ED 411 655

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

JOURNAL CITEDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

EC 305 847

Wolf, Kathy Goetz, Ed.Protecting Children and Supporting Families.Family Resource Coalition, Chicago, IL.1997-00-0035p.; Journal also called "FRCA Report."Family Resource Coalition of America (FRCA), 200 SouthMichigan Avenue, 16th Floor, Chicago, IL 60604.Collected Works - Serials (022) -- Reports - Descriptive(141)

Family Resource Coalition Report; v16 n1-2 Spr-Sum 1997MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Child Abuse; *Child Neglect; *Child Welfare; CommunityInvolvement; Cooperation; Decision Making; FamilyInvolvement; Family Needs; *Family Programs; Federal Aid;Federal Programs; *Foster Care; Minority Group Children;Parent Education; Prevention; Program Improvement; *StateAgencies

This serial "double issue" focuses on protecting childrenand supporting families through greater collaboration between child welfareservices and family resource programs. The issue includes the featuredarticles: (1) "Making the Media a Constructive Force in Child Welfare" (KathyBonk), which discusses how the media and child welfare agencies can takesteps to present child welfare in a way that educates the public and drawsneeded attention to the pressing issues of child protection; (2) "Race andChild Welfare Service: Myths, Realities, and Next Steps" (Mark E. Courtneyand others), which addresses the poorer outcomes and fewer services providedfor minority children; (3) "Latino Families and Child Welfare" (Robert M.Ortega and Ernest V. Nunez); (4) "Putting Federal Dollars To Work for FamilyPreservation and Support" (Marc Mannes), which reviews the federal FamilyPreservation and Support Service Program and presents case studies; (5)

"Family Group Decision Making: An Internationally Replicated Alternative toFoster Care" (Lina Cramer and Lisa Merkel-Hoguin), which describes a modelthat fosters cooperation, collaboration, and communication between childwelfare professionals and families; (6) "The Organizational Culture of ChildProtective Services" (Paul Vincent); (7) "Neighbors Helping Neighbors ToProtect Children" (Chuck Abel and Carol R. Rickey), which highlights acommunity partnership that reaches out to families who are isolated, toparents in crisis, and to families under stress; (8) "A Family-to-FamilyAnswer to Foster Care" (Julia DeLapp); (9) "On Being a Foster Parent:Empowering Parents Is the Greatest Reward" (Cheryl Mays); (10) "PromotingChild Safety: Advice from Parents Anonymous" (Teresa Rafael), which providesfour front-line practices that encourage successful family outcomes bycreating partnerships between practitioners and parents; and (11) "PreventingChild Abuse: Healthy Families America" (Linda Turner), which describes aprogram that prevents child abuse and neglect and enhances family functioningby providing intensive parenting education and support services in families'homes. (CR)

b

SPRING/SUMMER 1997 Volume 16, Numbers I & 2DOUBLE ISSUE

PRCITEc-r-I NIG CHI LID REM ANSUPPORT! NIG FAM I LI ES

4

r.N

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTE

P,

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

-

FAMILY

RESOURCECOALITION

OF AMERICA 2

_1111111iiim

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUC ONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

AU National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice

s_

rE:a

TA

Mr:

RCA wishes to thank first and foremost the parents' and the staff of agencies and programs who con-

_ tributed to this publication. Many took the time to be'nterviewed by Report staff; others wrote articles themselves.Their efforts are especially valuable in light of their directexperience working to improve systems to protect childrenand support families. Their hard work and hope are whatgenerated the content for this issue, and for that FRCAextends its gratitude.

Thanks also to Maria Elena Orrego for her willingness tobe consulted during the process of planning this publication'scontent. Thanks to Terry Cross, Director of the NationalIndian Child Welfare Association, for contributing materialon tribal communities' innovations in implementing federalfunding.

This Report was made possible in part by the support of theEdna McConnell Clark Foundation. FRCA is grateful fortheir support of this project and for their continued interest in

programs that strengthen families. This issue of FRCA Report was produced in part by the National Resource Center for Family CenteredPractice, funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Administration on Children, Youth, and Families; Children'sBureau; cooperative agreement number 90-CW-1084/01 under contract with the University of Iowa School of Social Work. The contentsof this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the funders, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products,or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Cover PhotoTalo Tufaga is pictured with her daughter Paleni. Five years ago, after

Tufaga gave birth to her third child, she began taking part in activities with aworker from the Hana Like Home Visitor Program.Through the program,workers visit women in the hospital who have just given birth, and offerhome visits to those whose backgrounds and stress factors indicate theymight be at risk of abusing or neglecting their childrenincluding parentslike Tufaga, who have not been involved with the child welfare system.

A former welfare recipient, she now is studying to be a draftsman andworking part-time at PACT (Parents and Children Together) in Honolulu'sKuhio ParkTerrace, the program that administers Hana Like."I changed theway I am raising my kids," says Tufaga."I spend more time with them read-

ing, talking, doing things together. I listen to them, what they're feeling." HanaLike has been replicated in Hawaii as Healthy Start and across the mainlandUnited States as Healthy Families America (see story, this issue).

This photo and others are part of a nationwide photo exhibit tour andpublic education campaign, Pursuing the Dream:What Helps Children andTheir Families Succeed.The campaign begins this fall with publication of aphoto book that shows community-based programs in action, and is a col-laboration among FRCA, award-winning photographer Stephen Shames,and Aperture Foundation. For information on how to get involved or bringthe exhibit to your community, contact FRCA.

Photo © 1997 Stephen Shames/Matrix

IF FICA REPORT

Executive Director,VIRGINIA L MASON

Editor; KATHY GOb I L WOLF

Assistant Editor; JACQUELINE LALLEY

Consulting Editors, MARIA ELENA ORREGO,

NILOFER AHSAN, and JULIA DELAPP

Cover Photo, STEPHEN SHAMES

Art Director; LYNN PEARSON

Editorial Assistant, SHAMARA RILEY

Reporter; JULIA DELAPP

Printer, BOOKLET PUBLISHING

Family Resource Coalition of America is a membership, consulting,and advocacy organization that has been advancing the movementto strengthen and support families since 198 I .The family supportmovement and FRCA seek to strengthen and empower familiesand communities so that they can foster the optimal developmentof children, youth, and adult family members. FRCA builds networks,produces resources, advocates for public policy, provides consultingservices, and gathers knowledge to help the family support move-ment grow. For information or to become a member; contact FRCAat 200 S. Michigan Ave., 16th Floor; Chicago, IL 60604, 3 I 2/341-0900, 312/341-936 I (fax).

3The opinions expressed in the FRCA Report are those of the authors; the Report strives to include a variety of perspectives from the family support field.

The FRCA Report is published quarterly in the public interest by the Family Resource Coalition of America, a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization. Membership in

the Coalition includes a subscription to the FRCA Report. Readers are encouraged to copy and share its content; we ask you to credit the Family Resource Coalition

of America

Tabie c»f ContentsIntroduction to the Issue 2

Frank Farrow

Child Welfare in the News: Coverage That Works 3

Kathy Bonk

Race and Child Welfare Services: Myths, Realities, and Next Steps 5

Mark E. Courtney, Richard P Barth, Jill Duerr Berrick, Devon Brooks, Barbara Needell, and Linda Park

Latino Families and Child Welfare 8

Robert M. Ortega and Ernest V Nunez

Practitioner Interview: Culture Is Key to Building Trust with Families 9

Putting Federal Dollars to Work for Family Preservation and Support 10

Marc Mannes

Santa Clara County, California I I

Connecticut 13

Tribal Communities 14

Family Group Decision Making:A Replicated Model that Puts Families in Charge I6Lina Cramer and Lisa Merkel-Holguin

The Organizational Culture of Child Protective Services 19

Paul Vincent

Foundations Sponsor Two Community-Based Initiatives 21

A Parent's Perspective on Building Community Partnerships 22

Community Partnerships for Protecting Children 23

Chuck Abel and Carol R. Rickey

Family-to-Family Initiative 24Julia DeLapp

On Being a Foster Parent 26Cheryl Mays

Partnerships with Parents: Advice from Parents Anonymous 27Teresa Rafael

Healthy Families America: Home Visits to Prevent Child Abuse Early 28Linda Turner

Resource File 29

4

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 I

r-citeeen C -Adren and SupThe Grcm5n- FartnersE-n5

NNW 1

pordnw FamMesp 23,t-weenpprChh1dWe fare and Farra[y Su

ecently, a child protective servicesworker described what was need-ed by the families with whom she

works. She talked first about formal ser-vices, particularly drug treatment programsand mental health services. Then she addedsomething new. "You know," she said,"what I really wish we had is a dozen moreplaces like the family resource centerdown the street. They seem to get throughto families when no one else can!"

Ten years ago, few child welfare workerseven knew about family resource centers,let alone saw them as important tools fortheir own practice. For decades, publicchild welfare agencies and the family sup-port movement existed side by side butwith little interaction. Now, increasingly,they find themselves working togetherto promote strong families and chil-dren's healthy development. As with anynew relationship, however, the sailing isnot always smooth. In states and commu-nities across the country, people from pub-lic child welfare agencies and from familysupport programs are learning how to talkwith one another, how to respect eachother's perspectives, how to share respon-sibilities, and eventually how to becomepartners in reality as well as in rhetoric.

This issue of FRCA Report highlightswhat many people are doing to bring childwelfare services and family support princi-ples and practices closer together. To placethese innovations in context, it is useful tolook both backward and forward. Whyhave child welfare services and familyresource programs been so distant fromone another, and what problems has thatdistance created? Looking ahead, what arethe major opportunities for child welfareagencies and family resource programs tojoin together?

F,) iffferent HistoriesThe child welfare and family support

fields have very different histories. Childwelfare services are based on strong feder-al and state mandates that have accumulat-ed over almost 70 years. Although childwelfare started in the settlement houses ofimmigrant neighborhoods, it gradually hasbecome a highly specialized form of pro-fessional social work. With attention to the"battered child" syndrome in the 1960s and

An Introduction to the Issue

by Frank Farrow

the subsequent passage by every state ofnew laws directed at reporting, investigat-ing, and treating child abuse and neglect, aprotective services orientationwhichemphasized removing the child from thehomedominated child welfare. For manyworkers, the "child saving" mindset sepa-rated concern for the well-being of the

The goal is for child welfare

services and the family support

movement to join forces

more fully and to become

complementary aspects of

a common field.

child from attention to the whole familyand even pitted the two against each other.

This history differs radically from thefamily resource movement's origins.Having emerged in the 1970s and 1980s,

family support is a younger field. It hasremained firmly rooted in the neighbor-hoods from which it developed, steadfastlycommitted to a family perspective, and lesscentered on the role of the "professional."The legalistic, often bureaucratic, andhighly selective nature of child welfare ser-vices often alienated family support practi-tioners who were working to defend themerits of universally available services.

A Time of Transition andOpportunity

Child welfare is now a field in flux,affected by forces from within and without.Public child welfare agencies have beenoverwhelmed in the past decade by theincrease in family poverty, the epidemic ofcrack/cocaine use in many cities, and a100-percent increase in reports of abuse

2 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2

and neglect. The exact ways in which wel-fare reform will affect child welfare are notyet known, but at the very least, it willheighten stress in some of the most vulner-able families.

Faced with these pressures, child welfareleaders are seizing the opportunity to cre-ate a better systema system that simulta-neously is more attentive to safety and rec-ognizes that for most families the path tosafety involves stronger family supports.The most interesting and promising newdirections in child welfare are based on theprinciples that have long undergirdedfamily support: a focus on prevention,recognition of family strengths and assets,partnerships with neighborhoods and com-munities, and an alliance with the informal

>supports (such as kinship networks andfriends) that are families' first choice

for help.

Can We Create a LastingPartnership?

The federal Family Preservation andSupport Services Program, enacted in1993, spurred hundreds of new acquain-tances between child welfare and familysupport programs. The challenge is to con-vert these into lasting partnerships.

The goal is for child welfare services andthe family support movement to join forcesmore fully and to become complementaryaspects of a common field. What familiesneed and communities want is a unifiedsystem of community and neighborhoodsupports that is equally effective in pro-moting the healthy development of all fam-ilies and in safeguarding the relativelyfew children whose families cannot carefor them.

The innovations highlighted in this issueof FRCA Report are steps toward that goal.These and other efforts demonstrate thatwhen child welfare and family supportpractitioners and policymakers join forces,families are the winners.

Frank Farrow is a former member of the FRCABoard of Directors and is Director of Children'sServices Policy at the Center for the Study ofSocial Policy, 1250 Eye Street, Suite 503,Washington, DC 20005, 202/371-1565 (phone),202/371-1472 (fax), ffarrow @cssp.org (e-mail).

5

Makklr, the moiled 52. a IC,D3nstruii-cDrce 5n ChfldWeffare

tudies on the public's reaction tochild welfare in the media haveturned up some surprising results:

Most media consumers said they do expectgovernment to take care of children andwant to see action that makes children thepriority. When asked to choose betweenworking to keep abused children safe intheir own homes and removing them fromthose homes, they were uneasy with thechoice; many responded, "It depends."

Media coverage of child welfare canwork to reinforce the public's commonsense regarding child protection, as it isevidenced above. But when sensationalcoverage becomes the norm, it can furtherfrustrate an already angry audience. Whena tragedy happens inside a child welfareagency, directors can either close all theirdoors and hope the stories go away (whichrarely happens) or they can respond to thepress and public by holding themselvesand the system accountable, taking action,and making changes. Both the media andchild welfare agencies can take steps topresent child welfare in a way that edu-cates the public and draws needed attentionto the pressing issues of child protection.

Educating the Media"Now what is the difference between

child care and foster care?"This question, asked by a network news

correspondent before the Stand for Chil-dren march held in 1996 in Washington,D.C., illustrates some journalists' lack ofunderstanding of child welfare issues.

Few journalists are foster parents, haveever been in the system as children, orhave experienced the inner workings ofchild welfare agencies directly. And manywho are assigned to cover child welfare arefrustrated by confidentiality rules that theyperceive as helping to "cover up" mistakesor negative parts of the system. Whenunable to use interviews and photographsof families and children who are in the sys-tem, many opt to cover killings and othersensational stories, often with the help oflocal police departments, who would ratherdraw attention to the child welfare agencythan to their own departments. Thus, thevicious circle continues and the public ismore and more confused about the role andeffectiveness of children's services.

by Kathy Bonk

Research Shows Public'sCommon Sense

Over the past two years, focus groupsand research projects have helped to showpublic attitudes about child welfare agen-cies and children's services. The AmericanPublic Welfare Association commissionedCelinda Lake of Lake Research, aDemocratic firm, and Vince Breglio ofR/S/M, a Republican firm, to gauge theattitudes of a representative cross-sectionof Americans on child abuse, child neglect,and the crisis surrounding a child's death.The report showed that:

People from all walks of life are con-cerned about and fear for the well-beingof those who cannot defend themselves.People are aware of, but do not like totalk about, specific cases of abuse andneglect. Some described themselves as"numb" to media coverage about childabuse after countless tragedies. Whenpressed to discuss a particular instancewith a disastrous outcome, many peoplevent their strong frustration and angerover the outcome.Upon hearing the term "child protectiveservices," very few people say they knowmuch about it. They do say that theprimary goal of these services is the safe-ty of children, and that they do expectgovernment to take care of kids andwant to see action that makes childrenthe priority.Most people do not expect a 100-percentrate of success from the agency, but feelit should be the goal. Cases involvingrepeated abuse or in which the child isreturned to an abusive family and atragedy results, are the hardest to explainto the public.

A more comprehensive study was donefor the Public Children ServicesAssociation of Ohio by Triad ResearchGroup/Phyllis Dykes & Associates. Thistwo-year project produced enlighteningrecommendations on communicating withthe public, based on public perceptionsabout what agencies should do whenchildren are at risk of abuse or neglect bytheir parents.

People believe that children's servicesagencies should thoroughly investigate anyallegation of abuse and neglect. The publicwants and expects a full investigation in areasonable period of time to make sure that

one parent isn't"covering up" inorder to protectthe other parent.And before takingany action, peoplesaid, children'sservices agenciesshould have"proof' thatabuse and/orneglect is actuallyoccurring. Thepublic alsoexpects agenciesto carefully moni-tor the situation toensure the child'ssafety and toassess the fami-ly's progress inresolving its prob-lems. People arebasically sympathetic to social workers andthe difficult decisions they must make.When a tragedy does occur, the publicwants accountability, action, and change.

cdve

Working withFamiliesWorking with the

Media

Resources to help educate thepublic and the media aboutchild welfare and other familyissues are available fromCommunications ConsortiumMedia Center (which publishesthe guide pictured here) at202/326-8700, and from FRCAat 312/341-0900.

The Media's Potential forChange

Better and more regular coverage of pos-itive reforms will require advocates forchildren and families, heads of child wel-fare agencies, and news editors to createchanges in their institutions.

First, advocacy organizations and otherswho are working to improve the field ofchild welfare need to realize that sendingout an occasional press release and holdinga news conference now and then are nolonger adequate means of rallying publicsupport. Good media coverage is a prizedpossession. It can usually be achievedthrough strategic planning, which entailscarefully crafting messages, cultivatingrelationships with reporters on a story-by-story basis, examining polling and focus-group research to determine how best toframe the issues for the public, and prepar-ing high-quality materials that containaccurate and up-to-date information. Mostimportant, reporters are looking for inter-esting ways to tell a story, and they needhelp finding families who are willing to beinterviewed on camera or photographed.

