, family violence, and child abuse: Bridging perspectives (pp. 62-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Felitti, V.J., Anda, R.F., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D.F., et. a.l (1998). Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study; American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4);245-258.
Fiorentine, R., & Hillhouse, M.P. (1999). Treatment effectiveness and client-counselor empathy. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (1), 59-74.
Forsyth, B.W.C., Leventhal, J.M., Qi, K., & Johnson, L. (1998). Health care and hospitalizations of young children born to cocaine-using women. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 152 (2), 177-184.
General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. General Accounting Office, Washington, DC.
Gerstein, D.R., et. al. (1997). Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment for Parents and Welfare Recipients: Outcomes, Costs, and Benefits. Final report to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and The Lewin Group.
Grella, C.E. (1997). Services for perinatal women with substance abuse and mental health disorders: The unmet need. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 29(1), 67-78.
Gill, Jan (1994). Alcohol Problems in Employment: Epidemiology and Responses; Alcohol & Alcoholism, 29(3):233-248.
Hampton, R.L., Senatore, V. & Gullotta, T.P. (Eds) (1998). Substance Abuse, Family Violence, and Child Welfare: Bridging Perspectives; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Harden, B.J. (1998). Building Bridges for children: Addressing the Consequences of Exposure to Drugs and the Child Welfare System; in Hampton, R.L., Senatore, V. & Gullotta, T.P. (Eds); Substance Abuse, Family Violence, and Child Abuse: Bridging Perspectives; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320; pp. 18-61.
Harwood H, Fountain D, Livermore G et al (1998). The Economic Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse in the United States, 1992. (Table 1.4). NIH: National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Hatfield, Agnes B. (1993). Dual Diagnosis: Substance Abuse and Mental Illness; National Alliance for the Mentally Ill; Arlington, VA.
Hohman, M. M., & Butt, R. (2001). How soon is too soon? Addiction recovery and family unification. Child Welfare, 80 (1), 53-67. *
Kane-Cavaiola, C., & Rullo-Conney, D. (1991). Addicted women: Their families' effect on treatment outcome. Journal of Chemical Dependency Treatment, 4 (1), 111-119.
Metsch, L. R., Wolfe, H. P., Fewell, R., & McCoy, C. B. (2001). Treating substance-abusing women and their children in public housing: Preliminary evaluation findings. Child Welfare, 80 (2) 199-220. *
Moore, J., & Finkelstein, N. (2001). Parenting services for families affected by substance abuse. Child Welfare, 80 (2) 221-238. *
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (1999, October). Building bridges: States respond to substance abuse and welfare reform. New York: Author. *
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. (2001, January). Shoveling up: The impact of substance abuse on state budgets. New York: Author. *
The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. CASAWORKS for Families: A promising approach to welfare reform and substance-abusing women. New York: Author. *
Reid, J., Macchetto, P., & Foster, S. (1999, January). No safe haven: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. *
Sun, A. (2000). Helping substance-abusing mothers in the child-welfare system: Turning crisis into opportunity. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 81 (2) 141-151. *
U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. *
Young, N. K., Gardner, S. L., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. *
Drawing on the experience of several models of child welfare practice, this guidebook sets forth a policy framework that can assist child welfare agencies in responding to these overlapping problems. The authors describe several models where agencies have been able to develop effective ways of linking child welfare services and AOD treatment and set for the pros and cons of these modes. The text reviews innovative practices in both the child welfare and substance abuse treatment fields, including changes in approaches to families, in interviewing techniques, in community partnerships, and in using treatment outcomes to determine which programs are most effective for which clients.
Whiteside-Mansell, L., Crone, C. C., & Conners, N. A. (1999) The development and evaluation of an alcohol and drug prevention and treatment program for women and children. The Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 16 (3) 265-275. *
II. Public Awareness/Public Education:
Akin, Becci A. and Gregoire, Thomas K. (1997). Parents' Views on Child Welfare's Response to Addictions; Families in Society, School of Social Welfare, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS.
