Rtie Pant-: Werkuook
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. rtie pant-: werKuook:-.,. National Criminal dustice Refarence Ss~'vios (NCJRS) 30:: ~;GO,., Rc~,~,.h,~, :'.4:.) 20849o,~900 .~-7-~- .. ,'k'o' ~ " ~' Z~' '~'~, • ~,~ " ..... ~!7KeS lo ~hoo/s .~. ,: Alexandria."~., "" :, '~'. d ~ , . -" Virginlo."'ion'.'°, .~ 22314. """ ,i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Collaboration Skill-Building Training represents the thinking, support, and work Of many people. We, first, want to thank the two authors, Susan Kuhn and Kent Peterson, for their invaluable work in developing this training. Susan runs a national consulting practice, Susan M. Kuhn, Inc., focused on improving policy and practices in human services and education. Kent is a recognized national leader in the fields of collaboration and training, and his firm, Peterson and Associates, focuses on building partnerships among education and human service providers. They have shared with us their best thinking on collaboration skill-building, and designed a training that is both comprehensive and flexible. Early in the development process, surveys on collaborative experiences and training were distributed for feedback at various CIS trainings. We would like to thank the JROTC instructors, trainees at the CIS Training Institute at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and trainees at CIS National Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia who responded to the surveys. Their input was critical to the shaping of the training. Marty Thomas-Bromine', Training Coordinator at the CIS Training Institute was very gracious with time and assistance in the survey process. Thanks, Marty! Throughout the development of the training, Susan and Kent enriched their work through the insight and experience of a Review Team. The members of the Review Team were generous with their time and knowledge and did much to enhance the training. We would like to thank the members of the Review Team for their contributions and participatlnn: Sally DeLuca Cities In Schools, Inc. Sheila Drummond-Hughes Cities In Schools Pennsylvania, Inc. Sharron Lipscomb The Empowerment Network Foundation Laura Rugless Cities In Schools, Inc. Shirley Thomas Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation Gwen Williams Cities In Schools, Inc. Special thanks go to Carlotta Castillo Moulder for all her hard work on the production of the materials, and Edward Van Arsdall for his keen eye as Editor. © We would also like to recognize and thank the growing CIS family whose focus on collaboration and partnership development strengthens a growing network. We hope that each trainee will find this training and the accompanying materials valuable. We hope that you will "spread the word" and work toward your goals through collaboration and partnership building. We strongly urge that you recommend Cities In Schools, Inc. training to others who indicate interest in this curriculum, to ensure high-quality and accurate dissemination of the collaborative work of this training. Diane L. Horowitz Curriculum Development Coordinator Cities In Schools, Inc. Prepared under Grant Number 94-JS-CX-O002 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or @ policies of th-e U.S. Department of Justice or the Department of the Army. Flaws in the Current System of Services for Children and Families Collaboration is a response to inadequacies of current educational and human service institutions to meet today's challenges. Below is a summary of the flaws in the current way those institutions are organized to respond to students in need: . Services are crisis-oriented. They are designed to address problems that have already occurred. They do not provide a range of supports that could prevent problems from developing in the first place. Services are categorical. They divide problems into rigid categories, and assign responsibility for each category to a different agency or program. This fragmentation fails to treat the child or family as a whole person. It makes holistic solutions very difficult, if not impossible. Public and private agencies do not communicate sufficiently nor work together closely enough. Agencies working with the same client, but with profound differences in professional and institutional mandates, seldom seek out each other as allies. As a result, agencies have little opportunity to draw on services available throughout the community that might help their clients. A divided, categorical system cannot craft comprehensive solutions to complex human problems. Existing staff within an agency typically represent only a narrow slice of the professional talent and expertise needed to plan, finance, and implement