A media strategy plan is similar to devel-oping action plans regarding litigation orlegislation: it requires a clear understand-

FAMILAESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16. NOS. I & 2 3

ing of all of the necessary techniques andprofessionals that will be involved.Spokespeople need to be comfortable withmedia interviews and make time in theirschedules for building relationships withindividual reporters. Adequate resources,both time and money, need to be devotedto communications activities to achievemodest success.

Second, child welfare agencies need tounderstand that the days of hiding behindconfidentiality rules are just about over.State legislatures are asking tough ques-tions and passing new laws, such as theElisa Law in New York state, which pro-vide more options for the release of specif-ic information about cases resulting in chil-dren's deaths. And the media have newand better ways of getting informationabout cases and parents, such as investiga-tive teams that can be deployed quickly tointerview police, parents, teachers, neigh-bors, relatives and others. Computer-assist-ed reporting offers journalists a bounty ofinformation right at their desks. Reportersand editors understand that these are thekinds of investigations that often winjournalism prizes, such as the Pulitzerprize awarded to Gannett News Servicea few years ago for disclosing that somechildren's deaths that had been attributedto Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, orSIDS, were in reality caused by abuse andneglect.

Too few child welfare agencies staff theircommunications and public affairs officeswith professionals whose job it is to culti-vate relationships with reporters.Campaigns tend to be limited to thoseaimed at recruiting foster and adoptive par-ents. Instead, local media and pro bonoadvertising firms could be involved in pre-venting abuse and neglect through publicservice campaigns, editorial endorsements,and a commitment to civic journalism.Agencies must makecrisis management plans to employ duringand after a tragedy occurs, and pro-activeplans to promote year-round mediaattention to prevention, family preserva-tion and reunification, foster care, andadoption programs.

Third, those working with families musthelp them to understand how to respond toquestions from reporters, especially nowthat media coverage is expanding. Familiesneed to be told that they do not have toparticipate in interviews, and that if dothey agree, they still have rights, whichinclude the right to stop the interview atany time if they are uncomfortable.Advocates and agency staff alike have anobligation to ensure that children and fami-lies are not exploited in the process of find-ing a good story. Reporters, editors, andphotographers should be challenged if their

behavior is inappropriate or intrusive.Families' participation in interviews doesput them at risk: children may be teased byclassmates, and parents might be confront-ed by co-workers and neighbors. The flipside is that positive coverage can helpbuild public support, speed reform, and getthe attention of policymakers and electedofficials.

Positive Change in MediaCoverage

Fourth, the media themselves are institut-ing changes in the way they cover families,children, child welfare agencies, and otherlocal issues. At the top of the public's list

Better and more regular

coverage of positive reforms will

require advocates for children

and families, heads of child

welfare agencies, and news

editors to create changes in

their institutions.

of concerns are promoting safety and stop-ping violence in schools, in neighborhoods,in homes, and on the streets. When childprotective services are framed as programsthat promote safety and prevent violence,the public and the media will listen and besupportive. However, if spokespeople talkabout "risk assessment" and use socialwork jargon, the public and the press willtune out and look elsewhere for story ideas.

Most of cities' local media can be divid-ed into two camps: those who are sellingviolence ("if it bleeds, it leads") and thosewho are building audiences by promotingsolutions and things viewers can do to help("news you can use"). ABC World NewsTonight, for example, has a daily seriescalled "Solutions," and the network heavi-ly promotes its philosophy in advertise-ments featuring Peter Jennings.

One way to follow media trends in chil-dren's issues is to read The Children'sBeat, a newsletter published by the CaseyJournalism Center for Children andFamilies at the College of Journalism atthe University of Maryland (available onthe internet at www.casey.umd.edu). In

4 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2

June 1997, it featured thorough proceed-ings of a child welfare discussion spon-sored by the College's Fellows program.

Another good source is an article in theNovember/December 1996 issue ofColumbia Journalism Review: "TheLives We Would Like to Set Right:Why Journalistic Outrage Is Not the BestApproach to the Child Welfare Story."Author Michael Shapiro says the mediaare missing the most important childwelfare stories by focusing solely onchild fatalities:

"To cover child welfare properly is to setaside your instinct as a journalist, the urgeto find an overarching answer ... and toaccept a more realistic goalthat of rais-ing a series of increasingly difficult ques-tions. Such questions might better illumi-nate why for so long the state has had sucha maddening time dealing with its failingfamilies ... [and] move public debate closerto the messy and individual realities ofthese families."

The good news is that media institutionsthemselves are challenging reporters to do

>a better and more in-depth job coveringthe half-million children who are wait-

ing in the system. As "welfare-to-work"stories continue to command front-pagecoverage, so too will stories of childrenand their families in need of help and ser-vices. But public agencies will need to"earn" positive coverage, not just wait forit to happen.

Media coverage of child welfare is likelyto continue to expand, and public percep-tions will follow. Agency directors neednot only to possess top management skills,training in social work and child develop-ment, and political savvy, but also to dealeffectively with the media and the publicin order to survive professionally and makesystemic changes. The media, in order tomaintain their audience shares and reader-ships, must seek those stories that havemeaning in people's lives. Children's ser-vices promise great stories about successesand challenges, and people need to hearthem.

Kathy Bonk is Executive Director ofCommunications Consortium Media Center, anonprofit organization that specializes indeveloping communications strategies for poli-cy change and reform. CCMC is located at1200 New York NW Ave., Washington, DC20005, 202/326-8700 (phone), 202/682-2154(fax).

7

Race and Chn WeUfa.re Servrices:yths, Rea[15-tnes9 and INet Steps

by Mark E. Courtney, Richard P. Barth, Jill Duerr Berrick, Devon Brooks, Barbara Needell, and Linda Park

he subject of race looms largein discussions of child welfareservices.' Any thorough assess-

ment of recent trends in child welfare pop-ulations (e.g., abused and neglected chil-dren, children in family foster care,children awaiting adoption) must note thedisproportionately large number of chil-dren of color. For example, a recent analy-sis of prevalence rates in five states withlarge out-of-home care populations(California, Illinois, Michigan, New York,and Texas) found that theproportion of AfricanAmerican children rangedfrom three times as high toover ten times as high asthe proportion ofCaucasian children incare. Similarly, inCalifornia and New York,the point-in-time estimateof African American chil-dren in out-of-home carein 1990 exceeded four per-cent of all AfricanAmerican children.'

Government policy, suchas the Indian ChildWelfare Act of 1978 (P.L.95-608), reflects the strug-gle over how best to pro-vide culturally sensitiveprotective services to fam-ilies and children. Thevariety of state and localpolicies concerning trans-racial family foster care in drug dealing, gangs, or other activities that have caused them to be labeled "bad kids."placement and adoption and Technical and financial support were provided to the program through the federal Family

the ongoing debate over Preservation and Support Services Program and were disseminated by Resources for Families and

these policies are further Communities (see story, page 15).

of the processes that lead to the outcomes,differences in service provision associatedwith race bear consideration.

The w,ig Picture--and Some Surprising Findings

The overall picture that emerges [from areview of the literature] is that families andchildren of color experience poorer out-comes and are provided fewer servicesthan Caucasian families and children. Formost forms of child maltreatment, families

care compared to their representation in theoverall population; they appear to spendlonger time in care, and they are more like-ly to recidivate when they return homefrom care than Caucasians. Finally, childrenof color, particularly African Americanchildren, are less likely to be adopted thanCaucasian children and there is some evi-dence that families of color have a moredifficult time having their adoptions legal-ized than Caucasian families.

This picture must be framed, however,with the knowledge thatthe relationship among

Young Soldiers of Righteousness provides constructive activities for youths who have been involved

evidence of deep conflict over how much,and in what ways, race should be allowedto influence the functioning of the childwelfare system.

We reviewed the research on child wel-fare outcomes to gain a better understand-ing of the role that race plays in the provi-sion of child welfare services and inoutcomes. Most assessments of the relative"fairness" of the child welfare services sys-tem are ultimately based on the end resultof the system for clients. Although even acursory review of the child welfare litera-ture leads to the conclusion that there ismuch more knowledge of outcomes than

of color are more likely to be the subject ofa child maltreatment report than Caucasianfamilies, and may be more likely to have areport substantiated than Caucasians. Thelimited information on the effectiveness ofcurrent family preservation services sug-gests that these services may be of limiteduse to most families of color who comeinto contact with the child welfare system.Once in the system, families and childrenof color receive fewer child welfare ser-vices than their Caucasian counterparts.

Some ethnic and racial groups are dispro-portionately represented in out-of-home

race, ethnicity, andchild welfare servicesand outcomes is com-plex. Though theweight of evidence sup-ports the conclusionsreached here, in nearlyevery area we reviewedthere was at least onestudy showing little orno effect of race or eth-nicity. In most cases, tothe extent that a studyallowed for distinctionsamong groups, the vari-ous ethnic or racialgroups of color experi-enced different out-comes relative toCaucasians. In particu-lar, differences weremost often greatestbetween AfricanAmericans andCaucasians. Thus, it isgenerally misleading tofocus on differences

between Caucasian children and all otherchildren, since the observed differencesoften do not apply to all ethnic and racialgroups.

Perhaps the most important finding ofthis review is that many of the observeddifferences in child welfare outcomes byrace or ethnicity reflect differences in theeconomic and social well-being of childrenand families. Few of the studies wereviewed attempted to account for suchvariation, and many of those that didshowed a reduced or nonexistent effect ofrace or ethnicity when social class was fac-tored into the equation.

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2 5

Issues for Future Research,PoOlcy, and ProgramDevelopment

It is clear that race and ethnicity shouldbe better acknowledged in future childwelfare research. We encountered manystudies in which these factors were noteven mentioned, although the sample sizeand location of the study would have lentthemselves to such analysis. The failure orunwillingness to at least acknowledge therelationships among race, child welfareservices, and child welfare outcomes mayonly serve to invite uninformed speculationabout the reasons for these relationships.Whenever possible, child welfareresearchers should include race as anexplanatory factor in research designs andconsider their theoretical justificationfor doing so (i.e., why does theresearcher think that race might playa role?).

Researchers, policymakers, andpractitioners also should give moreattention to the nexus of race, gender,and social class as a factor in thefunctioning of child welfare services.Several studies indicate that the rela-tionship between race and child wel-fare cannot be separated from therelationship between economicdeprivation and child welfare. Inaddition, the relationships betweenrace and single motherhood on theone hand, and single motherhood andpoverty on the other hand, furthercomplicate attempts to understand therole of race in child welfare servicesand outcomes. In short, it is danger-ous to consider the impact of one ofthese factors without accounting forthe others.

One result of the observation thatrace, class, and gender are not independentis the tendency to excuse the child welfaresystem for perceived inequities in childwelfare outcomes. This position holds that,for instance, since African American chil-dren are more likely to come from impov-erished, single-parent families thanCaucasian children, they will be overrepre-sented in the system even if child welfareservices are provided in a completely equi-table manner. After all, poverty and single-parenthood have been associated withhigher rates of child maltreatment, andneglect in particular.' From this perspec-tive, lowering the disproportionately highnumber of African American children inout-of-home care (by alleviating povertyand either reducing the number of single-parent families or providing them withneeded supports, for example) is consid-

ered to be beyond the responsibility of thechild welfare services system. This is tosay nothing, of course, of the impact ofsocietal discrimination in general on theability of parents of color to rear their chil-dren. From this point of view, the system issimply playing the best hand it can, given adeck that is stacked against certain clients.

This point of view has the inherent dan-ger of making child welfare practitionerscollaborators in a process that can haveenormous negative consequences for cer-tain racial or ethnic groups in our society.For example, does the extent to whichsome racial or ethnic groups in our societysuffer disproportionately from familybreakdown and poverty really justify thefact that they are thereby more likely to

Our review of the literature suggests

that families and children of color

often receive fewer and inferior ser-

vices compared to those provided for

Caucasian children and families who

have similar needs.

have their children taken away from them?Do child welfare researchers, policymak-ers, and practitioners believe that it is ethi-cally acceptable to be involved in "improv-ing" the efficacy of a system that takesthese children without simultaneouslybeing involved in remedying the problemsthat bring children into the system?Conversely, if child welfare practitionersdo believe that the helping capacity of thecurrent child welfare system is severelylimited by this social context, in what waysmight it influence their practice?

The reality that the performance of childwelfare services cannot be assessed inde-pendently of the larger societal contextcomplicates the evaluation of equity in ser-vice provision and outcomes. Some haveargued' that the child welfare system will

6 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16. NOS. I & 2

be doing justice to children and families ofcolor only when services and outcome areequal among races. As illustrated above,however, outcomes of child welfare ser-vices may partly be a function of any num-ber of factors completely out of the controlor influence of the child welfare servicessystem. Thus, it is one thing to say thatcollectively our social institutions havefailed children of color and their familiesand that one result is an inequitable repre-sentation of children of color in the childwelfare system. It is quite another to statethat any inequity of outcomes within thesystem is prima facie evidence of a failureof the system itself.

For example, for many outcomes of thechild welfare system we have identified

inequities that disfavor AfricanAmerican children. At first, it istempting to call this a pattern of dis-crimination. We must refrain fromdoing so, however, because evidenceabout the needs of the children andfamilies prior to service receipt can-not be used to argue that these lessfavorable outcomes result from worsechild welfare services for AfricanAmerican children than Caucasians

rather than from worse initial cir-cumstances of African Americanfamilies. Simply stated, we can-

not determine the fairness of theoutcome without knowing the amountof need at the outset.

What about the equity in serviceprovision? Should the same servicesbe offered to all families regardless ofrace or ethnicity? Are existinginequities in service provision proofof a failure of the system to appropri-ately serve families and children ofcolor? We believe that services do nothave to be the same among varying

groups of families and children, becausethese variationsincluding race and eth-nicityoften call for differing types andamounts of services. Indeed, calls for cul-tural competence in the human servicesemphasize the fact that one size seldom fitsall. Nevertheless, our review of the litera-ture is troubling, since it suggests that fam-ilies and children of color often receivefewer and inferior services compared tothose provided for Caucasian children andfamilies who have similar needs. We canthink of no justification for this relativelack of services to these populations.Inequitable outcomes, though of properconcern to child welfare practitioners, maybe perceived as beyond their control:unjustifiable inequities in service provisionare not.

9

Next Steps in ResearchOne of the most important, yet least

developed, arenas of child welfare researchconcerns the evaluation of the role of raceand ethnicity in the efficacy of services. Ifone size does not fit all, then which sizesfit whom? In many, if not most, child wel-fare jurisdictions in this country, servicescontinue to be provided primarily byCaucasian social workers to a clientelelargely made up of persons of color.

A common belief holds that outcomes inall aspects of child welfare would improveif only there were more child welfare prac-titioners of color. Similarly, a variety ofservice models exist that claim to be supe-rior to "traditional" services on the basis ofcultural appropriateness. Both of theseassumptions appear to make sense,but virtually no evaluation has beenconducted to produce empirical evi-dence that supports them. It is ourimpression that efforts to date toimplement same-race service provi-sion and cultural competence, whilestill relatively few, have outstrippedthe evaluation of such services. Sincewe know little about their effects,relying on increasing these character-istics within the child welfare sys-tem as a basis for child welfarereform may not lead to substan-tial improvements in services tochildren of color. (Increasing thenumber of practitioners of color will,of course, distribute more resourcesto minority communities of color andmay over time help equalize childwelfare service needs and outcomes.)

To improve child welfare outcomes,service models that claim greater effi-cacy with persons of color should beimplemented and evaluated.Randomized assignment of subjectsis often forsworn when such service pro-grams are implemented because it wouldresult in some clients losing the opportuni-ty to take advantage of the services.Nevertheless, given the multiplicity of pos-sible approaches to meeting the serviceneeds of these populations, real differencesin program outcomes should be assessedusing rigorous evaluation designs. Onlythen will it be possible to distinguish whatworks for which populations.

Race will remain a central issue indebates over the faults and failures of thechild welfare system for the foreseeablefuture. As long as children of color remainmore likely than Caucasian children togrow up in situations that put them atincreased risk of child abuk and neglect,they will continue to be overrepresented

among "clients" of the system and amongthe clients with less desirable outcomes.Given this situation, it is the responsibilityof everyone involved with the child wel-fare system to draw attention to the largersocietal forces that contribute to pushingthese children out of their homes. At thesame time, the players in the child welfaresystem must seek to improve, through pro-gram development and evaluation, the util-ity of the services they provide to familiesand children of color.

Mark E. Courtney, Ph. D., is AssistantProfessor, School of Social Work, and Affiliate,Institute for Research on Poverty, University ofWisconsin, Madison. Richard P. Barth, Ph.D.,is Hutto Patterson Professor of Social Welfare,

2GOERGE, KM., F. H WULCZYN, and A. HARDEN( 1994) Foster care dynamics: California, Illinois, Michigan,New York, and TexasA first-year report from the miltu-state foster care data archive. (Chicago, III.: University ofChicago Chapin Hall Center for Children.)

