The Experts below are selected from a list of 23808 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Susan Kelly - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reframing child safety in michigan building collaboration among domestic violence Family Preservation and child protection services
Child Maltreatment, 1999Co-Authors: Janet E. Findlater, Susan KellyAbstract:In recognition of the substantial overlap between domestic violence and child maltreatment, Michigan's domestic violence, Family Preservation, and child protection programs are working together to enhance the safety of children and their battered mothers. This article discusses the development of Michigan's collaborative efforts, including the identification of obstacles that had prevented cooperation in the past. This article then describes three components of Michigan's collaboration. First, the development and implementation of statewide cross-training: on domestic violence for Family Preservation and child protection staff, and on Family Preservation and child abuse and neglect for domestic violence staff. Second, providing intensive Family Preservation services to battered women and their children by direct referral from domestic violence service programs. Third, the development of CPS policy to support these collaborative training and program initiatives. Finally, this article concludes with some ob...
-
Child protective services and domestic violence.
The Future of Children, 1999Co-Authors: Janet E. Findlater, Susan KellyAbstract:Studies estimate that domestic violence is present in at least one-third of the families involved in child protective services (CPS). Yet, until recently, CPS has not directly addressed domestic violence in its handling of child abuse and neglect cases. By the same token, domestic violence programs have historically emphasized services for battered women, with limited understanding of the child safety goals of CPS. Despite these historical differences, collaborative efforts between CPS and domestic violence service programs are emerging based on a common goal of safety from violence for all Family members. Innovative strategies include the use of domestic violence specialists in a variety of child protection settings for case consultation and for support to the battered women, direct referrals of battered women from domestic violence programs to Family Preservation services, and cross-training of CPS workers and domestic violence service providers. A survey of state CPS administrators and domestic violence coalition directors conducted for this article revealed that although there is mutual interest in greater collaboration, such efforts remain limited. New forums, such as CPS citizen review panels and community-based CPS partnerships, hold promise for further collaboration. Critical to successful strategies are supportive agency leadership, greater trust and understanding across systems, a recognition of common goals, and a willingness to change policies and practice.
Janet E. Findlater - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
reframing child safety in michigan building collaboration among domestic violence Family Preservation and child protection services
Child Maltreatment, 1999Co-Authors: Janet E. Findlater, Susan KellyAbstract:In recognition of the substantial overlap between domestic violence and child maltreatment, Michigan's domestic violence, Family Preservation, and child protection programs are working together to enhance the safety of children and their battered mothers. This article discusses the development of Michigan's collaborative efforts, including the identification of obstacles that had prevented cooperation in the past. This article then describes three components of Michigan's collaboration. First, the development and implementation of statewide cross-training: on domestic violence for Family Preservation and child protection staff, and on Family Preservation and child abuse and neglect for domestic violence staff. Second, providing intensive Family Preservation services to battered women and their children by direct referral from domestic violence service programs. Third, the development of CPS policy to support these collaborative training and program initiatives. Finally, this article concludes with some ob...
-
Child protective services and domestic violence.
The Future of Children, 1999Co-Authors: Janet E. Findlater, Susan KellyAbstract:Studies estimate that domestic violence is present in at least one-third of the families involved in child protective services (CPS). Yet, until recently, CPS has not directly addressed domestic violence in its handling of child abuse and neglect cases. By the same token, domestic violence programs have historically emphasized services for battered women, with limited understanding of the child safety goals of CPS. Despite these historical differences, collaborative efforts between CPS and domestic violence service programs are emerging based on a common goal of safety from violence for all Family members. Innovative strategies include the use of domestic violence specialists in a variety of child protection settings for case consultation and for support to the battered women, direct referrals of battered women from domestic violence programs to Family Preservation services, and cross-training of CPS workers and domestic violence service providers. A survey of state CPS administrators and domestic violence coalition directors conducted for this article revealed that although there is mutual interest in greater collaboration, such efforts remain limited. New forums, such as CPS citizen review panels and community-based CPS partnerships, hold promise for further collaboration. Critical to successful strategies are supportive agency leadership, greater trust and understanding across systems, a recognition of common goals, and a willingness to change policies and practice.
Elizabeth Bartholet - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
thoughts on the liberal dilemma in child welfare reform
William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 2015Co-Authors: Elizabeth BartholetAbstract:This article presents a critique of the self-styled liberal group that has dominated child welfare policy in recent decades, arguing that the group’s policy goals unduly favor parent over child interests, and that its self-serving research fails to provide policy-makers with an understanding of how the group’s favored policies put children at risk. The article analyzes the dominant group’s problematic approach in the three most significant movements of recent decades -- intensive Family Preservation services, racial disproportionality, and differential response. It calls on true liberals to reject this group’s leadership, to recognize children as one of the ultimate powerless constituencies needing representation, and to fight for policies that will better serve child interests. Finally it calls for a new research culture, enabling truly independent social science to flourish so that it can guide policy makers about the pros and cons of different policy choices in terms that include child interests.