III. Prevention and Early Intervention:
Crum, R.M., Ensminger, M.E., Ro, M.J. & McCord, J. (1998). The association of educational achievement and school dropout with risk of alcoholism: A twenty-five year prospective study of inner-city children. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 59(3) 318-326.
CSAP (1999). Understanding Substance Abuse Prevention: Toward the 21st Century: A Primer on Effective Programs; Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Huang, L.X., Cerbone, F.G., & Gfroerer, J.C. (1998). Children at Risk of Parental Substance Abuse; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, MD.
Onyskiw, J. E., Harrison, M. J., Spady, D., & McConnan, L. (1999). Formative evaluation of a collaborative community-based child abuse prevention project. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23 (11) 1069-1081. *
IV. Treatment and Services Coordination:
Colby, S.M. & Murrell, W. (1998). Child Welfare and Substance Abuse Services: From Barriers to Collaboration; in Hampton, R.L., Senatore, V. & Gullotta, T.P. (Eds); Substance Abuse, Family Violence, and Child Abuse: Bridging Perspectives; Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 91320; pp. 188-219.
CSAT (1999). Changing the Conversation: A National Plan to Improve Substance Abuse Treatment; Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Dilonardo, J. (1998). The effect of perceived self relevance of wrap-around services received on treatment retention and substance abuse outcome of adults in public sector substance abuse treatment programs. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, B.
Finkelstein, N. (1994). Treatment issues for alcohol and drug dependent pregnant and parenting women. Health and Social Work, 19 (1), 7-15. *
Fiorentine, R., & Hillhouse, M.P. (1999). Treatment effectiveness and client-counselor empathy. Journal of Drug Issues, 29 (1), 59-74.
Graham, Antonnette V, Graham, Norman R., Sowell, Anne, and Ziegler, Henry (1997). Miracle Village: A Recovery Community for Addicted Women and Their Children in Public Housing; Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 14(3):275-284.
Gerstein, D.R., et. Al. (1997). Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment for Parents and Welfare Recipients: Outcomes, Costs, and Benefits. Final report to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago and The Lewin Group.
Health Systems Research, Inc. (1999), Improving the Identification and Referral Process Between the Welfare and Substance Abuse Systems; Paper presented to a meeting sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, December 13, 1999.
Higgins & Silverman (1999). Motivating Behavior Change Among Illicit Drug Abusers: Research on Contingency Management Interventions, American Psychological Association.
Hjema, K.J., & Knibbe, A. (1998). Changes in social roles as predictors of changes in drinking behavior. Addiction, 93(11), 1717-1727.
McAlpine, C., & Harper-Doran, N. (2001). Combining child welfare and substance abuse services: A blended model of intervention. Child Welfare, 80 (2), 129-149. *
This article discusses several policy and practice issues that were obstacles to successfully implementing AFSA for families with AOD problems and describes one county's approach to overcoming these barriers.
Waldfogel, J. (2000). Reforming child protection services. Child Welfare, 79, (1), 43- *
Prior to implementation the following were seen as barriers: 1) a lack of coordination among systems which resulted in unrealistic and conflicting time lines placed on clients who were involved with multiple systems; 2) staff were unable to track attendance and participation of clients referred for treatment; 3) staff were not properly trained to identify AOD problems which resulted in lost opportunities for intervention; 5) AOD/CWS staff were not centrally located which resulted in lost opportunities for communication and collaboration.
At the recommendation of a joint task force comprised of Montgomery County, Maryland's CWS and Adult Addiction Services (AAS) the following five approaches were implemented:
- Educating staff of the benefits of a philosophical change to provide combined services and putting in place support mechanisms to help staff transition.
- Staff development, cross-training, and skill-building on understanding and intervening with an addicted parent.
- Development of clear protocols and standards for assessment, referral, and follow-up ("Structured Response" approach, similar to what is frequently used in chemical dependency field).
- Quality assurance-development of standards and consequences to be integrated into services for CES and AAS consumers that will meet treatment, service objectives, as well as legal time lines.
- Permanently placing an AOD specialist at the CWS site to be liaison and main point of contact between AOD/CWS staff.