'JONES, E. D and K.. MCCURDY (1992) "The linksbetween types of maltreatment and demographiccharacteristics of children." Child Abuse and Neglect I6,201-215.

Pelton, L (1994) "Is poverty a key contributor tochild maltreatment?" In E. Gambrill and T. J. Steins (eds.)(1994) Controversial issues in child welfare. (NeedhamHeights, Mass.:Allyn and Bacon) 16-28.

'CHIPUNGU, S. S. (1991) "A value-based policy frame-work." In J. E. Everett, S. S. Chipungu, and B. R. Leashore(eds.), Child welfare: An Africentric perspective. (NewBrunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press).

As long as children of color remain

more likely than Caucasian children to

grow up in situations that put them at

increased risk of child abuse and

neglect, they will continue to be over-

represented in the system and among

the clients with less desirable outcomes.

School of Social Welfare, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. Jill Duerr Berrick, Ph.D.,is Director, Child Welfare Research Center,School of Social Welfare, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. Devon Brooks, M.S.W,and Barbara Needell, M.S.W, are doctoralstudents, School of Social Welfare, Universityof California, Berkeley. Linda Park, M.S.W, isa doctoral student, School of Social Work,University of Wisconsin, Madison.

References'With permission from the Child Welfare League ofAmerica, this article is adapted from: COURTNEY,M. E., R. P BARTH, J. D. BERRICK, D. BROOKS, B.NEEDELL, AND L PARK (1996) "Race and child wel-fare services: Past research and future directions." ChildWelfare 75 (2) 99-135.

I0FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 7

1Latiric) Fa mLios arid. Child. We arcby Robert M. Ortega and Ernest V. Nunez

Recent statistics and trends indicate an urgent need to closely examine thestatus of Latino children with regard to the child welfare system:The U.S. Censusshows that the number of Latino children in the U.S. has increased dramatically.Alarge and growing number of Latino children live in poverty. Nationally, the num-ber of substantiated cases of child maltreatment among Latinos has increased)And there is evidence that the annual percentage of Latino children entering out-of-home care is rising.'

The report Latinos and Child Welfare I Latinos y el Bienestar del Nitio:Voces de Ia

Comunidad describes serious barriers to understanding and addressing the childwelfarerelated needs of Latino children and adolescents, and makes recommen-dations for policy and practice.' The study surveyed 38 service providers whowere knowledgeable about Latino children and their child welfare experiences.Their responses raise serious concern about how safe and secure Latino childrenreally are today. They describe barriers to reporting and receiving services, fearsthat arise when the child welfare agency must be contacted, lack of available andaccessible services, and lack of services to accommodate language and culturaldifferences. Creating a system that addresses these concerns requires improvingmethods of gathering statistics and seeking accountability, ensuring that child wel-fare services are relevant to Latino families, and removing systemic obstacles tomeeting the child welfarerelated needs of Latino families.

In 1993, a total of 87,161 Latino children were victims of child maltreatment,accounting for 9.4 percent of the national child maltreatment population androughly 18 percent of children in out-of-home care. Latino children wait longerfor permanency placement while in out-of-home care and are less likely to expe-rience permanency placement when compared to Caucasian children.

When considering these statistics, however, it is important to remember theshortcomings of current methods of collecting data. For example, data show thatmost of the reports of Latino children entering the child welfare systemoccurred in California and Texas, but that conclusion must be viewed in light ofstates' different definitions of abuse and neglect, the errors and lags in reportinginformation, poor quality assurance in record keeping, and state-to-state variationin the types of information reported.

Historically, state and national child welfare reports have not provided statis-tics on Latino children as such, and have included them in the Caucasian,AfricanAmerican / Black, or "other" categoryalong with children of Native American,Asian, bi-racial and unknown ancestry. Of reports that do differentiate Latinosfrom other racial/ethnic groups, the vast majority fail to differentiate Latinosbased on ancestry (e.g., Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central andSouth American), language, geographic region, economic and immigrant status,

generation, and other important socio-demographic differences. This lack of infor-mation poses a serious challenge to the child welfare system's ability to accurate-ly count and account for Latino children in their care. Only accurate data willclarify how effective child welfare services are in meeting the unique needs ofLatino families.

Making Services Relevant to Latino FamiliesLatino families experience stress due to acculturation; poverty; exposure to

violence, drugs, disease, and environmental hazards; and mobility. Many Latinofamilies experience segregation, social marginalization, discrimination, and oppres-sionall of which are manifested in mental health breakdown, alcohol and sub-stance abuse, and social withdrawal.Also, language and cultural differences often

prevent them from accessing resources and services. Currently there is no indi-cation that child welfare services as a whole recognize these unique aspects ofLatino family life.

When in need, Latinos rely heavily upon extended family (which includes fic-tive kin). In many cases, Latino children come to the attention of child welfareofficials only when the support of the extended family has been exhausted or isunavailable due to immigration and migration; often by this time the family's situa-tion has become severe and family support and even preservation are difficult.

Latinos vary greatly in their use of child welfare services. Since the enactmentof the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (PL96-272),child welfare services have enlarged considerably to include family preservation,kinship and non-kin foster care, family foster care, reunification, adoption andother permanent living arrangements, childcare and school care programs, and

parent education programs.The most common type of out-of-home placementnoted by service providers in the Latinos and Child Welfare study was kinship care.While kinship care is consistent with Latinos' reliance on extended family, con-flicts arising from lifestyle differences, peer associations, and developmentaldemands can arise even when the child or youth is placed with supportive kin.When such conflicts are present, a lack of supportive services and resources canmean that kinship care is no more successful than other types of out-of-homecare. Likewise, negative outcomes such as termination of parental rights could beprevented if appropriate support services were available and accessible to assistin reunification.

The System: Latino Parents SpeakSystemic issues often serve as obstacles to meeting the child welfare needs of

Latino families. Community outreach, bilingual and bicultural service providers,

and prevention programs designed specifically for Latino families were identified

by practitioners in the Latinos and Child Welfare study as essential for effective ser-

vice delivery.

Parents involved in focus groups for the study called for concentrating on theneeds of the whole child as opposed to treating "child welfare" needs separately.They were concerned about their children's exposure to violence, drugs, andcriminal activity in their neighborhood and schools.There was consensus thatcommunity was all but lost in their lives. Participants expressed a strong desirefor services and programs that would support poor and working families, pro-mote community development, and eliminate negative influences that threatentheir well-being and the healthy development of their children.

The approach of child welfare, rather than "family welfare," has led to individ-ual-based policies and practices that threaten Latino familistic values and place awedge between social institutions and Latino family needs. Strengthening and pre-serving Latino families requires validating language and cultural differences as wellas forming a partnership in protecting and caring for Latino children. GrassrootsLatino organizations, which are made up of knowledgeable and concerned indige-nous individuals, have been underutilized in policy, practice, and research deci-sions.' Their absence from the decision-making table represents another gap inunderstanding Latino child welfare needs and in promoting effective change.

Important lessons can be learned from the Latino parents and practitionerswho took part in the Latinos and Child Welfare study and from other parentsand practitioners; this information should be allowed to shape policy, programs,and procedures so that the child welfare system begins to address Latino families'unique needs.

Robert M. Ortega is Assistant Professor, University of Michigan School of Social Work, 4062-D

Frieze Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285, 3131763-6576 (phone), 3131763-1961 (fax),

rmortega@umich.edu (e-mail). Ernest V. Nunez is Director of the Multicultural Service Center,

6733 S. Sepulveda Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045, 3101410 -9301 (phone), 3 101410-2379

(fax).

Motes

'U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, National Center onChild Abuse and Neglect (1996) Child maltreatment 1994: Reports from the statesto the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office).

2GOERGE, R. M., F. H.WULCZYN,AND A.W. HARDEN (1994) Foster caredynamics 1983-1992.A report from the multistate foster care data archive.(Chicago, Ill.: Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago).

'ORTEGA, R.M., C. GUILLEAN, L. GUTIERREZ-NAGERA, and the NATIONALLATINO CHILD WELFARE ADVOCACY GROUP (1996) Latinos and child wel-fare / Latinos y el beinestar del nino:Voces de Ia comunidad. (Ann Arbor, Mich.:University of Michigan School of Social Work).

'ENCHAUTEGUI, M.E. (1995) Policy implications of Latino poverty. (Washington,D.C.:The Urban Institute and Population Studies Center.)

8 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2 1.1

InterviewCLature 0s Key tin-) laune

wth [i-ann5[15esMany parents in our communitiesare aware of only one methodof disciplining and controlling

their children," says Tuan Tran of San Jose,California. "If we tell them straight out,`You can't hit your child,' we will alienatethem." Tran works to prevent child abuseand neglect among Cambodian, Chinese,Filipino, Korean, and Vietnamese familiesat the Asian Pacific Family ResourceCenter. The center isone of four in acounty-wide effortto prevent childabuse and neglectand support familiesby providing cultur-ally sensitive ser-vices and addressingcommunity needs.The other centerswork with Spanish-speaking andAfrican Americancommunities.

To help parentsfind alternatives tophysical discipline,staff at the AsianPacific FamilyResource Center begin by building trust."Many of these parents were raised incountries where it was accepted for chil-dren to receive the kind of physical punish-ment that is considered abuse in the U.S.,"says Tran. "So our first task ... is to showthat we understand that their method ofdiscipline is common practice [in theircountries of origin], and that that is howthey were raised."

This trust-building process starts whenparents are paired with counselors of theirculture who speak their language. Coun-selors emphasize that physical punishmentis just one way to discipline children; theyengage parents in discussing the importanceof providing a nurturing environment, andchallenge them to find new ways of relatingto and disciplining their children.

The experiences of immigrating andadapting to a different culture introducespecial challenges in parent-child relation-ships. Tran says that many parents feel thattheir children "disobey them because theyhave been prohibited from punishingthem" by American norms and laws, while

"the children ... complain that their parentsdon't understand them. They have becomeaccustomed to mainstream American soci-ety, and it creates a cultural conflict withinthe family."

Culturally specific classes for children ontopics such as Cambodian dance and lan-guage help bridge the communication gapand strengthen parent-child relationships,as well as providing youths with cultural

restshare, cooperate, and practice their newcommunication skills as they create afloral centerpiece.

The center is known throughout thecounty for its Gambler's Anonymousgroup, developed to address the prevalenceof gambling among the local Asian (in par-ticular, Vietnamese) population. The centerworked with Gambler's AnonymousInternational in San Francisco to develop

the first Vietnamese language

0

chapter in the world, and centerstaff translated the Gambler'sAnonymous materials intoVietnamese. The center has nowstarted a Gambler's Anonymousgroup in Korean.

The Santa Clara CountyDepartment of Family andChildren's Services also overseesthe Nuestra Casa FamilyResource Center, the UjiraniFamily Resource Center, and theGilroy Family Resource Center,

which usesimilarapproachesto work withthe Spanish-speaking andthe AfricanAmericancommuni-ties. Byaddressingcommunityissues, cele-brating cul-tural tradi-

tions, and providing services in nativelanguages when appropriate, these centersare part of a county-wide effort to effec-tively respond to child abuse and neglectwhile supporting families and meetingcommunities' diverse needs.

A parent-child class in flower-arranging helps Vietnamese familiespreserve their culture while enhancing parent-child communication.

pride, increasing their self-esteem, and strengthening theiridentities. The classes also helpparents feel more comfortableabout participating in services: k.,

"Parents believe that it is veryimportant for their children tolearn the traditional languageand culture of their origins. Sowe offer courses, and the parents see thatwe understand their culture. Then when webegin challenging them to find new waysof relating to their children, they are will-ing to listen."

One activity that is popular amongVietnamese families is the parent-childclass in flower arranging. For the first half-hour of the weekly class, parents and theirchildren meet as a group to discuss listen-ing and communication skills and theimportance of celebrating their relation-ships. For many, this is the most importantpart of the class, and the discussion canbecome intense. The last hour of the classis a lesson in flower arranging, which givesparents and children an opportunity to

The Asian Pacific Family Resource Center canbe reached at: County of Santa Clara DFCS,625-F Wool Creek Drive, San Jose, CA 95112-2622, 408/299-8900 (phone), 408/298-2482(fax)

12FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 9

Puzdn Federal] .Dc)I br'S tC1 \Akark. f©rPreservatkon and Suppcort

e passage of the OmnibusBudget Reconciliation Act of1993 created the federal Family

Preservation and Support Services Program(FPSSP)the most significant piece ofchild welfare legislation to be passed inover a decade. The FPSSP became the leg-islative vehicle to counter disproportionatefederal spending on keeping children infoster care; it represents a modest nationalinvestment in prevention services for chil-dren and families who are at risk of enter-ing or have entered the public child welfaresystem. Implementation of the FPSSP bythe U.S. Children's Bureau has been basedon an appreciation and understanding of theconsiderable family-centered work that hadalready taken place in states and communi-ties throughout the nation.

The FPSSP arrived as a great deal offamily support advocacy and activity wastranspiring on the grassroots level withinand across racial, ethnic, and class lines.Community development, which addressesissues of social justice and economic revi-talization that are essential to improvingfamily life, was occurring in disadvantagedneighborhoods. Drawn together by theirshared interest in the well-being of theirfamilies, individuals from different socio-economic strata formed and maintained aproliferation of self-help groups. Parentgroups and associations interested instrengthening child rearing graduallyformed and collectively became theparent education movement. The knowl-edge accrued by family-serving profession-als together with research findings in earlychildhood education, child development,and childcare made the case for publicpolicies that were supportive of families.Family resource centers were operatingin diverse communities and helping fami-lies cope with the challenges of day-to-dayliving and learn specific skills. At the sametime, many state, and local child welfareagencies had initiated family-centeredpolicies, programs, and practices primarilyto avert out-of-home placements andalso to reunify families and avoid disrup-tive adoptions.

Through the FPSSP, the Children'sBureau urged states to build upon theseefforts and others. To receive the FPSSPfunds, states were to:

by Marc Mannes

1. Conduct an inclusive planning processinclusive of parents, agency staff, pri-vate service providers, government staff,and community leadersthat wouldlead to stronger, expanded partnershipson behalf of children and families

2. Consolidate efforts and constructcomprehensive systems for deliveringservices

A family celebration of Vietnamese heritage wasorganized by various organizations in Santa ClaraCounty, California to enhance a sense of communityand cross-cultural sharing. Technical and financialsupport were provided through the federal FamilyPreservation and Support Services Program and dis-seminated by Resources for Families andCommunities (see story, page II).

3. Identify and work toward achieving out-comes in the areas of safety, perma-nence, and well-being

4. Evaluate their progress and accomplish-ments

While FPSSP funds are stimulating anarray of innovative approaches and expandexisting programs, a number of challengesmust be addressed if all of the professionaland lay communities committed to family-centered services are to make the most ofthe federal revenue and if children andfamilies are to reap the benefits.

10 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

First and foremost, there must beimproved communication and more sharedunderstandings,'mutual agreements, andjoint actions among the various groups andorganizations developing and administer-ing family-centered servicesespeciallybetween government-based child welfareagencies and the newer family supportorganizations and emerging family supportnetworks. Second, as family support ser-vices increasingly become part of institu-tions and as more government agenciesprovide services to prevent out-of-homeplacement and to reunify families, account-ability for services must be ensured. Third,state and county agencies and the old andnew members of their family-serving net-works must continue to ameliorate theharm that may result from TemporaryAssistance to Needy Families (part of thecurrent federal welfare reform legislation)and from managed care to ensure that fam-ily-centered services remain a vital part ofthe continuum of services for children andfamilies. Fourth, collaboration, in all of itscomplexity, must be orchestrated carefully,and the various state and local reform ini-tiatives must be integrated so that thehuman services system is not waylaid orparalyzed by overlapping, contradictory,and redundant processes of change.

The following articles on projects inIowa, California, and Connecticut, andamong American Indian tribes, tell just afew of the success stories generated bywork that broad state and local coalitionsare doing as part of their implementationof the Family Preservation and SupportServices Program. The progress of theseand other collaborations will be accom-plished by working hard, working smart,and working together to address the chal-lenges ahead.

Marc Mannes, Ph.D., is Executive Director ofthe National Resource Center for FamilyCentered Practice, University of Iowa Schoolof Social Work, 112 North Hall, Iowa City, IA52242-1223, 319/335-2200 (phone), 319/335-2204 (fax), mart-mannes@uiowa.edu (e-mail).

13

Puttfinr .ecder-aU )cAllars to WprIkSanta. Ca.ra Cc)unts Call5feprna

alifornia counties havebeen charged with findinginnovative ways to apply

dollars made available through thefederal Family Preservation andFamily Support Program in 1993. InSanta Clara County, administratorswith the California Department ofFamily and Children's Services(DFCS) and the county's SocialServices Agency (SSA) saw the fund-ing as an opportunity to forge a partnershipbetween social service agencies and theprivate sector.

DFCS and SSA brought together repre-sentatives of community-based nonprofitorganizations, government agencies, busi-nesses, family-serving professionals, andother citizens to form a steering committee,and charged the committee with drafting afive-year plan for how touse the funds to improveservices for children andfamilies. Their plan,"Healthy Communities,Healthy Families," hasbrought agency personnel,community members, andformer clients into theplanning process by creat-ing subcommittees onspecific issues that theycan join.