-
creating a child friendly child welfare system the use and misuse of research
Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, 2013Co-Authors: Elizabeth BartholetAbstract:This article, a revised speech, contends that what we call the child welfare system is skewed in an adult-rights direction, and is often quite hostile to child interests. The field is characterized by an unusual amount of social science research, which should be helpful in guiding policy. However that research is similarly skewed in an adult-rights direction. This is largely because the same entities fund the research as fund policy advocacy, and they have promoted research designed to validate the kinds of Family Preservation policies they favor, policies that are often inconsistent with child best interests. We need to develop new mechanisms to fund the kind of truly independent research that would illuminate the child-best-interest issues, and enable policy-makers to design a truly child-friendly child welfare system.
-
creating a child friendly child welfare system effective early intervention to prevent maltreatment and protect victimized children
Social Science Research Network, 2012Co-Authors: Elizabeth BartholetAbstract:This article argues that what we call the “child welfare” system has traditionally focused more on adult than on child welfare, placing greater emphasis on Family Preservation than warranted. It argues further that while the system purports to value research as a guide to policy, research is too often designed to serve predefined ideological goals, and to advance Family Preservation rather than examining what policies best serve child interests. It shows how these themes played out in two recent conferences sponsored by the author’s Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School. The first conference addressed claims made by the “Racial Disproportionality Movement,” and showed that actual black and white maltreatment rates closely track official rates, indicating that a child-friendly system would focus not on claimed racial discrimination but on reducing actual maltreatment. The second revealed the existence of many promising prevention and protection strategies, but also the ongoing power of the adult rights agenda and the constraints it puts on promising reforms and truly illuminating research. We could do better by children. But to do so we must transform the values that guide the child welfare system, honor child rights equally with adult, and recognize the centrality for children of the right to grow up in a nurturing Family.
-
creating a child friendly child welfare system effective early intervention to prevent maltreatment and protect victimized children
Buffalo Law Review, 2012Co-Authors: Elizabeth BartholetAbstract:Introduction 1321 I. The Family Preservation Background 1330 II. The Racial Disproportionality Movement 1338 III.Early Prevention and Protection 1342 A. Early Prevention 1344 1. Promise 1344 2. Limitations 1350 B. Early Protection 1354 1. Promise 1354 2. Limitations 1362 Conclusion 1368
Jill Duerr Berrick - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
assessing quality of care in kinship and foster Family care
Family Relations, 1997Co-Authors: Jill Duerr BerrickAbstract:Assessing Quality of Care in Kinship and Foster Family Care* Jill Duerr Berrick** This study includes a sample of 29 kin and 33 non—kin foster parents who participated in an in-home interview to assess quality of care On a number of measures relating to the home environment, non—kin homes were rated as more safe Family relations between children and their caregivers were similar for kin and non-kin Trends in the data point to the need for further research: changes in policy and practice that might strengthen the resources currently available to dependent Ll’llldI'€I’l are also suggested from practitioners, policy makers, and researchers. Our at- tention has been captivated by the large numbers of children now being served in foster care by kin and the paucity of infor- mation available about this rapidly growing arrangement for care. A recent study found that among all states reporting the use of kin as foster care providers, over 31% of children were placed with relatives (Kusserow, 1992). In California, the growth in kinship placements has rapidly accelerated. Kinship care is now the predominant placement setting for children, recently surpass- ing foster Family care. Statewide, kinship foster care accounted for approximately 46% of the caseload in 1994. In Santa Clara County, the site of this study, kinship foster care was utilized in 41% of the cases. I 11 recent years, kinship care has gained increasing attention The development of kinship care as a foster care resource has been stimulated by legal, demographic, and value-based changes. First was the Miller v Youakim Supreme Court (1979) case which determined that kin could not be excluded from the definition of foster parents and that under some conditions, kin might be eligible for federal IV—E foster care benefits. Second, the burgeoning foster care census and changing economic cir- cumstances have left far fewer unrelated foster parents at home to care for children and have contributed to greater inclusion of kin as foster caregivers (Kaye & Cook, 1992; National Commission on Family Foster Care, 1991; National Foster Parent Association, 1991). Third, kinship care’s development has been spurred on by a refocusing of values and priorities regarding the role of fami- ly—broadly defined—in the lives of children Kinship foster care has developed at a time when calls for Family Preservation have grown increasingly urgent (National Commission on Children, 1993). Many child welfare experts believe that children will be better served if their care is provided by Family members within the community of origin, rather than by strangers (Chipungu, 1991; Takas, 1992). Review of the Literature Research in the area of kinship care has not kept pace with its development as a placement alternative. Similarly, research on the characteristics of conventional foster care has been sparse (see Berrick, Barth, & Needell, 1994; Kaye & Cook, 1992; Lind- holm & Touliatos, 1978). Until recently, few studies were avail- able that focused on the characteristics of kin providers or on the kin children in care. Neither were studies available which ad- dressed the services provided to kin through the child welfare system, or about the kin providers’ views of their roles within this system. Researchers are now embracing this issue (see Berrick & Barth, 1994; Wilson & Chipungu, 1996). Characteristics offoster parents and kinship caregivers. Thornton (1987) describes kin caregivers as older than foster Family parents, and a group heavily represented by single women of color who are struggling themselves with liiriited incomes 1997, Vol 46, N0. 