- It takes three to five years for the necessary changes in awareness and behavior practices to be fully implemented.
- There was a yearly increase in the number of CWS cases referred to the AAS liaison.
- AOD/CWS staff meet regularly for joint treatment planning.
- AOD/CWS staff assumed joint responsibility of clients and sought out opportunities for cross-training.
This author outlines a child protective services system (CPS) of the future based on a three-year review by members of an Executive Session at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in 1994. This group concluded that five common problems exist in the current system: overinclusion, underinclusion, capacity, service delivery, and service orientation. In response to these problems, the author describes a new "differential response" paradigm that will change the type of cases CPS workers handle and the skills they need to do the job.
Walton, E., Samdai-Beckler, P., & Mannes, M. (Eds.). (2001). Balancing family-centered services and child well-being: Exploring issues in policy, practice, theory, and research. New York: Columbia University Press. *
In this model, CPS workers handle the most high-risk cases and utilize the services of informal and natural helpers when working with low-risk cases. The author's recommends that frontline staff will need additional training in assessment, service planning, service provision, and client engagement. In addition, the quality of screening and investigations will need to be improved to ensure cases are appropriately assigned.
This book, with contributions ranging from academic and professional theorists and policy developers to independent social workers provides an overview of family-centered services at the beginning of the twenty-first century. This collection of essays sheds light on how family-centered services have evolved, providing rationale and basis for using the approach, describing the ways in which services are implemented, highlighting dilemmas the field currently faces, and presenting prospects for its future. Several chapters are included to help frame family-centered services and address the family-centered reform movement and others address core aspects of family-centered services. There are also several chapters dedicated to describing successful existing and potentially valuable approaches to family-centered services.
Malekoff, A. (2000). Bureaucratic barriers to service delivery, administrative advocacy, and Mother Goose. Families in Society: Contemporary Human Services, 81 (3), 304-314. *
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1995). Assessment and treatment of patients with co-existing mental illness and alcohol and other drug abuse. (DHS Publication No. SMA 95-3061). Rockville, MD: Author. *
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000). Integrating substance abuse treatment and vocational services. (DHS Publication SMA 00-3470). Rockville, MD: Author. *
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000). Substance abuse treatment for persons with child abuse and neglect issues. (DHS Publication No. SMA 00-3357). Rockville, MD: Author. *
V. Recovery and Integration:
Callahan, S. (1999). Understanding health-status barriers that hinder the transition from welfare to work. Washington, DC: National Governors Association, NGA Center for Best Practices.
VI. Consumer-driven Approaches, Community-Building:
Annie E. Casey Foundation (1998). START: Sobriety Treatment and Recovery Teams. Report to the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.
Barsky, A. (1999). Community involvement through child protection mediation. Child Welfare, 78 (4), 481- *
This article examines how the use of extended community involvement in child protection (CP) mediation can be an asset in some CP cases. Based on a model of mediation used in Canada to involve more stakeholders than the traditional agency involves (e.g., agency responsible for the child protection, family members, and sometimes the child), the authors assert that this approach can increase ongoing community involvement and ensure that families are not linked to services and support systems that are not available.
The California Partnership for Children. (1998, Fall). The parent-consumer council. The Partnership Quarterly 2 (3). Sacramento, CA: California Partnership for Children. *
The author's point out this type of CP mediation is not beneficial for all cases and should take into consideration the wishes of families involved. This model grants communities an opportunity for participation when families lack emotional, social, and instrumental support. The article suggests that participation of nonparties may be valuable to mediation in four ways:
This article highlights that past research has been limited to studying the theoretical arguments for and against the use of mediation in this context and that limited research is available on the level of community involvement in CP mediation processes.
- Nonparties may support parents who feel intimidated by the process.
- When appropriate, nonparties may be helpful in confronting the parents' denial of allegations.
- They may provide an additional perspective on the needs of the child and may offer useful options to consider in mediation.
- They may at times commit in the agreement to provide assistance to the child parents, or family, and thus contribute to a more effective solution.