The plan also created anonprofit organization,Resources for Familiesand Communities (RFC),that disseminates thegrants to community-based groups in a waythat ensures that thegrants meet communityneeds. Instead of solicit-ing proposals from tradi-tional community-basedorganizations, RFC staffgo to communities andencourage groups of neighborhood resi-dents to think together about their commu-nities' needs and what it would take tomeet those needs, and then draft and sub-mit proposals.

"I have always believed that communi-ties can figure out their needs without hav-ing an outsider come into the neighbor-hood," explains Jesus Orosco, Director ofRFC. "We have found that there is anunmatched force that people have when ,

you allow them a process where they iden-tify their own needs and potential solu-tions. If you provide them with the fundingand the technical assistance they need todo the work, you'll find that they workseven days a week." Nearly 90 percent ofthe groups that RFC funded in the firstfunding cycle met or exceeded expecta-tions outlined in the grant.

to mentor each another."We might have a group that has pro-

duced a great brochure or flyer and nowthey want to know how to apply for their501(c)(3)," says Orosco. "Another grouphas gone through the applicationprocess, but needs help producing aflyer. We'll connect these groups so thatthey can learn from one another."Community groups come to rely on eachother rather than on the agency, and

begin to recognize the resources theyalready have.

RFC reminds communities that resourcesaren't always monetary. In one of the poor-est neighborhoods of San Jose, where 40percent of Latino youth drop out of highschool and only three percent of those whograduate go on to college, recent collegegraduates organized a series of theatrical

and musical perfor-mances and seminarson themes of educa-tion, gangs, and fami-ly violence. Juniorhigh and high schoolstudents wrote andacted in the plays,and parents andgrandparents madethe costumes andsets. The series endedin a celebration at achurch auditoriumattended by morethan 300 people fromthe neighborhood."This project broughtfamilies together andbuilt generationalties," says Orosco.And many of the stu-dents who wereinvolved began talk-

ing about wanting to goto college."

The theater projectaccomplished two of RFC's major goals:building a sense of community and high-lighting the strengths of the neighborhood.Another RFC-funded program promises todo the same: RFC will lend computers tofamilies who would not ordinarily haveaccess to a computer. When a familyreturns the computer, they will be asked tohelp mentor and train the next family whoborrows it. "It could be that a computermakes its way down the street, passing

The original staff offunds from the federBeatrice Naranjo, DByrd, Miguel Guerra

Resources for Families and Children, a county-wide mechanism for applyingal Family Preservation and Support Services Program, are (l-r) Tao Nguyen,elia Gomez, Monica Pin, Jesus Orosco. Later additions (not pictured) are Yvette-Ressy, and Maria Martinez.

.A.

Providing the Resources ThatCommunities Need

RFC provides community groups withthe resources they need, including openingits office so that groups can use the com-puters, telephones, copier, and othermachines. Staff also provide training andtechnical assistance as needed. But perhapsmore importantly, RFC puts groups intouch with each other and encourages them

14FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 I I

Programs Funded by FPSSPDollars through Resources for

Families and CommunitiesIn 1997, Resources for Families and Communities provided the following orga-

nizations with federal FPSSP dollars as well as technical support and help con-necting to others in their communities:

Alviso Senior AssociationAmerican Indian AllianceBosnia Herzegovinan SocietyCambodian American ProfessionalAssociationCambodian Parenting AssociationChristopher School Home and SchoolClubComite HispanoCommunity Circle of CaringCrest Avenue CouncilDay Worker Job CenterELD Parents and StudentsEl Teatro de Los PobresEast Side Dorsa CommunityEast Side Team of Young MothersFamilias Unidas de St. JamesFamilies in TheaterFamily Self SufficiencyFamily Unification ProjectFast FamiliesFastworksFriends of Chinese YouthGeneral Association of Thu-Doc &Nam-DinhIMAGESIndian Education Parent Committee

Mt. Pleasant Neighborhood AssociationMulticultural Youth Outreach ProjectMurray Avenue & Hope CommunityNew Horizon of AngkorNiaPadres ClubWashingtonPadres Latinos UnidosParent Advisory CouncilParenting GrandchildrenPEACE (People Engaged in ActiveCollaboration to End Violence)Plaza Maria Residence CouncilPor Amor al HogarSamahang Pilipino ngSamoa Civic AssociationSamoan Mo TaeaoSantee Community GroupSpringdale/ForestSuiufaiga 0 Samoa CoalitionTeatro Corazon OutreachVietnamese-American Youth for the

FutureVietnamese Eucharistic Youth SocietyVietnamese Senior ImmigrantsThe Willows Youth GroupWomen's Empowerment Group

from neighbor to neighbor until theresidents in every house have learnedhow to use it," says Orosco. Often, asresidents help each other, they expandtheir sense of community to includeother neighborhoods.

Onnovation in the SystemOrosco meets with the steering commit-

tee that created the five-year plan behindRFC twice a year. The committee has cre-ated new partnerships among DFCS, SSA,and private agencies that have improvedservices for families and children. DFCSand SSA staff have gained a better under-standing of families throughout the county,and have more information about and con-nections with other agencies and organiza-tions, making them better able to makereferrals and reduce duplicative services.

The process of developing the five-year

plan revealed some gaps in service deliv-ery, which spurred agencies to add newcomponents and modify current services,often without additional funding, to makethe social services system easier to navi-gate and more effective in meeting theneeds of families.

Support for an Old [Idea:Neighbors G-lelping Neighbors

RFC also helps community groups meettheir needs more efficiently by coordinat-ing their efforts with other groups. "Manycommunity groups don't know there'sanother group just three blocks down,"says Orosco. "We try to get them talking toeach other, and maybe combine theirefforts and expand the scope of whatthey're doing."

Seeing neighbors helping neighbors is

12 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

The committee has creatednew partnerships betweenDFCS and private agencies >

that have improved servicesfor families and children.

the most rewarding part of Orosco's job. "Iwatched a Mexican immigrant try toexplain the citizenship process to a recentémigré from Bosnia Herzegovina. Neitherone spoke English very well, but there wasso much care and attention and compas-sion between the two. I could feel it watch-ing from three feet away. That's whatmakes this whole thing worthwhile."

Santa Clara County's use of the federalFamily Preservation and Family SupportProgram dollars illustrates one of the cen-tral ideas of family support: that the tradi-tion of residents supporting and mentoringeach other is as old as community itself.Orosco agrees: "It's not brain surgery. It'sjust the recognition that in our communitythere's plenty of talent and heart to do theworkall they need from us are the finan-cial and technical resources."

Resources for Families and Communities is at2114 Senter Road, San Jose, CA 95111,408/277-0732 (phone), 408/277-0291 (fax),jesus_orosco@orale.org (e-mail).

I 5

PuttIng .J,2 der cd [lUars tit WorkCcannectricurt

n Connecticut, parents are gettingmore involved in planning familysupport services by helping to

p an and implement activities fund-ed by the federal FamilyPreservation and Support ServicesProgram. To make services moreresponsive to the real needs of fami-lies, the state called parents to theplanning table with other stakehold-ersstaff of social service agencies,municipal offices, and state staffto write Connecticut's Child andFamily Services Plan. Each of thestate's five regions then developedits own implementation plan basedon the state's plan, received federaldollars to implement it, and hired aproject coordinator to coordinate thecontinued input of a variety ofstakeholders.

"We developed priorities based onwhat the community told us," saysLinda Kosko, Project Coordinatorfor the southwest region. Parentshave gotten involved in all aspectsof planning by sitting on subcom-mittees and review committees;they give recommendations andmake decisions on how the fundingis spent. The region's stated missionis to create a partnership with par-ents. "Right now the group hasabout 30 active members, of whichsix are parents. We need to increasethe number of parents and consumers untilthey are partners, when they represent halfof the group."

The region's families are diversemorethan 65 languages are spoken in Bridgeportalone. Stamford's 11,000 Haitians make upa large minority. "Because of this diversity,our regional group is committed to sup-porting services that are provided in a cul-turally sensitive manner," says Kosko.Including parents and consumers in plan-ning and delivering services helps createthat sensitivityas does requiring that theleadership of family-serving agenciesreflect the diversity of their communities.Both are priorities in the region.

Children take part in on-site, supervised activities while their parentsattend leadership training.

Collaboration SparksNew Ideas

The group's focus on collaboration andcoordination among providers, consumers,and communities has led to innovative pro-

jects. "We looked at the federal money asan opportunity to advocate for new waysof providing services so we could learnsomething," says Kosko. The region isusing some funds in a rare opportunity toexperimentto test service models todetermine what works and should be repli-cated. But they also are paying attention toways of serving families that have beensuccessful in other communities and imple-menting them in their own communities.

Cultural differences are viewed as posi-tive, and the programs funded build onstrengths and provide services as needed.For example, Project Enhance providestraining in translation and interpretationto bicultural youth, and gives them experi-ence applying that training. The projectis run by International Institute, Inc., anonprofit that has served new Americanssince 1918.

Another new service that the region isproviding with the federal funding is

16

spreading needed information to thepublic. The region has developedtwo "parent-friendly" videos and isdistributing them to agencies andparent groups. The first video,developed in collaboration with theConnecticut Department of SocialServices and the FairfieldUniversity Media Center, providesinformation about changes inMedicaid and managed care thatresult from welfare reform. Thevideotape, shot in a forum setting,makes the information more acces-sible to parents, who otherwisewould have to navigate one or morelarge social service agencies to havetheir questions answered. In the sec-ond video, a panel including a par-ent advocate and a consumer pro-vides basic information on specialeducation.

According to Kosko, the FamilyPreservation and Support ServicesProgram has enabled the region tobe more responsive to families'needs. But the federal legislationdid not invent the idea of consumerinvolvement; rather, it is brings"more attention and support to theimportance of parent/consumerinvolvement and collaboration,"says Kosko. "These elements havebeen valued in the southwest regionfor a long time." The federal Family

Preservation and Support ServicesProgram also is aiding work to bring aboutmore integrated services, reducing duplica-tion and increasing both interagency andparent-provider collaboration.

Lisa Kosko can be reached at the Departmentof Children and Families, 3885 Main St.,Bridgeport, CT 06606, 203/365-6386 (phone),203/374-2663 (fax).

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 13

Putting b-edem[l ID)©Aars tmWcprk..n -t ribaO Ccarnmunfrfes

he federal Family Preservationand Support Services Programcame with a provision of special

interest to Native American tribal commu-nities: a set-aside that in fiscal year 1996amounted to more than two million dollarsfor programs that bring family supportapproaches into the child welfare systemsserving their families. These took theform of grants ranging from $10,000to more than $500,000. The eligibili-ty of tribes to apply for funds isbased on population counts.

Tribal communities have used thegrants in inventive ways to developand expand their current child wel-fare systems to include preventiveand supportive services for childrenand families. Some of these aredescribed below.

Whole FamilyFoster Care

Whole family placement is aninnovation in foster care practicedby Human Services Associates(HSA) in Saint Paul, Minnesota. Inthis model, rather than being sepa-rated from one another, both parentsand children go to live with a fosterfamily. Whole family placementworks especially well when parentsare early in the process of recoveringfrom drug and alcohol abuse andmay be vulnerable to relapse. Inmany cases, separating a parent andchild can be counterproductive to theparent's recovery; the child's pres-ence, in a safe family environmentthat protects the child, can give theparent the motivation he or sheneeds to work toward recovery.

The foster care providef shares inthe parenting tasks by modelingparental nurturing and discipline. Heor she helps the birth parent indeveloping his or her parenting skillsand work toward eventually taking fullparental responsibilities and roles. Fostercare providers mentor birth parents byoffering nonjudgmental feedback, acting asextended family to the children, settingclear household rules, helping the familyobtain resources such as housing, andreconnecting family members with theirNative American cultural identity andsense of community. One White EarthChippewa foster care provider uses an

image of the "Sacred Tree" planted by thecreator as a way to motivate families; par-ents' search for the tree is a metaphor fortheir recovery from chemical dependencyand development of their parenting skills.

The family in placement is supported notonly by the foster care providers, but by achild protection worker, an HSA worker,

participated in whole family foster carethrough HSA. Twenty-three of the 46 fami-lies ended their involvement with childprotective services by the end of 1995.Eight parents left their children in fostercare; five of these children were adopted.Fifteen families continued placementinto 1995.

Ii

Children and parents both gain new skills and learn about their heritage aspart of the Indian American Parent Coalition. Technical and financialsupport were provided through the federal Family Preservation andSupport Services Program and disseminated by Resources for Familiesand Communities (see story, page 15).

and in some cases an advocate from thecommunity and/or a guardian ad litem forthe children. Both families attend monthlysupport group, meetings. Foster careproviders are paid a daily stipend andreceive additional money for training. Theyearn monthly respite benefits and haveaccess 24 hours a day to their HSA socialworkers.

Between 1992 and 1994, 46 families inMinnesota (eight were Native American)

14 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

Placements have ranged fromone month to several years,depending on family needs andthe availability of funds.Parents ranged in age from 15to 40, with up to four childreneach, who ranged from infantsto adolescents. Most of the par-ents who enter whole familyfoster care are young womenwith small children who areseeking parental mentoringas a way of ending theirinvolvement with child protec-tive services.

For more information, con-tact Bob O'Hara at 570 Asbury,Ste. 105, St. Paul, MN 55104,612/645-0688.

Early Head StartThrough two Native

Americanoperated programs,children ages two and three aretaking classes to learn thebasics of colors, language, andnumbers; singing songs inDakota; and learning socialskills while their parents devel-op their self-sufficiency. andparenting skills through work-shops and classes. The pro-grams are sponsored by LittleHoops Community CollegeComprehensive ChildDevelopment Program in FortTotten, North Dakota and thePort Gamble S'Klallam Tribeof Kingston, Washington.

All Early Head Start programs are found-ed on the importance of the first few yearsof life in children's later development andsuccess in school. What makes these twoprograms different is their emphasis onstrengthening families' Native Americancultural identities.

The Fort Totten program provided AnnLawrence, a mother of two, with theopportunity to obtain two associatesdegrees in education. Her children learned

to count in English and Sioux, went tominipow wows, painted, and sang duringtheir time at the center; these activitiesplus parent-child programs and work-shops amounted to 40 hours a week forthe family.

Another mother, Carmen Littlewind, saysshe was able to get off of AFDC in 1991with the help of the Fort Totten program.With day care and transportation provided,She received a secretarial certificate and atwo-year certificate of applied science ineducation. The coordinator of the programassisted her in finding employment.

For more information on these programs,call Beverly Greywater at 701/766-4070.

Respite CareA number of communities nation-

wide are using culturally basedrespite as a way to prevent out-of-home placement by providing parentswith a break at stressful times.

The Ina Maka Program run byUnited Indians of All Tribes inSeattle, Washington, offers respitecare for urban families of childrenwith disabilities that preserves andstrengthens their culture whilegiving parents a break in timesof crisis and stress. The organiza-tion allows for a Kia (grandmother)to be available on a planned basis tocome and care for the child in his orher home while the parents spendtime with the other children.

Both planned and emergencyrespite care that strengthens NativeAmerican families' culture identitiesis available through the KlamathFamily Support Center in KlamathFalls, Oregon. The center also pro-vides individual counseling, parentingclasses, and support groups.

In today's society, problems that havecontributed to changing family structuremay cause natural helpers to "burn out" ornot to be present when help is needed.Both programs attempt to replicate a senseof extended family and to respond to theimportance of extended family in tradition-al Native American cultures. Another issuefaced by respite care providers and fami-lies is the value placed on the privacy inNative American cultures. These pro-grams' approach of linking families withrespite care providers of their own culturalbackgrounds can help encourage parents tomake use of respite services when theyneed them.

Home VisitingIn 1988 the Families First program was

piloted in two Upper Michigan reserva-

tions, Sault Ste. Marie and Kee Wee NawBay, as well as 18 counties in Michigan.Now the home visiting program, whosegoal is to safely prevent separation of fam-ilies following reported child abuse andneglect, operates on reservations all overthe state.

Families First home visitors each servetwo families, providing flexible servicesand funds to respond to families' needs.The four-week program of visits consistsof determining goals with the family andthen pursuing those goals, whatever theymay be. Some families are working toimprove household cleanliness. Someneed help sticking to a medicationschedule. One worker brought new bottles

Tribal communities have used federal

grants in inventive ways to develop

and expand their current child wel-

fare systems to include preventive

and supportive services for children

and families.

for a mother whose baby had been chokingwhile being fed; the holes in the bottleshad been too big for the child. A workerin the child protection system hadinformed the mother of the problem, butthe home visitor's hands-on help madethe difference.

Visits are planned to suit families' sched-ules. Families can be referred to home visi-tors by workers in the child protective ser-vices system, by a probation or tribal court,or by foster care workers who recommendthat the family of a child under their carereceive in-home visits before the childgoes back home.

Another home visiting program on theEly Shoshone Reservation in Nevada con-centrates on developing the parenting skillsand child development knowledge of par-ents of preschool children.

Both programs are funded through a mixof federal, state, and local funds and

reduce the stigma attached to receiving ser-vices by sending visitors of families' owncultures to provide services and support.