the comprehensive services that characterize successful interventions. IP ® 0 0 0 0 vr~q hL~l A PRO-FAMILY SERVICE SYSTEM IS: • COMPREHENSIVE • PREVENTIVE • FAMILY CENTERED AND FAMILY DRIVEN • INTEGRATED AMONG AGENCIES AND WITH THE COMMUNITY • DEVELOPMENTAL, EMERGENT, CONTINUOUSLY IMPROVING • FLEXIBLE • SENSITIVE AND RESPONSIVE TO RACE, GENDER, CULTURE, AND DISABILITIES • ORIENTED TOWARD GOALS AND OUTCOMES, NOT WEDDED TO SPECIFIC PROCEDURES O @ 0 0 0 ® @ A VISION OF COMMUNITIES WHERE LEARNING CAN HAPPEN AND ~t.ptH G INSTITUT/ON~ NITY INFRAST' EMPLOYMENT ~'~BUC SJ CITIZEN PARTI Figure 1. A Vision of Communities Where Learning Can Happen 0 @ Q 0 0 Q ® @ Dew/oping a Strate~c Plan Realizing theVision: A Five-Stage Process r _| Checklist of Questions To Help Make Service Deliverj/ Choices for a P,rofamlly System • What mechanisms will partners use to ensure that a wide range of developmental, prevention, support, and crisis-intervention and treatment services are available to all children and families in the targeted neighborhood? • Which partners have resources (including staff, materials, funds, and expertise) or services that they could redirect to a joint effort? • How can partners redirect resources to enhance developmental and support services for families who are not eligible for categorically funded services? • What steps can partners take to ensure that all families receive/the degree of services they need when they need them, while reserving the most costly services for those most in need?7 .-' • How, where, and what services will the collaborative provide for youths who are not in school and adult family members? • What mechanisms will the collaborative use to make referrals and ensure followup? • What measures must the collaborative take to involve the family (including extended family members) as partners in planning and implementing service delivery strategies and to ensure that service agencies work to meet family needs rather than institutJonal preferences? • How will the collaborative identify and complement family strengths? • How can partners overcome families' distrust of service providers, especially among immigrant populations? • What provisions will the collaborative make to include the families who are the hardest to reach in the system? • What mechanisms will partners need to ensure respect and appreciation for cultural aitterences ana so prevent undue intrusion ini.u ~mii)" .==Ut~i~, e~pecia;;y =,,,u,,g immiE:Fant populations? • What actions should partners take to ensure that service delivery is not only equal and nondiscriminatory, but also responsive to the needs of all groups? s • What do partners need to do to establish assessment and treatment processes that define =normal" in the context of each family's culture?9 • Where and when will the prototype provide services? • What training and supervision should partners provide to help staff at all levels understand and accept responsibility for improving family outcomes? • What can partners do to reduce accessibility barriers such as limited transportation, lack of child care, illiteracy, and lack of handicapped access? • What needs to be done to respect and to use a family's spiritual and religious beliefs and traditions as resources? • What mechanisms must partners develop to improve accountability for individual and community outcomes and the cost-effective use of existing resources? 56 Together We Can O ® 0 0 0 ® Q @ Before we proceed with this step, we need to make sure that wehave accomplished the following:. • Declared Self-Interests Attach or note the location of Document 1A--an updated membership roster including member's personal and organizational self-interests. • Recorded Achievements to Date Attach or note the location of Document 1B--meeting summaries and record of achievements. Continually accumulate records of achievements. • Identified Our Vision and Focus Statements Attach or note the location of Document 1C. We're now ready to develop statements of our desired results and strategies. Communal Benefits Outline what we are trying to achieve. What are our long-term desired results? What are our short-term desired results? Are the results we've identified tangible? Can we measure them? Can others recognize them? Copyright 1994 Amherst H. Wilder Foundation 153 Key Strategies Give the key stakeholders perspectives; rate them "for," "agai~t," or "persuadable." Sequence the approach--who talks to whom, and in what order. Key Stakeholder Perspective Rate (F/A/P) Sequence Redefined Results Now we restate our desired results integrating stakeholders' perspectives. Redefined long-term results: Redefined short-term results: Strategic Aim List specific actions to influence stakeholders.