3 One study found maternal foster grandmothers reporting high levels of poor health and depression (Kelley, 1992). These grand- mothers also expressed concerns about their abilities to continue parenting young children into adolescence due to their own ad- vancing age. Some studies also point to the challenge these providers face as they voluntarily take on a new set of roles with little preparation or planning (Kennedy & Keeney, 1987; Le- Prohn, 1994; Thornton, 1987). While foster Family providers generally prepare for their new role as parents, kinship foster par- ents more often fall into older parenthood in response to a press- ing Family emergency Berrick, Barth, and Needell (1994) have corroborated these findings in their study of kinship foster par- ents and foster Family parents in California. Characteristics of children in foster Family care and kinship care While the characteristics of foster parents and kin care- givers may be somewhat different, children placed in kinship fos- ter homes share many similarities with their peers in foster Family care. Dubowitz and associates (1994) found that children in kin- ship foster care had higher rates of asthma, anemia, vision and dental problems, and developmental delays than American chil- dren in the general population. Children in kinship care also ex- hibited greater behavioral problems Similar studies which have examined the health problems of children in foster Family care have, in general, found a population suffering from a wide vari- ety of health and mental health problems (Fein, Mallucio, & Kluger, 1990; Halfon & Klee, 1991) Three of the only studies to compare kinship foster children to foster Family children (Bene- dict, Zuravin, & Stallings, 1996, Berrick, Barth, & Needell, 1994; Iglehart, 1994) found comparable strengths and difficulties in these populations Outcomes associated with kinship care. Some of the strongest research conducted to date comparing kinship foster care to foster Family care has utilized statewide administrative data to examine children’s entrances, exits, and service utilization while in care Although children in kinship foster care reunify with their birth parents more slowly than children in non—kin care, the proportion of children ultimately reunified from kin and non—kin care is roughly similar for both groups after about four years (Bemck, Needell, Barth, & Jonson-Reid, in press: Needell, Webster, Barth, & AFITIIJO, 1996). Because the rate of reunifica- tion is slower, and because children in kinship care experience *Funding for this study was provided by the Santa Clara County Social Services Agency I would like to thank the kin and non—kin toster parents who consented to partici- pate in this study and who spoke of their experience raising children Thanks also to Cassan- dra Simmel, who assisted with data analysis **Address correspondence to Jill Dueir Bemck, Ph D, Center for Social Services Research, School of Social Welfare, University ot California Berkeley, 120 I-laviland Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720-7400 Key Words foster care, kinship care. quality (Famil) Relations, 1997. 46, 273-280 ) 273 Copvriqht © 2001. All Rights Reseved.
-
a comparison of kinship foster homes and foster Family homes implications for kinship foster care as Family Preservation
Children and Youth Services Review, 1994Co-Authors: Jill Duerr Berrick, Richard P. Barth, Barbara NeedellAbstract:Abstract In recent years, child welfare caseloads have expanded rapidly, and increasing numbers of children have been placed with kin. Much of the current discussion surrounding kinship foster care stems from its rapid growth and the paucity of information about the placement type compared to our knowledge of other forms of foster care. The study reported here provides information about kinship foster care and foster Family care focusing on the demographic characteristics of providers; the services providers receive; the children served in care; and issues of visitation with birth parents. The study highlights marked differences in providers and in the services they receive. Policy and practice considerations in the development of this field are also offered.
Frank A Sloan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
how does Family drug treatment court participation affect child welfare outcomes
Child Abuse & Neglect, 2014Co-Authors: Elizabeth J Gifford, Lindsey M Eldred, Allison Vernerey, Frank A SloanAbstract:Parental substance use is a risk factor for child maltreatment. Family drug treatment courts (FDTCs) have emerged in the United States as a policy option to treat the underlying condition and promote Family Preservation. This study examines the effectiveness of FDTCs in North Carolina on child welfare outcomes. Data come from North Carolina records from child protection services, court system, and birth records. Three types of parental participation in a FDTC are considered: referral, enrolling, and completing an FDTC. The sample includes 566 children who were placed into foster care and whose parents participated in a FDTC program. Findings indicate that children of parents who were referred but did not enroll or who enrolled but did not complete had longer stays in foster care than children of completers. Reunification rates for children of completers were also higher. Outcomes for children in the referred and enrolled groups did not differ in the multivariate analyses. While effective substance use treatment services for parents may help preserve families, future research should examine factors for improving participation and completion rates as well as factors involved in scaling programs so that more families are served.