For information, contact Cora Gravelle,Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Inc., 405E. Easterday Ave., Sault Ste. Marie, MI49783, 906/632-6896.

More information can be obtained from theNational Indian Child Welfare Association,3611 S.W. Hood, Suite 201, Portland,OR 97201, 503/222-4044 (phone), 503/222-4007 (fax).

_1FAMILY R44. E COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 15

Fannfly Grp r)ecclisk»n MakingAn Unterna.t6cDna Dy RepiicatecilAllternatkve w Faaster Care

n Summer 1993, FRCA Report (volume12, number 2) included an article writ-ten by Casandra Firman about the New

Zealand Family Group Conferenceapproach to child welfare practice.Below, Report revisits the model, highlight-ing current efforts to replicate and adapt itin the United States.

At least 15 states representing all regionsof the U.S. are using Family GroupDecision Making (FGDM) in their childwelfare systems. FGDM empowers fami-lies and engages them in developing a planto nurture their children and protect themfrom further harm or neglect. The FGDMprocess fosters cooperation, collaboration,and communication between child welfareprofessionals and families.

Since 1989, two primary models ofFGDM have been practiced worldwide inchild welfare: Family Group Conferences(FGC) and Family Unity Meetings (FUM).The FGC model, which New Zealanddeveloped and legislated in 1989, has beenadapted in Canada, the United States,Australia, and England. FUM, developedin Oregon in 1990, is used by the OregonChildren's Services Division and in variousU.S. communities.

Both in New Zealand and the UnitedStates, incorporating FGDM into childwelfare practice has been spurred by anumber of phenomena:

An escalating number of children, and adisproportionately high number of minor-ity children, living in out-of-home care

Many children's unacceptably long staysin out-of-home care

Too many multiple out-of-home place-ments for children

Delivery of services (particularly to theMaoris in New Zealand) sometimesregarded as racist

FGDM is being adopted because it fits .

contemporary philosophies of child wel-fare, which call for increasing the use ofkinship care, capitalizing on familystrengths, participatory decision making,and a partnership between the familyand professional. New Zealand's positiveresults, as well as the growing commitmentamong child welfare agencies to deliver

by Lina Cramer and Lisa Merkel-Holguin

family-centered, culturally competentservices, have sparked the model'sreplication.

Oregon began using the model in 1990and has adapted the model differently inrural and urban settings. In 1995 manyother states began using FGDM, as didsome communities and counties. SantaClara County, California, has adapted themodel, and in Topeka, Kansas, and GrandRapids, Michigan, FGDM is being used aspart of the Kellogg Foundation's Familiesfor Kids initiative.

Many U.S. communities and statesadhere closely to the New Zealand model,while others adapt it liberally, particularlywith respect to the family deliberationstage, which New Zealand limits to familymembers. In Chicago, trained mediatorsare involved in the meeting, and in Topeka,Kansas, members of the family's supportnetwork may be present.

FGDM PrinciplesFamily Group Decision Making is a non-

adversarial process based on the principlesthat families, communities, and govern-ment must work together to ensure childsafety and well-being, and that familiesmust be involved in making decisionsaffecting their children's welfare.

FGDM is compatible with the principlesof family support. It is family-centered,family strengths-oriented, culturally rele-vant, and community-based. It recognizesthat families have the most information formaking well-informed decisions aboutthemselves and that individuals can findsecurity and a sense of belonging withintheir families. It emphasizes that familieshave the responsibility to not only care for,but also to provide a sense of identity for,their children. It encourages links betweenfamilies and their communities.

The Participating FamiliesNew Zealand mandates Family Group

Conferences for the families of all childrensubjected to substantiated sexual abuse,domestic violence, physical abuse, andneglect, as well as families in which amember is experiencing mental illness ordevelopmental disability. In the UnitedStates, child welfare agencies solicit fami-lies to voluntarily participate, although ina few locations FGDM meetings arecourt-ordered.

I 6 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

19

The Family Group DecisionMaking Process

The FGDM models have four main phases.

1 titerFarr7iy Gro

Mak5ngA Conversation with the Revere!

Lawndale Christian CI

awndale is a low-income, largely AfricanAmerican neighborhood on Chicago'snear southwest side. In April 1996, Rev.

Joe Miller began working with state officials toadd a family conference program for families atrisk of entering the child welfare system to thewide range of health care, mental health, andpreventive services offered through his clinic.The clinic serves more than 1200 newborns andtheir families per year.

We often work with families referred to theDepartment of Children and Family Servicesbecause the mother has a substance abuse prob-lem and is using her public aid check to supporther habit while the children are not fed, super-vised, or attending school regularly.

We have learned that before we can have afamily conference, we have to ensure the chil-dren's safety and secure the mother's participa-tion. But it is very difficult to get a mother tocooperate in the planning for the care and pro-tection of her children while she is still usingdrugs. Therefore, we work with the extendedfamily to identify a family leader (usually agrandparent) who will assume responsibility forthe children, and then transfer the public assis-tance payment to them. Usually after about twomonths, the mother agrees to work with us, andwe link her to treatment services. Then we canprepare for a family conference, where the fam-

1. Referral to an FGDM meetingTypically, the social worker who investi-

gates and assesses a case of child abuse orneglect refers the case to a coordinator,who decides whether to hold an FGDMmeeting. The coordinator should be impar-tial and without connections to the case.

2. Preparation and planning for theFGDM meeting

Thorough preparation and planning candetermine the success of an FGDM meet-ing. While coordinators must weigh ensur-

viewfl] EDec5s6cDnChilCag©

Joseph Miller, Executive Director,Imunity Health Center

ily will determine what needs to happen forthe mother to get her kids and financialsupport back.

We do a lot to prepare for each conference.Originally, it was hard to engage more than twoor three extended family members for a confer-ence, but now we average four or five. At aconference, our family coordinator works withthe family members, service providers, andchild welfare staff to identify family strengthsand vulnerabilities. All the information is sharedwith the family, including any requirements thatmust be met to keep the children with their fam-ily. The family is then charged with developingand deciding on a plan. The only non-familymember present during the decision making isa mediatora neutral person from the commu-nity who helps keep the family on track. Itusually takes between six and nine months tocarry out a plan.

All of our staff are from the community andare very committed to the program: once fami-lies finish the program, we follow up for at leastsix months to keep up with the children'sprogress, the mother's progress in treatment,and the entire family's implementation of theirplan. No children have been removed from anyof the 22 families we have worked with overthe last year. We are the community health cen-terfamilies know we'll always be here.

ing broad and informed family participa-tion against convening a meeting quickly,adequate preparation helps the remainingstages progress more smoothly. Before themeeting he or she must:

Ensure that the child is in a safe environ-ment, whether in the home or in out-of-home or kinship care.

Work with the family and child to invitethe participation of individuals who canprotect and care for the child and supportthe family in doing so; can superviseimplementation of the meeting plans; andhave a relationship with the child. Thesecould include parents, kin, children, tribalelders, neighbors, clergy, etc.

Attempt to involve family members whohave directly contributed to the problemin determining and implementing solu-tions: decisions to exclude them shouldnot be made hastily.

Clearly explain the FGDM process to allparticipants so that they fully understandtheir roles before, during, and after themeeting.

Manage unresolved family issues that, ifdiscussed, could derail the meeting.Coordinators must inform family mem-bers before and during the meeting thatissues unrelated to protecting the childwill not be discussed.

Coordinate all meeting logistics, includ-ing the date, time, place, supplies,refreshments, seating arrangements, inter-preters, travel arrangements, and if neces-sary, extra security. The time required todo this should not be underestimated.

3. The Family Group Conference andthe Family Unity Model meetings

While there are differences in practicebetween the Family Group Conference andthe Family Unity Model (see next page),their activities are fundamentally the same:

Introduction of the participants and expla-nation of their relationships to the childand family

Statement of the purpose or goals of themeeting

Sharing of informationstrengths, con-cerns, bottom-line requirements, resources

Family discussion and questions

Decision making and planning

Review and acceptance of a plan to pro-tect and nurture the child(ren), includingidentifying resources and responsibilities

4. Events and planning subsequent tothe FGDM meeting

Writing and distribution of the plan,delivery of services, and review and moni-

toring of the decisions follow the familymeeting. If thought necessary by the familyor the professionals, a follow-up meetingmay be scheduled for case review.

Communities implementing FGDM facethe challenge of locating and providing theservices and community resources thatfamilies identify in their plans. The mostfrequent request in New Zealand is forfinancial subsidies to care for the children.

Working with the family to implementthe plan and ensure the child(ren)'s safetyand well-being is essential to the long termsuccess of FGDM. Monitoring, problemsolving, and adjusting the plan are sharedresponsibilities of extended family mem-bers and professionals.

Early Implementation ResultsFGDM offers a non-traditional response

to families in crisis that may result ingreater permanency, stability, long-termsafety, and well-being for children withintheir families and communities.Implementation of FGDM worldwide hasproduced promising trends (but no officialresults) including: (1) a decrease in thenumber of children living in out-of-homecare, (2) an increase in professionalinvolvement with extended families, (3) anincrease in the number of children livingwith kin, (4) a decrease in the number ofcourt proceedings, and (5) an increase incommunity involvement.

Currently, New Zealand and most statesinvolved in implementing FGDM withintheir child welfare services are monitoringthe process and evaluating its short- andlong-term effectiveness. Within the nextfew years, much more will be learnedabout the outcomes of family group deci-sion making as a means of protecting andnurturing children within their own fami-lies and communities.

Lisa Merkel-Holguin is a Policy/ProgramAnalyst with the Children's Division of AHA, 63Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112-5117, lmerkel-holguin@amerhumane.org,303/792-9900 (phone), 303/792-5333 (fax).AHA round tables on family group decisionmaking will be September 18 and 19 in Detroitand November 3 and 4 in Philadelphia.

Lina Cramer is a family support consultantworking with the Illinois Department ofChildren and Family Services on the imple-mentation of the Family Preservation andSupport Services Program, and with FRCA ondevelopment of a self-assessment for familysupport programs.

This article is adapted with permission fromthe American Humane Association (AHA).A version of it appeared in ProtectingChildren, volume 12, number 3, 1996.

FAMILY RESOlaa0ALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 17

two Models of Family Group Decision MakingFamily Group Conference

Stage I: Introduction

Stage 2: Information Sharing

Stage 3:The Family Meeting

Stage 4:The Decision

In ways culturally relevant to the family, the coordinator welcomes participants, reiterates the FGC process and purpose,and leads the family in establishing the meeting's goal and each participant's role.

The social worker who conducted the child abuse and neglect investigation straightforwardly and respectfully presentsthe facts of the case, and other involved professionals present related information. Family members may question the pro-fessionals, but professionals do not state opinions or make recommendations at this stage.The FGC model expects thefamily to formulate its own plan during the next stage.

The FGC model bars professionals and non-family support people from participating in the family meeting, leaving thefamily to discuss the case in private. It is believed that if professionals were to attend, they would tend to assume theirtraditional decision-making and facilitating roles, inhibiting family discussion possibly disempowering the family.The familymust decide if the child was abused or neglected and, if so, how to ensure that the child is cared for and protected fromfuture harm.

Once the family reaches a decision, the social worker, coordinator, and other support people return to the meeting andthe family presents its plan. New Zealand law requires that the family and the professional who referred the case agreewith the decision, and gives parents, guardians, social workers, the coordinator, and the child's lawyer the power to vetothe decision.There are few vetos: agreement is reached in approximately 95 percent of the cases in New Zealand. If thereis disagreement, dissenting views are presented to the Family Court for a decision.

Family Unity Meeting(as used in Marion County, Oregon)

Stage I:Introductions

Stage 2: Goal Setting

Facilitators explain the meeting's purpose, participants' roles, and ground rules. Participants introduce themselves to thegroup, explain their connections to the family, and indicate why they came to the meeting.

The parent(s) and caseworker share with the group why they called the meeting, and the facilitator strives to delineate acommon goal for all participants.

Stage 3: Strengths Assessment The group identifies family strengths that can be mobilized to reach the goal.

Stage 4: Concerns Parents, followed by family members, non-family participants, and professionals, share their concerns for the child andfamily.What is the family worried or concerned about? What must happen for the family to reach its goals?

Stages 5,6 and 7:Options, Family Discussion,and Decisions

Trust the process.

Although separate in theory, these stages often occur simultaneously. In the Options stage, the group brainstorms ideasfor how to resolve its concerns and reach its goals. In the Family Discussion stage, it discusses the advantages and disad-vantages of the above options.The facilitator remains neutral, ensures that family members have input, and writes optionsand decisions on a flip chart. As agreement on a plan emerges, the facilitator clarifies and restates the decisions. In thenon-mandatory Decisions stage, the family may adjust or further clarify the plan to accommodate the professionals' con-cerns. If the family and professionals cannot agree (which is rarely the case), then either the facts are presented to thecourts, another meeting is held, or the caseworker implements the plan he or she believes most appropriate.

Words (Of Wisdom from PractitionersAll families have extended family who are willing to help care for and protect chil-

dren. This support system is used especially frequently by minority families.

Professionals should always discuss individual and family strengths and concerns,

possible resources, bottom lines, and what each service provider or government

body requires to assure that the child will be protected and nurtured.

Families discuss the real issues when professionals are not present

Families know what will really help, what they really need.

Let the family make decisions.

Families devise more creative plans for caring for children.

Families are committed to the plans they create.

Families use resources that they identify as needed.

Families share responsibility for carrying out the plan with the worker.

Workers have allies in the family members who are empowered to monitor and

support the plan.

Expect to revisit plansthey all need to be adjusted.

Contributed by AmhaWainui-MacIde and Betsy Crane of the Family Resolution Project, a partnership between

the New York State Department of Social Services and the Cornell University Empowering Families Project

Wainui-Mackel worked with families in New Zealand for eight years using Family Group Conferences.

I 8 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 221

TheChEl]d

rgan5zatilcDD-1211 Cu[Itkure ofPrcYtect5ve Serv[Ices

No public child-serving systemin America is more belea-guered than the child protec-

tive services system.' Beset by criticismand overwhelmed by the needs of familiesand children who are affected by thenation's many social problems, the publicchild protection system has become thetarget of frequent attacks from both itsallies and its detractors. The stress of thiscriticism has further weakened the sys-tem's capacity to protect children andcontributed to an organizational environ-ment that can be counterproductive tomeeting the needs of children, theirfamilies, and even staff themselves.

Few who are knowledgeable about childprotection would not agree that the systemin America is in need of drastic improve-ment. Because of diverse opinions aboutthe causes of its insufficiencies, the arrayof remedies which is promoted rangesfrom the traditional to the radical. Toimprove child protective services, attentionis needed not only to the symptoms ofinsufficient performance, but to the organi-zational culture of the child protection sys-tem itself. The unique organizational lifewithin child protective services, formed byhistorical influences and current events,must be understood in order to adequatelydesign new strategies for the protection ofchildren. In other words, we must ask whythese services function like they do. Thefollowing description of organizational lifereflects the experiences of many who workwithin the system, and could be instructivein understanding how it should bechanged.

Organizational° LifeManagement, Administration, andStructure

Nationally, public child protection agen-cies operate in an organizational climate inwhich confidentiality and liability concernsmake it difficult for staff to even acknowl-edge the need for improvement. Unfor-tunately, no institution can effectivelyaddress its deficiencies if it is unsafe toadmit them. Even when staff do considerimprovements, too often they perceive thepenalty for publicized failure as beinggreater than the rewards for success. As aresult, reasonable managerial and practiceinnovations needed to improve perfor-

by Paul Vincent

mance are considered risky despite internalrecognition that the system is often ineffec-tive in protecting children. Press coverageof tragedies rarely considers systemicinfluences, focusing instead on identifyingand condemning the individual caseworkerwhose judgment is considered responsiblefor a child's harm. Unfortunately, somemanagers defensively follow the samepractice, a fact which contributes to thehigh staff turnover in the field. As a result,

To improve child protective

services, attention is needed not

only to the symptoms of insuffi-

cient performance, but to the

organizational culture of the

child protection system itself

initiatives for improvement are likely to bemodest, incremental, and traditional.

In addition to criticism from the press,child protective services are also frequentlycriticized, usually with impunity, by morepowerful stakeholders, such as judges,prosecutors, law enforcement, advocates,and attorneys. These attacks contributesubstantially to a climate of victimizationamong child protection staff. Few cate-gories of social service professionalsexperience lower status than public childprotection staff.

One of the most significant contributorsto low public and professional regard forthe field is the lack of meaningful outcomemeasures on which to evaluate practice andperformance. From the public's perspectiveperformance is evaluated more on the basisof tragedies than successes in protectingchildren. As a result, the system is con-stantly on the defensive, especially wherethe media is concerned.

Justifiably concerned about controllingthe risks of harm to children and of liabili-ty to the organization, many child protec-tion agencies attempt to manage risk withdetailed and often inflexible policies onworker practice. Compliance with policy isusually enforced through rigid, hierarchicalorganizational structures and multiple lev-els of supervision. While such organiza-tional designs yield relatively consistentagency practices, in casework they inhibitinnovation, flexibility in responding toindividual family needs, partnerships withoutside organizations, and the exercise ofindependent professional judgment.