This newsletter highlights the work of The California Partnership for Children. This issue highlights the significant challenge of building a council focused on building relationships among parent-consumer groups. The partnership works to be sensitive to already over burdened and under supported parents while developing a council of those people invested in the well-being of children.
Center for the Study of Social Policy (1998, December). Setting a community agenda: A case study of the local investment commission. Washington, DC: Author. *
This report highlights the efforts of one successful community collaborative group, the Local INvestment Commission (LINC), comprised of business and civic leaders, and private citizens who are working with social service professionals, non-profits, and local county, state, and public agencies to oversee the reform of the Kansas City social service delivery system.
Peer Technical Assistance Network (1998, September). Learning from colleagues: Family/professional partnerships moving forward together. Alexandria, VA: Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health. *
Also known as a "local governance partnership," this workgroup attributes its success to several key elements unique to this partnership.
- LINCs membership consists of citizen leaders from all parts of Kansas City who use elected officials, public agency staff, and service providers as advisors and technical assistance partners, rather than as decision makers.
- LINC has developed a new funding strategy where two-thirds of their money is directly received and spent on operations and special projects, and the other one-third is made up of money they influence, but do not directly administer. This strategy creates an institutional funding base that does not confine spending to one program, but allows spending across systems.
- LINCs diversity in leadership has been critical to its success. Unlike many community initiatives, where business leaders lend their names and reputations to the "initial push," LINCs business leaders have sustained and increased their level of involvement.
This document represents involvement from staff at the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Council of Chief State School Officers, Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, National Resource Network for Child and Family Mental Health Services, and the National Technical Assistance Center for Children's Mental Health. This paper highlights the work done by a large network of experts to begin the conversation of how we help foster relationships between professionals and family members.
Pennell, J. , & Parker, K. (2000). Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79 (2), 131-158. *
This article discusses the family group decision model in the child welfare/domestic violence field. This five-stage strategy draws on the strengths of families using the family conference model.
Potapchuck, W., Crocke, J., & Schechter, W. (1998, January). The transformative power of governance. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
A qualitative analysis of progress reports from family members and CPS reports show enhanced family unity, increased feelings of safety within families and reduced levels of abuse. The analysis showed the conferences "strengthened positive family ties among participants, removed some negative ties, and enhanced their sense of being a family."
This model integrates family into the treatment process and could be adapted for the AOD/CW welfare fields.
This paper focuses on the belief that governance is about how entities-each of whom have a separate governing mechanism-work together in lateral and hierarchical relationships, in different roles, in different ways, in active engagement with citizens, to produce synergy known to be necessary to transform neighborhoods, strengthen families and achieve better outcomes for children and youth.
Blank, M., Kaplan, G. (1999). Business leaders and communities: Working together for change. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
The Annie E. Casey Foundation asked IEL to conduct and report on interviews with business leaders from the private sector who are currently involved in expanding their role in the human service and community development fields.
Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building community partnerships-Getting from here to there. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government.
In an effort to craft a more effective approach for keeping children safe from maltreatment, the JFK School of Government at Harvard University convened a working group of leading public and private child welfare administrators, elected officials, judges, advocates, academics and other experts in the field. The group has met regularly to discuss new work in the field, and share the experiences of their members. This document discusses the core elements behind the theory of change used by the Edna McConnell Clark Initiative as well as many other initiatives in the field.
Farrow, F., Gardner, S. (1999, March). Citizens making decisions: Local governance making change. What works: Policy Brief. Sacramento, CA: Foundation Consortium.
This policy brief highlights what local governance is and how it works. It cites examples and gives a broad range of issues that face people working on issues of local governance.
Fishman, M., Farrell, M., Allen, V., & Eiseman, E. (2000, April). Evaluating community collaborations: A research synthesis. Falls Church, VA: The Lewin Group. *
This research synthesis prepared for the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services draws upon a vast survey of Evaluation literature available on community collaborations and initiatives. This report identifies the major challenges of evaluating complex, community-based collaborations and their initiatives, discusses approaches for addressing them, and suggests implications for the planned evaluation.