Organizationally, child protective ser-vices tend to be independent of the fostercare and adoption components of childwelfare and are often separate from ongo-ing child protection interventions. They are

>certainly separated from other externalhelping systems. As a result, staff maynot be fully aware of the long-term

effects of their interventions on childrenand their families. The lifelong effects ofseparation and loss on children placed inthe foster care system, for example,become someone else's problem.Specialized separate functions also hinderteam building, which is essential for effec-tive community partnerships. For families,such organizational separation sets thestage for serial interventions through multi-ple workers within the helping systems.

Most critically, child protective servicestend to be isolated from areas where condi-tions lead to a high risk of child abuse andneglect, and tend to be staffed by peoplewho have little in common with people liv-ing in those communities. The strengthswithin communities lie largely untapped bythe public system.

PracticeCompounding the difficulty of their

tasks, child protective services staff face anoverwhelming caseload which they are vir-tually powerless to control. The recentlyreleased National Incidence Study reportsthat while the incidence of child abuse andneglect has grown significantly, the childprotection system's capacity to respond hasremained largely static over recent years.There is a consistent perception amongchild protective services staff and childwelfare staff in general that they are

22 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT SUMMER 1997 VOL I 6, NO.2 19

"dumped on" by the larger community andexpected to address the needs of familieson whom other stakeholders have givenup. This feeling of being an overwhelmedlast resort leads, not without cause, to frus-tration and resentment, which fuels the "usversus them" personality of the system. Inthe face of families' need to deal with theincreasingly complex effects of poverty,substance abuse, homelessness, and otherdebilitating social conditions,the child protection system provides littletraining for its staff, leaving workersfeeling unskilled and unprepared to per-form the work expected of them. The train-ing that is provided is often too deficit-focused and infused with terms such as"investigation" and "perpetrator" as wellas with medical terminology, languageassociated with more respected disciplines.Not surprisingly, practice tends to conformto the language. In many systems, thehelping, social work heritage of child pro-tection interventions has been blurred byadaptation to the cultures of more power-ful, higher status stakeholders such asprosecutors, physicians, forensic special-ists, and psychologists.

A more serious deficiency of the trainingprovided most child protective servicesworkers is its concentration on case plan-ning and policy to the exclusion of build-ing skills in engagement and assessment.Case planning content is more likely to befocused on the agency's role and the par-ent's obligations than on the family andchild's needs and the agency's obligations.Families are infrequently involved in caseplanning, if at all. Uncomfortable engagingfamilies, and not being required to do soby agency policy, the child protection sys-tem is too often unable to recognize anduse family strengths in planning interven-tions. Being unable to engage families, it isno surprise that child protective servicesstaff find it difficult to engage the neigh-borhoods and communities in which thefamilies they serve live.

To summarize, because of the uniquepressures and experiences faced by childprotective services, the following charac-teristics are found in many agencies aroundthe country:

A problem-focused, deficiency-based per-ception of the families served

A view of the community that is heavilyinfluenced by generalizations about thefamilies within the child protection sys-tem who live there

Practice influenced by fears of exposure

to liability and public condemnation

Rigid, hierarchical organizational andsupervisory structures

Unmanageable workloads and expecta-tions of error-free decision making

An inability to effectively measure andcommunicate successful performance andoutcomes

Lack of respect from the public and pow-erful stakeholders

Lack of skills and resources needed tohelp families change

Disconnection from the rest of child wel-fare and other helping systems and insu-larity related to integration with othersystems and the community

A sense of resentment, victimization, andpowerlessness among staff

The Strengths of the FieiciDespite the challenges of reshaping the

public child protection system, a focusonly on system deficiencies is as harmfuland misleading as problem-centered prac-tice with families. To begin to modify theorganizational culture in child protectiveservices, it is necessary to understand thatmuch of the organizational and individualbehavior in the system is largely adaptiveto the unreasonable and relentless pres-sures which are placed upon it.

In fact, there is significant strength andamazing resilience within the system, inspite of often thankless working condi-tions. Faced with growing public ambiva-lence about the role of government and theuse of government authority, staff continueto accept the responsibility of balancingchild safety with the need for the attach-ments of family.

State and local systems continue toattract new staff willing to contribute to theprotection of children and are led by expe-rienced workers, supervisors, and man-agers who have committed their careers tothe field. And although data systems can-not yet adequately document successes,child protective services staff routinelyprotect large numbers of children and pro-vide meaningful help to their families.

Additionally, despite the risks of change,child protective services constantly workon improving their practices, redesigningrisk assessment instruments, developingnew strategies, learning from other agen-cies' experiences with reform, and advo-cating for needed resources. Thesestrengths provide a powerful foundation onwhich to build expanded capacities forsafer children and stronger families.

20 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION REPORT SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NO. 2

Strategies for ChangeThe problems that affect child protective

services, while helping form and sustaintheir culture, are not irremediable.Addressing these problems, however, isnot without cost, and for administrators,not without risk. Four things are required ifthe public child protection system is toimprove its capacity to protect childrenfrom harm. First, courageous and visionaryleadership is needed to improve both prac-tice and the organizational systems andculture that support it. Second, it is neces-sary to institute a cohesive framework ofpractice that builds on family strengths,ensures worker competency, provides ameaningful role for families in decisionmaking, and permits an individualizedresponse to child and family needs. Third,the capacity to measure and learn fromoutcomes must be developed. Fourth, andperhaps most challenging, meaningful part-nerships for the protection of children mustbe developed with the neighborhoods andcommunities within which families live.

The public child protection system alonecan never adequately address the needs ofchildren at risk of harm. Only through thesharing of resources, services, family sup-ports, and governance of child protectioncan the nation fulfill its obligation to pro-tect its children from abuse and neglect.

SummaryWhile the costs of supporting effective

child protective services are high, they arenot as high as the costs of failing to ade-quately protect the nation's children. As isincreasingly evident through neighborhoodand community-based child welfarereforms led by the Edna McConnell Clarkand Annie E. Casey Foundations, amongothers, the organizational culture of childprotective services can be reshaped to moreeffectively work with families and commu-nities for the effective protection of chil-dren. The investment is worth the price.

Mote'This article is part of a paper prepared for the EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation.

Paul Vincent, former Director of Alabama'schild welfare system, is involved in neighbor-hood-based reform initiatives with the EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation and in systemschange documentation with the Annie E.Casey Foundation. He directs the ChildWelfare Policy and Practice Group, a private,non-profit organization that provides technicalassistance in improving practice, at 3328Lexington Ave., Montgomery, AL 36106,

23

oundatkonsCcImmlinFiw==.

nnovative, community-based ways ofresponding to the needs of families inthe child welfare system are emerging

nationwidenot only through the effortsof practitioners, community residents, andstate and county governments, but with thegenerous support of major foundationssuch as the Annie E. Casey Foundationand the Edna McConnell ClarkFoundation.

Community Partnerships forProtecting Children

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundationis sponsoring an initiative that promotespartnerships between the community andchild protective services agencies in CedarRapids, Iowa; Jacksonville, Florida; St.Louis, Missouri; and Louisville, Kentucky.FRCA is providing technical assistance tothe communities as part of the initiative,called Community Partnerships forProtecting Children. The initiative focuseson preventing both initial and recurrentabuse and neglect rather than stopping atassisting families in which abuse hasalready occurred. These communities takethe revolutionary step of placing responsi-bility for prevention on the community,requiring child welfare agencies to collabo-rate and plan with private agencies andcommunity members.

The initiative relies heavily on the infor-malyet often untappedresources thatare available in every community. Workersin the child welfare systems now call uponfamily members, friends, and neighbors toprovide support to families in need and toensure the safety of children. Below, you'llread about specific steps that the four com-munities are taking.

1. Communities Owning ChildProtection

To increase community involvement inchild protection, the Partnership inJacksonville has instituted voluntary con-tracts that allow parents or other familymembers at risk of being involved in childabuse to obtain a pledge from a trustedcommunity member to provide support andhelp ensure children's safety. Thus far, thecommunity has gathered over 300 con-tracts, which they call community supportagreements. Community members inCedar Rapids have developed a network ofpaid neighborhood helpers who ensure thatcommunity members get to know each

SpcDnscDr7wc)ed

other, learn about resources, and get sup-port when they need it. They receive astipend to increase their ability to committime and energy to providing support andreducing the isolation of the families intheir neighborhoods.

In St. Louis, a Community InnovationFund has been established to encouragecommunity associations and churches tobecome more involved in child safety. Thefund supports grassroots efforts thatincrease informal support and activities forneighborhood families.

Parents and staff at Neighborhood Place inLouisville, Kentucky, are forming a community-widenetwork to protect children and strengthen familiesthrough Community Partnerships for ProtectingChildren.

2. Customizing Responses to Cases ofChild Abuse & Neglect

Community Partnerships for ProtectingChildren sites are working to change theresponse of the child welfare system froma "one-size-fits-all" investigation of allalleged offenses to an institutionalresponse that is customized to the varietyof family situations.

In collaboration with the KentuckyDepartment of Social Services, thoseinvolved in the initiative in Louisville havedeveloped alternative, family-supportivestrategies for investigating and servingfamilies whose cases involve seriousinjuries or neglect. The strategies target

children under age five. The SigelEducation Center, a school-based commu-nity center that is the hub of thePartnership in St. Louis, helps to targetsections of the community that require aheightened protective response.

In Jacksonville, workers in child protec-tion services are based in schools toincrease informal connections with fami-lies. Parents who seem to need support toprevent child abuse and have not beenreported to child protective services arereferred to a 24-hour resource and referralhotline so they can get help before a for-mal response from the child welfare sys-tem is required.

3. Providing Support to Families in theSystemThe community in Cedar Rapids is pilot-

ing an alternative assessment approach. Intandem with child protective service work-ers' assessment process, family supportworkers assist families on a variety ofissues (e.g., employment, parenting skills,and child development) to simultaneouslyhelp families improve their well-being andincrease child safety.

In conjunction with the new assessmentapproach, the Partnership in Cedar Rapidshas expanded Iowa's Patch Project, whichplaces child protective services staff in

E, family resource centers so that they cancollaborate with other providers of corn-

>,munity resources. By increasing their con-

g tact with families, the Patch Project staffcan more closely monitor the safety ofchildren already in the system and can helpother families solve their problems beforethey escalate into abuse or neglect. InLouisville, staff of the KentuckyDepartment of Social Services conducttraining on child protection for local agen-cies and identify mentor families who canprovide support to at-risk families. To cre-ate a comprehensive, community-basedeffort, the Partnership has its headquartersin a center that provides a variety of socialservices for families.

Family-to-Family OnitiativeThanks to the Annie E. Casey

Foundation's Family-to-Family Initiative,many of the children who normally areplaced in group homes and institutions are,with their families, receiving community-based services that are more responsive totheir individualized needs, rooted in their

FAMILY RESOURC 0 LITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 2 I

Families in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, test and learn about car seats fortheir children at the Brownstone Family Resource Center

neighborhoods, and sensitive to culturaldifferences. These reforms in the fostercare system are taking place in severalcounties in seven states, and are based onthe initiative's central tenet: that child wel-fare systems should be family-centered.

One goal of the initiative is to avoidunnecessary out-of-home placement, whenpreserving the family through intensivesupport services is a responsible option. InSavannah, Georgia, entire families havebeen placed with mentor families insteadof removing the children and causing

greater disruption in thefamily. This has enabledfamilies in crisis to relyon the support of others inthe community and buildtheir capacity to workthrough difficult times.

In situations in which itis necessary to removechildren from theirhomes, the Family-to-Family Initiative calls foravoiding institutional orcongregate care unless thechild's needs make itabsolutely necessary. To

meet this goal, states andcounties have had to drasti-cally increase the number of

foster families available. In Cleveland, theinitiative recruited 148 new foster familiesin its first year, through door-to-door can-vassing; booths in grocery stores, churches,laundromats, neighborhood centers, andschools; and informal gatherings in thehomes of current foster parents.

The initiative seeks to place children whomust be removed from their homes withfoster families in their own neighborhoods.Children then can attend their own schools,play in the same parks, and to see their nat-

ural parents more frequently. In order tomake more neighborhood families eligibleto become foster families, CuyahogaCounty in Ohio has assisted with the appli-cation process and even helped familiesrenovate their homes and purchase addi-tional beds in order to meet eligibilityrequirements.

The initiative also involves foster fami-lies as team members in family reunifica-tion efforts by facilitating regular contactbetween primary and foster families,encouraging primary families to stayinvolved in their children's lives, andallowing foster parents to participate indecision making.

Communities already have seen positiveeffects from the initiative. They are report-ing fewer out-of-home placements, fewerplacements outside children's communi-ties, and fewer placement changes whilechildren are in care. Also, hundreds of fos-ter homes have been added.

The Edna McConnell Clark Foundationand the Annie E. Casey Foundation haveenabled communities to try some innova-tive reforms in child welfare systems. Inthe pages that follow, practitioners, admin-istrators, and parents describe the impact ofthese initiatives in their own words.

linterview-A Parent's _Perspeofve on

Comrnurflty PartnersHps for ProtectlinConnie Hodges is an outreachworker for the South Side DayNursery in St. Louis, Missouri. As

a parent leader, she helped plan theCommunity Partnership for ProtectingChildren Initiative in St. Louis and is amember of the initiative's implementationteam.

How did you get involved in theCommunity Partnership for ProtectingChildren Initiative?I was a parent leader first. I got involvedwhen a meeting was held at the SouthSide Day Nursery about changing the[Division of Family Services'] investiga-tive process on child abuse and neglect. Ibecame involved from the very begin-ning, back in 1995, because I want tohelp change the myth about DFS.

Has your involvement in the initiativechanged your life?Yes, it's changed my life, as I'm now afamily support worker. The program [thatI work for] will focus on child abuse pre-vention by reaching women seeking pre-natal care. I'm also helping familiesrelieve the multilevel stress in their lives.

How has the initiative affected your com-munity?It's brought the community closer togeth-er. We've come together for the protec-tion and well-being of all of the commu-nity's children. We're also developingnew programs that will help the commu-nity rebuild and reduce barriers betweenservice providers.

22 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2

ChNdrenWhat has been the hardest part aboutparticipating in the initiative?The hardest part is that agencies are terri-torial. There's often a lack of communi-cation and commitment. There's also alack of parents involved in developmentand implementation.

What has been the most rewarding partabout participating in the initiative?The best part has been getting to meet allof the people at the different sites, travel-ing, being part of an initiative that's goingto change the way we do business, andespecially reaching families that need us.

Ne6gh[oxprs p6ng NellghbOrsto) Prciptect Ch5Udren

Linn County, Iowa

by Chuck Abel and Carol R. Rickey

The Brownstone Family Resource Center is part of the Patch program in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

n several neighborhoods in Linn County,Iowa, parents, neighbors, grassrootscommunity groups, and public and pri-

vate non-profit agencies and organizationsare working together to keep children safefrom abuse and neglect. Increasing thecommunity's involvement in and owner-ship of this work is the key to LinnCounty's Community Partnership forProtecting Children. The Partnership isfunded with a grant from the EdnaMcConnell Clark Foundation, and by thefederal Family Preservation and SupportServices Program with matching communi-ty dollars.

In Linn County, neighborhood Partnersare integral to this new effort that links thenatural helping networks of neighborhoodswith the formal child welfare system.Neighborhood Partners are communitymembers who reach out to families whootherwise are isolated, to parents in crisis,and to families under stress. They providefamilies with information on communityresources, are themselves involved in com-munity life, and assist in neighborhood andblock development. As community mem-bers, Neighborhood Partners are able tosupport families in ways agency workersoften cannot. Neighbor-to-neighbor rela-tionships bring built-in trust and mutualaccountability.

Having demonstrated an ability to buildpositive and supportive relationships withothers, potential Neighborhood Partnersare identified by school personnel, day carestaff, neighborhood associations, and otherorganizations located in the neighborhoods.Neighborhood Partners receive a smallstipend.

The Neighborhood Partners projectcomes from the strengths-based approachof family support. Its mission is tostrengthen and reinforce the existing net-work of families, friends, and neighbors,who traditionally have responded to soci-etal problems before human services pro-fessionals have. This project brings thatearly response of neighbors into the humanservices arena.

To make the resources of human servicesorganizations more accessible, family-friendly, and strengths-based, neighborsmust also be involved in the governanceand decision-making processes of familyresource centers and human service organi-zations. In five Linn County neighbor-hoods, neighbors, community representa-tives, and community groups participate inplanning and making decisions that help todefine community needs and assets and todetermine how resources will be allocated.Their feedback about how services areimplemented is fundamental to,improving

26

service delivery.Linn County's Community Partnership

for Protecting Children and theNeighborhood Partners project haveinvolved many new participants in makingchild welfare services more responsive tothe real needs of families. Today, instead ofresponding categorically to families andmaking the needs of agencies the priority,agencies are working together and acrosssystems to improve the safety of familiesand children.

In this innovation in child welfare ser-vices, children's safety depends on theeffectiveness of community support forfamilies, the organization of service sys-tems, and the use of resources. When thePartnership in Linn County reaches fullstrength, the neighborhood support net-works will make the child welfare systemeven more responsive to the needs of chil-dren and families. Those involved in thePartnership are developing methods of col-lecting data, analyzing results, and evaluat-ing outcomes, with the expectation thatpositive outcomes for individuals, families,and the community will be measurable intwo years.