Gardner, S. & Young, N.R. (199?). Bridge Building: An Action Plan for State and County Efforts to Strengthen Links Between Child Welfare Services and Services for Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; Child and Family Future, 4940 Irvine Blvd., Suite 202, Irvine, CA 92620.
The report is organized in the following chapters: 1) This chapter outlines several characteristics of community-based collaborations that make them difficult to evaluate; 2) Describes the approaches used to evaluate community collaborations and introduces the concept of the rationale behind "theory-based" evaluation and presents the major characteristics of such an approach; 3) Explores the extent to which the collaborations should be specified at the national or local level, and some of the lessons learned from community collaborations that have been implemented; 4) Presents a framework for assessing the current level of local collaboration and establishing measurable goals for the future; 5) Explores the role of the evaluator in traditional evaluations and how this differs from the role of an evaluator in community collaborations; and 6) The last chapter concludes by exploring the critical role of time plays in implementing a project.
Hoel, J. L. (1998). Cross-system collaboration: Tools that work. Washington, DC: CWLA Press. *
This book is designed to be of practical assistance to families, agencies, and communities as a toolbox of effective principles for collaboration, using a strengths-based philosophy that emphasizes what works. An important read for anyone involved with integrating human services at the local level through cross-system collaboration. This book presents one outcome of the CWLA's and Annie E. Casey Foundation's "Mapping a New Direction III" initiative.
Hogan, C. (1999, September). Vermont communities count: Using results to strengthen services for families and children. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
This document explores the emerging model for social well-being that is based on the premise that organizing at the community level around broad outcomes and more specific indicators will result in improved quality of life for local people. Since 1992 Vermont has been pioneering the development of community partnerships while using indicators to track success.
Institute for Educational Leadership and the Annie E. Casey Foundation (1998, September). Consultative session with business leaders. Washington, DC: IEL.
This paper is a description of a meeting sponsored by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Institute for Educational Leadership. The meeting involved a dozen current and retired CEO's who have spearheaded major projects and coalitions on behalf of disadvantaged children and families. The CEO's offered advice from their experience on how to engage the business community.
Jeppson, E., & Thomas, J. (1995). Essential allies: Families as advisors. Bethesda, MD: Institute for Family-Centered Care.
This publication was developed to help bridge the gap between providers' past training and experience and new expectations of collaboration and partnership with families. The information and tools provided in this document equip providers to work more efficiently and collegially with family members at the program and policy level.
Smale, G., Tuson, G., & Statham,D. (2000). Extracts from social work and problems: Working toward social inclusion and social change. London: National Institute of Social Work.
This document is an excerpt from a larger text designed to help people to begin to think about who to include in making decision about community problems. The paper illustrates examples where including the community members in decision-making is critical, as well as includes data and statistics about different aspects service provision, who needs services and who uses them. Contact email@example.com. for more information.
Walker, K., Watson, B., & Jucovy, L. (1999, Summer). Resident involvement in community change: The experiences of two initiatives. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures.
This report looks at adult resident involvement in two demonstration projects: Plain Talk and Community Change for Youth Development (CCYD). Both Plain Talk and CCYD represent a social policy approach that is community-centered and aims to make basic changes in the environment, institutions and human interactions that shape people's lives.
Wright, D. (1998). Comprehensive strategies for community renewal. Albany, NY: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
This article incorporates findings from two field network studies conducted by the Rockefeller Institute and Metropolitan Studies Program. It discusses the meaning behind community building, their successes, difficulties and implications for the future.
English, D. J., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., & Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24 (3) 375-388. *
Mizrahi, T., & Rosenthal, B. B. (2001). Complexities of coalition buildings: Leaders' successes, strategies, struggles, and solutions. Social Work, 46 (1), 63-78. *
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (1998). Strengthening parent support systems: An interfaith approach. In Interfaith Symposium II. Rockville, MD: Author. *
DPRC (2000). How Much Do Federal Agencies Really Spend Combating Drug Use?; DPRC Newsletter; The RAND Drug Policy Research Center; Santa Monica, CA.
Back to Top Printer-friendly Page Contact Us