Chuck Abel, Ph. D., LSW, is facilitator of theFamily Resource Development Association, ofwhich Cedar Rapids' Community Partnershipfor Protecting Children is an initiative. He canbe reached at Family Resource DevelopmentAssociation, 1630 First Ave. N.E., CedarRapids, IA 52403, 319/398-3300, (phone)319/398-3312 (fax).

Carol R. Rickey, MS, is Project Facilitator forthe Community Partnership for ProtectingChildren, and can be reached at 319/398-3950(phone), 319/398-3513 (fax).

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2 23

Farn511y=rca-D-h 21M51Jyr Answert© _coster Care

Cuyahoga County, Ohio

n Cuyahoga County, Ohio, neighbor-hood residents have become key part-ners in meeting the needs of families

involved with the Department of Childrenand Family Services (CFS). With supportfrom the Annie E. Casey Foundation, CFSis changing the way they do businessthrough the Family-to-FamilyNeighborhood Foster Care initiative.According to Terri Ali, CuyahogaCounty Liaison, "Family-to-Family isa family-centered, community-basedphilosophy that defines how we dowork. The principles underlying theinitiative are now entrenched in theway the agency does business."

Community Took ChargeFrom The Start

The community has beeninvolved in the initiative since theplanning stages, when CFS invitedcommunity members to help writethe initial request for proposals (RFP)to agencies wishing to participate inthe initiative. Over 100 people whowere interested in seeing changes atCFS came to the first meeting. "Thepeople who came had a history orconcerns with the system: serviceproviders, adults who had beenthrough the system as children, fosterparents, residents, and public systememployees." Together, agency workers andcommunity members developed an RFPcalling for the creation of community col-laboratives to recruit foster parents, toassist families whose children live withthem under protective supervision by CFS,and to intervene in family crises in order todecrease the likelihood of child abuse orneglect. The collaboratives work to ensurethat children who cannot live with theirparents or relatives are placed in fosterfamilies within their own neighborhoods,where they can be in proximity to theirfamilies, friends, school, and recreation.

Family-to-Family has continued to relyon community residents. In order to placechildren within their own neighborhoods,CFS undertook large-scale recruitmentefforts to find and train potential foster

by Julia De Lapp

families. Utilizing neighbors was only nat-ural, explains Elisha Moore of St. Martinde Porres Neighborhood Center inCleveland. "Some people have alwaystaken care of children in the neighborhood.Their homes have been 'safe havens'where kids hung out. Using them as foster

build a relationship between parents andfoster parents so that the child feels sup-ported by both.

Parents share their children's specialneeds, likes, and dislikes at the meeting,and foster families describe what has hap-pened with the children since they were

placed. "This bridges the gap betweenparents and foster parents," says Ali,"and helps parents stay involved intheir children's lives." The two fami-lies work out a visitation plan, plan-ning to attend church or other eventstogether.

Moore explains that the FamilyTeam Meeting is an important step inbuilding a strong relationshipbetween biological and foster par-

ents. "I encourage biological par-ents to write down their ques-

tions ahead of time so they won'tbe afraid to ask them during themeeting. I also encourage the fosterparents to ask the birth parents ques-tions rather than asking the socialworker. This enhances the communi-cation between foster and biologicalparents, which is ultimately better forthe children." It also ensures that thechildren feel supported by both theirbiological and foster parents while inplacement.

Family-to-Family also calls for morerelationships between foster families andCFS workers. According to Ali, CFS hascome to rely on foster parents in manyways. "Foster parents help us train newworkers, and give us ideas on how to helpparents stay involved in their children'slives. Parents and foster parents go on out-ings together with the children. Some par-ents have baby-sat their children while thefoster parent runs errands; some take theirchildren to medical appointments. Parentswho aren't ready for this responsibilityhave helped out foster parents in otherways, doing their children's laundry orpreparing their food." In addition, fosterfamilies now participate in the decisionmaking about children and their families."The parents have brought really valuableinformation to case reviews. Unlike thesocial worker, the foster parent can bring in

The collaboratives work to ensure that

children who cannot live with their par-

ents or relatives are placed in foster

families within their own neighborhoods,

where they can be in proximity to their

families, friends, school, and recreation.

parents means that children can stay in theneighborhood and attend the same school.Also, foster parents know how to getacross to birth parents better than socialworkers from outside the community.Foster parents serve as mentors and rolemodels for birth parents."

Foster Parents and BirthParents are Partners

Neighborhood foster families workdirectly with primary families, meetingthem shortly after they are given responsi-bility for caring for the children. Everyonewho is significantly involved in the child'slife attends a Family Team Meeting toexchange information and plan for thechild's care. The intent of the meeting is toreduce the likelihood of trauma to the childby creating a continuum of care and to

24 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2

27

what is in the child's world at thatmoment. With this information, CFS, pri-mary families, and foster families canwork as a team to decide the best outcomefor the child."

Although the reform has brought manypositive changes, Ali warns that it has notbeen easy. "The hardest thing about imple-menting the new philosophy is that it takestime. People on all sides of the team arelearning their part. This work is not part oftheir job description; for it to work, wehave to depend upon people who arebelievers until roles and responsibili-ties and job descriptions are rewrittento reflect family-focused work."Despite these challenges, the philoso-phy is catching on. "Social workersare telling us, 'This is what I came tosocial work fornot to be punitive,but to help guide people.' We are see-ing less burn-out among the work-ers." And as Ali stresses, many arerealizing that the "new" philosophyis actually very old. "The conceptof the extended family and thecommunity has always beenaround. We are just rewording it forfoster care."

and the foster mother eventually inspiredher to get substance abuse treatment. Shegot her kids back in just eight months. Thefoster mother and social worker hosted adinner party for her at a neighborhood cen-ter as a reunification celebration, and thefoster mother is still involved with the par-ent and grandparent."

Reunification celebrations, attended bythe social worker and all other key peopleinvolved with the family, are the highlightof the job. Says Moore, "There are a lot oftears as everyone celebrates the parent's

States need to look at their rules and

Due to such successes, Ali believes thatother states and counties can learn fromCuyahoga County's experience. "Childrenwho experience less movement will expe-rience less trauma. We don't want to havea system that is producing special needs bycausing so much disruption in kids' livesthat it creates mental and emotional stress.We want kids to get placements accordingto their needs. To do this, we must operatewith an overall picture of what's reallygood for kids: stability, authority, andworking together to create a continuum of

support. States should change theirmandates to accommodate this move-ment. They need to look at their rulesand ask hard questions. If their rulesand procedures don't help families,they need to reassess their policies."And, Ali believes, policies should uti-lize foster families as partners."Foster parents acting as mentors,role models, and advocates for chil-dren and their families closes gaps in

>the public system. For this reason,foster parents must be seen as a

real part of the family team."Moore adds, "The child welfare sys-tem can't do everything. It takes acommunity to protect a child."

ask hard questions. If their policies and

procedures don't help families and don't

utilize foster parents as partners, they

need to reassess them.

Reunifications mringTears of joy

Although Family-to-Family has yetto receive a thorough evaluation, Alihas seen many successes. "One par-ent who had been involved with thesystem for a long time made a videoabout the difference in how socialworkers worked with her before and afterthe initiative. Her first two children hadbeen placed very far away and she found itdifficult to see them. This time, her chil-dren were placed within a couple blocks oftheir grandmother, and she felt that shewas working with a team who really want-ed her to have her children back. She sawher children and the foster mother often,

accomplishments in getting the childrenback. Seeing these reunifications is themost rewarding part, especially when thefoster and biological parents still interactafterwards. One birth parent has AA meet-ings here, and the former foster parent hasstreet club meetings here at the same time.So they see each other's families on a reg-ular basisit's like one big family."

28

Terri Ali, LSW, can be reached at theDepartment of Children and FamilyServices, 3955 Euclid, Cleveland, OH44115, 216/432-3362 (phone), 216/431-4115 (fax). Elisha M. Moore, LSW, canbe reached at St. Martin de PorresNeighborhood Center, 1264 E. 123rd St.,Cleveland, OH 44108, 216/268-3909

(phone), 216/268-0207 (fax).

Julia DeLapp received her MA in SocialService Administration and a Family SupportSpecialist Certificate from the University ofChicago. Her research has been in the areasof child welfare, network building, and collab-oration. She has been working in the develop-ment of technical assistance materials at theFamily Resource Coalition of America since

FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 25

n 13e6ng a *ester ParentEmpowerinw Parents tle Greatest Reward4.4

en I first became a fosterparent, I was recentlydivorced, economically

challenged, and barely making it. By takingcare of children and helping parents in theirstrugglesnot just foster parents, but birthparents as wellI stopped focusing on meand saw how I could help others. It mademe feel better about my own situation.I've helped parents who weren't eveninvolved in the child welfare system,helping them stay out of it. I've alsolearned how to access "systems" andhave helped others do so.

I became a foster parent informally13 years ago while caring for thechild of a friend who couldn't takecare of her. Informal foster care hasalways existed in Black neighbor-hoods and families. My parentshad five children of their own, butwere often taking care of as many as15, including my stepsisters andcousins. My grandparents did thesame thing, caring for their own 13children and six nieces and nephewsafter the death of their parents.

In these situations, it's not a ques-tion of licensing, can I do this, or howwill I do this. We make do and get thejob done.

I became a licensed foster parent inorder to gain custody of my cousin's chil-dren, who were in the child welfare system.I didn't know what Family-to-Family wasat the time.' Then I moved to the Glenvillearea, and I received a letter about servicesfor foster children at St. Martin de PorresNeighborhood Center.' I went to the centerand became connected to both services thatI needed and to other foster parents.

Helping Other ParentsI started helping out at the center. The

site coordinator would call me and askfor my help or input when she was plan-ning activities such as parties or tripsfor the foster children. I attended the sup-port group meetings, and eventually

by Cheryl Mays

became co-facilitator.The best part has been working with the

birth parents, helping them to see that wefoster parents are not against them, that wedon't want to keep their kids. We wantthem to raise their own children. At one

When the mother saw that I was

advocating for her, she sat up a little

taller and started trying harder.

family team meeting, a birth mother satfrowning because 10 people were sittingthere telling her how bad her childrenwere. So I spoke up to get her some ser-vices she needed. When the mother sawthat I was advocating for her, she sat up alittle taller and started trying harder. In thebeginning, sometimes she'd make her fam-ily visits, and sometimes she wouldn't.Now she's here early. She just needed toknow that someone was on her side.

Advice for the SystemMy advice to child welfare systems is

to listen to the foster parents. They arewith the children twenty-four seventwenty-four hours, seven days a week-

26 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

and they know them best. Sometimes theworkers treat the foster parents as if theydon't know the children. I did a trainingpresentation at the main office to help theworkers understand who foster parents areand what they go through, and I think itgave them a whole new respect for thefoster parents.

Also, give birth parents all the sup-port they need. When you take awaysomeone's children, you take awayher reason for living, and she standsa good chance of falling into a majordepression. So give her support andhelp her become empowered. It's thattheory if you give them a fish they'lleat for a day, but if you teachthem how to fish they eat for life. If

>you empower people, they learnto take care

of themselves. Seeing that happenis the greatest reward.

Cheryl Mays has been a licensed fosterparent for three years and Assistant SiteCoordinator of St. Martin de PorresNeighborhood Center in Cleveland,Ohio, for six months. She recently beganworking at the Cuyahoga CountyDepartment of Children and FamilyServices as a foster parent liaison. Shecan be reached at St. Martin de PorresNeighborhood Center, 1264 E. 123rd

Street, Cleveland, OH 44108, 216/268-3909,216/268-0207 (fax).

NotesThe Family-to-Family Neighborhood Foster CareInitiative is sponsored by the Annie E. CaseyFoundation. See story, page 25.

'The Glenville community, in Cleveland, Ohio, is a siteof the Family-to-Family initiative.

29

Pro m ton SafewAdvcce ffr®m Parents Ancanyrnaus

n 1994, Parents Anonymous, Inc.,formed an ethnically, culturally, and geo-graphically diverse National Parent

Leadership Team (NPLT). The participants,who are all parent leaders in community-based Parents Anonymous groups, provideinput on national and local programs, eval-uate program effectiveness, and advocatefor community-based, family-strengtheningprograms and policies. Team memberstrain child welfare professionals in NPLT'ssuccessful models for working with parentsas partners.

National Parent Leadership Team mem-bers believe that child safety is bestachieved in an environment in which ask-ing for help is a sign of strength, parentstake charge of their lives, and communitiesshare responsibility for creating family-strengthening services. NPLT membersbelieve that effective partnerships are builtby asking the right questions, listeningcarefully to the responses, and openly shar-ing all pertinent information. Below, theyidentify four front-line practices thatencourage successful family outcomes bycreating partnerships between practitionersand parents.

Take Parents SeriouslyTeam members suggest that the child

protective services system's initial contactswith parents focus on determining how tobest help the parent rather than on investi-gating a single specific event. An importantquestion to ask is, "Do you need helpkeeping your children safe?" Some parentscontacting their local child protective ser-vice office to seek assistance find that theyrate too low on the risk assessment scale toqualify for services, and feel helpless whenthey are turned away.

"One social worker did not take me seri-ously when I called to ask for help," saysSusan, an NPLT member from Illinois."He told me to take more time for myself.He made it sound like the cure for a life-time of pain was to take a hot bath." Teammembers emphasize that all requests forhelp are important and require a response,including referrals to community programssuch as Parents Anonymous. Given that itis much easier to protect children by pre-venting problems, NPLT members emphat-ically believe that the system should notwait until there is hard evidence of abuseor neglect before offering their help.

Form a PartnershipIn recognition that parents are experts on

by Teresa Rafael

their families' strengths and needs, profes-sionals working with them should ask,"What are your goals for your family?How can we help you and your family?What do your children need in order to besafe, secure, and healthy? What do youwant to do first?...then what?" Recognizethat parents often know best what theirchildren need even if they have not beenable to meet those needs. Mickey, anNPLT member from Oregon, says, "In thebeginning things seemed hopeless ...everyone seemed determined to make sureI was not involved and had no voice what-soever. It wasn't until I had a caseworkerwho actually listened and kept meinformed every step of the way that myfamily got back on track." It is importantto give parents credit for what they haveaccomplished and to recognize what theydo well; then to reinforce and build onthose strengths.

Close the GapProfessionals can help parents overcome

the culture shock they may experiencewhen becoming involved with child pro-tective services. Staff often seem to speakanother language and can be intimidating.Sometimes workers propose plans that donot reflect the reality of the parent's life.For example, many parents have exhaustedthe financial and emotional resources theirfamilies and friends are willing to con-tribute to them. With the current emphasison utilizing personal support networks, acaseworker may suggest strategies forgaining support from family members andfriends that are not available to the peoplein question. Team members suggest thatparent volunteers could be trained to workas advocates for other parents in the sys-tem. Their role might involve serving assystem guides, helping to explore optionsfor personal support and helping to inter-pret the sometimes confusing policiesand practices.

Let Parents LeadParents must be in the lead when plans

affecting their families are developed.Multidisciplinary teams are valuableresources in protecting children, but mem-bers say parents should be the leaders ofthe exercise, not just the focus of discus-sion. "The only way for services to beshaped around parents' needs and wantsfor themselves and their children is toensure that they are active participants in

CELEBRATING 25 YEARS OF

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES

ALL ACROSS AMERICA

PARENTSAnonymous

any multidisciplinary team meetingsregarding their family. Remember to keepthe parent front and center, particularlyduring critically important planning times.The parent is ultimately responsible for thechild's well-being."

Through training, technical assistance,consultation, and educational materials,Parents Anonymous, Inc., enhances theefforts of public and private systems andfront-line practitioners to more effectivelyjoin in partnership with parents. The dia-logue, partnership, and cooperation thatwill result from the practices identifiedabove will result in stronger families andbetter outcomes for children, helping par-ents and those in the system achieve theircommon goal of protecting children.

Parents Anonymous, Inc., founded in1970, leads a diverse national network ofmore than 2,300 community-based groupsthat strengthen families through mutualsupport and parent leadership. The organi-zation's systems reform activities springfrom the knowledge that parents must beintricately and meaningfully involved inthe planning, implementation, oversight,and evaluation of systems to protect theirchildren and strengthen their families.

Teresa Rafael, MSW, Vice President of Programsfor Parents Anonymous, Inc., became involvedwith Parents Anonymous as a volunteer, servedas executive director of two state Parents Anony-mous organizations, and has worked with thenational organization for almost three years. Forinformation, contact Parents Anonymous, Inc.,675 West Foothill Blvd., Suite 220, Claremont,CA 91711, 909/621-6184.

FAMILY RESOURCE COP3111 OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2 27

L

.Freda[de2k

ealthy Families America (HFA)was started by the NationalCommittee to Prevent Child

Abuse (NCPCA), in partnership withRonald McDonald House Charities, inJanuary 1992. Modeled on the HawaiiHealthy Start program, the nationwide ini-tiative works to prevent child abuse andneglect and enhance family functioning byproviding intensive parenting educationand support services in families' homes.The visits are targeted toward new parents,are tailored to families' specific needs, andare provided through statewide systems.

In 1993, FRCA Report (vol. 12, no. 2)

informed readers of HFA, then less than ayear old. Now, Healthy Families Americais present in more than two-thirds of allstates. Its wide replication represents a newcommitment by public and private entitiesand the general public to approach theproblems of child abuse and neglect in apreventive way: by focusing on earlychildhood development and parenting.

How the Home Visits WorkHFA programs are intensive, comprehen-

sive, integrated with other community ser-vices, and flexible in responding to fami-lies' unique needs. FIFA programs start bysending workers to spend time with preg-nant women or with new parents in thehospital following birth. The parents sharetheir hopes and concerns surrounding par-enthood. The workers determine whetherrisk factors and stresses are present in theparents' lives that may indicate risk ofchild abuse and neglect, and if these arepresent, they offer parents the opportunityto take part in home visits and other ser-vices on a voluntary basis.

Home visits can occur over a period of upto five years. Workers and families worktogether on strengthening parenting skills,learning about child development and childhealth, and developing other aspects offamily functioning. HFA programs collabo-rate with other organizations that providefamily support programs in order to makethe best use of resources, provide a compre-hensive array of services to families, andavoid duplication of services.

The home visitor assists parents in bond-ing with their newborns. As this attach-

chne AbuseFames Amer5ca

by Linda Turner

ment develops, parents often become moremotivated to develop their parenting skills.The home visitor is also a friend, advisor,and advocate for parents, as well as a mon-itor who can sense a risk of child abuse orneglect and help the family do somethingabout it.

HFA's SuccessThose receiving HFA services have

shown high immunization rates (over 90%in some cases), decreases in birth compli-cations and incidences of low birth weightwhen women receive prenatal services,increases in the use of well-baby care andother preventive and routine health careservices, decreases in repeat pregnanciesand higher school completion rates amongteenage participants, and high participantsatisfaction in the identification and use ofcommunity resources and family supportservices. Some evaluators show that partic-ipant groups have lower rates of childabuse than control groups not receivingHFA services.

As an effort to advocate for the homevisiting services that it provides, HFA alsohas made great strides toward its fivenational goals:

1. To ensure that the public knows thatHFA is an effective way to prevent childabuse and to mobilize grassroots supportfor HFA sites: HFA establishes itself as avoice for children and families throughannual opinion polls, nationwide mediacampaigns, a toll-free informational tele-phone line (1-800-CHILDREN), collabora-tion with the Families and Work Institute'sPublic Engagement Campaign, corporatepartnerships, and editorials and articles.

2. To ensure the security and sustainabili-ty of HFA by dramatically increasingongoing funding for HFA: HFA used $1million from the Ronald McDonald HouseCharities to leverage more than $35 mil-lion at the local level. It has helped localprograms raise money and advocate forhome visiting by: conducting outreach tolegislators; publishing the HFA FundingResource Guide, Identifying Potential andExisting Funding Streams, and HFA andManaged Care: A Partnership to Improve

28 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2

Child and Family Outcomes; and releasinguser-friendly research findings.

3. To ensure that all parts of the countrycan offer in-depth training and quality con-trols necessary for effective HFA sites:HFA has identified 12 standards of excel-lence in home visiting that are based onmore than 20 years of research, offers cre-dentialing for home visiting programs, andconvenes beginning and continuing "train -the- trainers" institutes.

4. To establish national and state capacityto build upon and expand existing servicenetworks and provide expertise to localcommunities: More than 20 national orga-nizations, corporations, and public agen-cies have partnered with HFA. Almostevery one of the 50 states has a statewidepublic/privatesector task force to promotehome visiting. HFA sites were pilot testedin Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Nevada,through a grant from the W. K. KelloggFoundation.

5. To produce new insights on the mosteffective approaches and to support newparents, as well as on how to tailor HFA todifferent communities: Evaluation is insti-tutionalized at virtually every HFA site.More than 50 researchers are participatingin a new network to identify critical evalu-ation issues and create solutions.

Throughout the past five years, broad-based coalitions have formed and commit-ted resources to make services moreresponsive to the needs of families andchildren. Communities and states haveanswered the call by developing long-termstrategies for supporting families andimplementing HFA services. The fulfill-ment of HFA's goals will come when theinitiative is institutionalized and supportsare offered to all parents across the nation.

Linda Turner has been a member of the staff ofFRCA for more than 15 years.

Healthy Families America can be reached at332 N. Michigan Avenue, 16th Floor, Chicago,IL 60604, 312/663-3520 (phone), 312/939-8962 (fax).

31

This resource file is a starting point for findingadditional information, publications, and assis-tance in the area of child welfare. It is not acomprehensive listTo be added to FRCA'sdata base, please contact FRCA at 200 S.Michigan Ave., 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60604.

American Humane Association63 Inverness Drive EastEnglewood, CO 80112-5117303/792-9900 (phone)303/792-5333 (fax)National network of individuals and organi-zations whose mission is to prevent cruelty,abuse, neglect, and exploitation of childrenand animals and to assure that their inter-ests and well-being are fully, effectively, andhumanely guaranteed by an aware and car-ing society.

American Professional Society onthe Abuse of Children407 South Dearborn, Suite 1300Chicago, IL 606053 1 2/554 -0166Provides professional training and education,guidelines and research, public education,and legislative advocacy to promote effec-tive, culturally sensitive, and interdisciplinaryapproaches to identifying, treating, and pre-venting child abuse and neglect.

Annie E. Casey Foundation701 St Paul StreetBaltimore, MD 21202-2314410/547-6600 (phone)410/547-6624 (fax)Family to Family: Reconstructing Foster Careis the foundation's multiyear, multisite initia-tive to help child welfare systems preventchild maltreatment and respond more effec-tively when there is abuse and neglect.

Center for the Study of SocialPolicy1250 Eye Street NW Suite 503

Washington, DC 20005202/371-1565 (phone)202/37 I -1472 (fax)Provides technical assistance to severalstates on implementing improved systemsof services for children and families on thestate and local levels. Also works to convertseveral child welfare class action lawsuitsnationwide into less adversarial initiativesthat achieve significant reforms.

RESOURCE FdLEChapin Hall Center for ChildrenUniversity of Chicago1155 60th StreetChicago, IL 60637773/753-5900A center for the research and developmentof policies, practices, and programs affectingchildren.

C. Henry Kempe National Centerfor the Prevention and Treatmentof Child Abuse and Neglect205 Oneida StreetDenver CO 80220303/321-3963Emphasizes the development of treatmentprograms for abused children, conductstraining programs, and offers technical assis-tance. Houses the National Child Abuse andNeglect Clinical Resource Center, which pro-vides clinical consultation, referrals, training,and literature to aid in the multidisciplinarydiagnosis and treatment of child abuse. Acatalog of materials and services is available.

Child and Family Policy Center218 Sixth Avenue1021 Fleming BuildingDes Moines, IA 50309-4006515/280-9027 (phone)515/244-8997 (fax)Operates the clearinghouse and technicalassistance resource network of the NationalCenter for Service Integration and providestechnical assistance and support to con-struct more comprehensive, community-based systems of support for children andfamilies.

Children's Defense Fund122 C Street NWWashington, DC 20005202/628-8787Gathers data, publishes reports, and pro-vides information on key issues affectingchildren. Monitors the development andimplementation of federal and state policies;provides technical assistance and support toa network of state and local child advocates,organizations, and public officials; and pur-sues an annual legislative agenda.

Child Welfare League of America440 First Street NW Suite 310Washington, DC 20001-2085202/638-2952 (phone)202/638-4004 (fax)A membership organization that focuses onprevention and early intervention strategies

regarding child welfare issues. Producesresources on issues related to child welfare.

Edna McConnell ClarkFoundation250 Park Avenue, Suite 900New York, NY 10177212/551-9100 (phone)212/986-4558 (fax)The foundation's Program for Children hasdeveloped and implemented a strategy forcreating partnerships between communitiesand child protective services agencies tobetter protect children from abuse andneglect. Community Partnerships forProtecting Children sites receive direct sup-port and technical assistance.

National Center on Child Abuseand NeglectAdministration for Children andFamilies, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human ServicesP.O. Box 1182Washington, DC 20013202/245-0814Conducts research; collects, analyzes, anddisseminates information on child abuse andneglect; and provides assistance to statesand communities for activities on the pre-vention, identification, and treatment of childabuse and neglect.

National Committee to PreventChild Abuse332 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600Chicago, IL 60604312/663-3520Works with community, state, and nationalgroups to expand and disseminate knowl-edge about child abuse prevention and totransform that knowledge into communityaction through sound policies and preven-tion programs. Publishes educational materi-als on parenting, child abuse, and child abuseprevention.

National Council of juvenileand Family Court judgesUniversity of NevadaP.O. Box 8970Reno, NV 89507702/784-6012 (phone)Works to further more effective administra-tion of justice for young people through theimprovement of juvenile and family courtstandards and practices.

32FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL. 16, NOS. I & 2 29

National Indian Child Welfaressociation

3611 SW Hood Street, Suite 201Portland, OR 97201503/222-4044 (phone)503/222-4007 (fax)Produces resources and provides technicalassistance on issues related to NativeAmerican children and families. Provides cul-tural competency training for family servicesproviders to develop this competencythrough the policies, procedures, practices,and values of an organization.

National Resource Centerfor Family Centered PracticeHome Office: University of IowaSchool of Social Work112 North HallIowa City, IA 52242-1223319/335-2200 (phone)319/335-2204 (fax)Provides technical assistance, training,research and evaluation, and informationservices to child welfare and other humanservices agencies in states, counties, andcommunities nationwide.

Parents Anonymous675 West Foothill Boulevard, Suite 220Claremont, CA 91711-3475909/621-6 184 (phone)909/625-6304 (fax)HN3831@handsnet.orgProvides technical assistance and training onleadership skills for parents.Trains parents totrain other parents to operate mutual sup-port groups.

Many organizations listed above have pro-duced training manuals and other resourceson child welfare; they can be contacted forinformation on these.The books listed beloware available from FRCA, 3121341-0900.

Beyond the uzzwords: KeyPrinciples in Effective FrontlinePracticeby Jill Kinney, Kathy Strand, Marge Hagerup,and Charles Bruner(National Center for Service Integration andthe National Resource Center for FamilySupport Programs, 1994)This working paper is a first effort todescribe the clinical and theoretical basis forbelieving that a set of service principles canlead to success in the field, and to describehow evaluators might assess whether thoseprinciples are put into practice in programs.

Family Support Programs andthe Prevention of Child Abuse(FRCA, 1993)This four-page fact sheet contains a reviewof the principles of family support and com-mon features of family support programsfollowed by an essay on preventing childabuse, examples of program models, andnational organizations to contact for moreinformation.

Guidelines for Family SupportPractice(FRCA, 1996)This book is built around nine principlesthat state how family support premisesshould be and are being carried out. Eachprinciple is explored in depth with the the-ory and research underlying the principle,the key practices programs should follow torealize the principle, and practice examplesthat bring the principle to life.

Supporting Effective CitizenInvolvement in Child ProtectiveServices: Guide for State andLocal Officialsby Stephen Scott and Charles Bruner (Childand Family Policy Center, 1996)A brief resource on how to effectivelyinvolve and support communities regardingchild safety.

Thinking Collaboratively:TenQuestions and Answers to HelpPolicy Makers Improve Children'sServicesby Charles Bruner(Education and Human ServicesConsortium, 1991)This monograph helps state and local policymakers consider how best to foster localcollaboration that truly benefrts children andfamilies. Check lists are provided to helppolicy makers quickly assess key issues inestablishing interagency initiatives, demon-stration projects, and statewide reforms tofoster collaboration.

3330 FAMILY RESOURCE COALITION OF AMERICA REPORT SPRING/SUMMER 1997 VOL 16, NOS. I & 2

World Wide Web gfLaia

Watch your mail box for an announcementof FRCA's national web site, coming soon!

American 1- humane Associationhttp://www.amerhumane.org/aha

merican Professional Society onthe Abuse of Childrenhttp://child.cornell.edu/APSAC/apsac.home.html

American Public WelfareAssociationhttp://www.apwa.org

The Child Abuse PreventionNetworkhttp://child.cornell.edu

Child Welfare League of Americahttp://handsnet.org/cwla

Children's Institute Internationalhttplichildrensinsthute.org

Coalition for America's Childrenhttp://www.usakids.org

Family Violence Prevention Fundhttp: / /www.fvpf.org/fund

Global ChildNet (Global ChildHealth Society)http://www.gcnet.org/gcnet

HandsNethttp://www.handsnet.org

National Child Care InformationCenterhttp: / /ericps .ed.uiuc.edu /nccidnccichome.html

National Council of juvenile &Family. Court judgeshttp://www.ncjfcj.unredu

National Information Center forChildren & Youth WithDisabilitieshttp://www.aed.org/nichcy/index.html

World 1- health Organizationhttp://www.who.ch

F RCA Board of DirectorsVirginia L. Mason,Executive Director

Bernice Weissbourd, PresidentFamily Focus, IL

Amy Rassen, ChairJewish Family and Children's Services,CA

Ruth Massinga, Past ChairCasey Family Program, WA

Mustafa Abdul-SalaamNew Haven Family Alliance, CT

Ann Ada list-EstrinParent Resource Association, PA

Mary Lee AllenChildren's Defense Fund, DC

Charles BrunerChild and Family Policy Center IA

Elizabeth CarlsonNational Futures Association, IL

Maria ChavezFamily Development Program, NM

Moncrieff CochranCornell University, NY

Sid GardnerCenter for Collaboration for Children,CSU, CA

Sandra Kessler HamburgCommittee for EconomicDevelopment, NYJames HinchliffPeople's Energy Corporation, IL

Mary G. HoltMG Holt & Associates

Alice KingFormer First Lady of New Mexico,NM

Christian C. KjeldsenJohnson & Johnson, NJ

Debra Lewis-CurleeFederation for Community Planning,OH

Helen NissaniNorthwest Regional EducationalLaboratory, OR

34

Ed RiveraCancer Research Foundation, IL

Bea RomerFirst Lady of Colorado, CO

Anne L.TuohyGlenview, IL

Khatib WaheedCaring Communities Program, MO

SylviaYeeEvelyn and Walter Haas, Jr Fund, CA

Ruth ZambranaGeorge Mason University DC

The

Chan eiS

. 00 Respurce CcD2.06-cdon(of Amer5c2a.2

0 0 0

ong the Way AmerficaWarks fc)cr- FarnDnes

Were now known as the Family Resource Coalition ofAmerica!Because of your work, formal and informal networks are forming incommunities, regions, and states across the country.The change inour name and logo clarifies our role in the family support move-ment the Family Resource Coalition of America is the nationalmeeting place and resource center for you and people like youwho believe that families deserve support.Together, we're stronger!

The Family Resource Coalition of America (FRCA) works to bringabout a completely new societal response to children, youth, andtheir families: one that strengthens and empowers families andcommunities so that they can foster the optimal development ofchildren, youth, and adult family membersone that solves prob-lems by preventing them. We envision a society in which all of usfamilies, communities, government, social service institutions, busi-nesseswork together to provide healthy, safe environments forchildren and families to live and work in.

We envision an America in which:* All children, youth, and families can get the resources they need

right in their own neighborhoods, to be strong and healthy,Classes and support groups, after-school programs, emergencyassistance, counseling, or job training: whatever families'need,

they find it.

All communities reinforce the efforts of families to raise-respon-/'',-,:*,

sible, productiveeconfident joyous children::Neighboris watch out

for each other across raciaCahnic-,,religiO70 and economic

Diversity is a cause for celebration,not/discrimination.

The Family Resource Coalition of America is recognized as thenational convener of all those who participate in the familysupport movement. Our job is to bring people together, tofacilitate communication among proponents of the family supportapproach, to provide the most current family support informationand resources, and to be the umbrella under which people andorganizations come together to change the way America worksfor families.

FRCA members:0 Are a national network of people who share your values and

your dreams

0 Receive resources that help them do their work

Get discounts on information-packed FRCA conferences and

publications

* Help increase the capacity and visibility of family supportprograms

\ \Whether you provide, plan, or fund direct services to families, you\are\.sa vital part of the family support movement. You are strength-eni.\ng,\and supporting families. FRCA is your professional organiza-tion, one...stop resource shopping place, and "support group" rolled

into one.,

r.%For moreinParmation on joining the Family-Resource''\--,N ; ..)

Coalition-ofAmerica or to receive a catalog our publi-77:\ \ votes

ifcations and sercontact us at 200 S. Michigan Ave.,/iA \:\`,. .e -

..,,'--,,,-1:6thFloor,-CiFloor,- Chicago, II:460604;3 1 2/34 1 -0900:(phone),0 All institutions that serve children and families (including school's

human services, health andgeintal health providers; and private / \ \:,-:-_--_,2:2 /,\', /.4.-------S\ \ / // 312/P1-14361 (fax).

agencies) work together. Therembrace family support

)All levels of government make family-and youth:needs (including

(,,,. \\\, Af>".")..!economic security, adequate housing, and-themability and safety

k

of every community) a priority\0 All workplacesihave family-friendly policies and practices..--.

'1,,,

1.--.........s.,..

--,........

pies and put those principles iiit\o\practicei

'AMILY ESOUlket'COALITION OF AMERICA

35

n

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

3034'17

ERIC,

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").