University of Southern California s9

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORKSW 619: CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN PUBLIC CHILD WELFAREFall 2009 - DraftJacquelyn McCroskey DSW Telephone: (213) 740-2004 Office hours: Thursday 11-1 E-mail: [email protected] Or by appointment Office: MRF 345 COURSE DESCRIPTION This advanced seminar for second year MSW students specializing in child welfare practice is designed to enhance knowledge and skills for practice in the turbulent and often controversial field of public child welfare. Practice in the field is changing – too quickly for some but not quickly enough for others. Most observers agree that the public child welfare system is “broken,” but there is little agreement on how to “fix” the components of this complex system. Controversy permeates almost any discussion about child welfare – including the meaning of its history, its philosophical and values, policies, desired results, systems and clinical practices. The problems are especially daunting in California where child welfare is overseen by the State Department of Social Services, but operated by 58 separate County governments. The multicultural mix in Southern California, combined with the sheer size of the population, poses extraordinary challenges. These challenges include: How do child welfare workers provide culturally competent services for a very broad range of families and children? How do they address the overrepresentation of children of color in the system? How do they partner with communities to do a better job of preventing maltreatment? How do they assure that families have the broad range of services and supports needed to maintain children safely at home, reunify families with their children after an out-of-home placement, and assure that children have safe, stable and nurturing homes?Public agencies are trying to focus on both “ends” of the system – simultaneously improving services to seriously troubled families and children and increasing prevention efforts so that fewer children need protective services. Efforts are also underway to better integrate the broad range of services provided by many different agencies so that families can benefit from services when they need them most. These and many other challenges await MSWs who choose careers in the field of public child welfare. At the same time, child welfare can be an extremely satisfying and meaningful career choice for social workers prepared to deal with change and complexity. This course offers such preparation by providing knowledge, options, pathways and skills for public child welfare practitioners. COUSE OBJECTIVES Upon completion of the course students will be equipped to: 1. Use knowledge incorporating the historical, philosophical and policy context of practice in public child welfare to analyze the complex value and ethical dilemmas that may arise in child welfare practice from the perspective of children, families, caseworkers and community stakeholders. 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the broad scope of public child welfare responsibilities including prevention, investigation, out of home care, emancipation and adoption services. 3. Advance their knowledge of the processes that guide child welfare policies and decision-making at the federal, state and county level. 4. Discuss the effectiveness of public child welfare programs as measured against current methods of data collection, established research, and evidence based practice guiding child welfare programs. 5. Demonstrate awareness and familiarity with the complex and controversial concepts embedded in specialized arenas of child welfare practice. 6. Demonstrate capacity to analyze and balance multiple perspectives in understanding specialized arenas of child welfare practice, including assessment of cultural competence and the potential for disproportional impact on children, families and communities of color. 7. Identify, describe and utilize specialized practice skills, including assessment and case management. 8. Understand the need for and coordination of multiple systems in the delivery of effective public child welfare services including the legal system, health and mental health systems and the educational system.COURSE FORMAT A combination of lecture, class discussion, student presentations and experiential exercises will be used in class. These exercises may include the use of videotapes, role- play, debates, or structured small group exercises. Material from the students’ public welfare experiences, including field placements in public child welfare settings will be used to illustrate class content and to provide integration between class and field. As class discussion is an integral part of the learning process, students are expected to come to class ready to discuss required reading and its application to theory and practice. Attendance will be taken at each class. The online teaching and learning environment provided by the University's Blackboard Academic Suite (https://blackboard.usc.edu/)will support and facilitate student to student communication and interaction outside of class as well as provide access to instructor support. COURSE EVALUATION AND GRADING2 In addition to attendance and class participation, grades will be based on four written assignments. Specific requirements of each assignment will be described in assignment documents separate from the syllabus. Assignment #1, due the week of September 15, is a brief paper (3-5 pages) on how children might perceive the intervention of a caseworker from the public child welfare system. This assignment addresses objectives #1 and #5.Assignment #2, due the week of October 13, will be an analysis and discussion of outcome measures used in Public Child Welfare agencies. This assignment addresses objectives #3, #4, #5, and #6. Assignment #3, due the week of November 10, will be a written report on a policy making body in the community related to child welfare policy. This assignment addresses objectives #1, #3 and #6.Assignment #4 due the first day of final exams is an 8 to 10 page position paper on a controversial issue effecting child welfare practice. This assignment addresses objectives #2, #5, #6, #7, and #8. All assignments will be scored as a percentage on a scale of 1% to 100%. Percentages equal the following letter grades: 100% - 93 = A 89% - 87% = B+ 79% - 77% = C+ 69% - 67% = D+ 92% - 90 = A - 86% - 83% = B 76% - 73% = C 66% - 63% = D 82% - 80% = B- 72% - 70% = C- 62% - 60% = D- 59% and below = FThe total course grade will be comprised of class participation and four assignments. Assignment #1 20% Assignment #2 20% Assignment #3 20% Assignment #4 30% Class Participation 10%Turnitin: USC is committed to the general principles of academic honesty that include and incorporate the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligations both to protect one’s own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another’s work as one’s own. By taking this course, students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. All submitted work for this course may be subject to an originality review as performed by Turnitin technologies (http://www.turnitin.com) to find textual similarities with other Internet content or previously submitted student work. Students of this course retain the copyright of their own original work, and Turnitin is not permitted to use student-submitted work for any 3 other purpose than (a) performing an originality review of the work, and (b) including that work in the database against which it checks other student-submitted work.UNIVERSITY GRADING POLICY Within the School of Social Work, grades are determined in each class based on the following standards which have been established by the faculty of the School: (1) grades of A or A- are reserved for student work which not only demonstrates very good mastery of content but which also shows that the student has undertaken a complex task, has applied critical thinking skills to the assignment, and/or has demonstrated creativity in her or his approach to the assignment. The difference between these two grades is determined by the degree to which these skills have been demonstrated by the student; (2) a grade of B+ is given to work which is judged to be very good -- this grade denotes that a student has demonstrated a more-than competent understanding of the material being tested in the assignment; (3) a grade of B is given to student work which meets the basic requirements of the assignment -- it denotes that the student has done adequate work on the assignment and meets basic course expectations; (4) a grade of B- denotes that a student's performance was less than adequate on an assignment, reflecting only moderate grasp of content and/or expectations; (5) a grade of C reflects a minimal grasp of the assignments, poor organization of ideas and/or several significant areas requiring improvement; (6) grades between C- and F are applied to denote a failure to meet minimum standards, reflecting serious deficiencies in all aspects of a student's performance on the assignment.ATTENDANCE Students are expected to attend every class and to remain in class for the duration of the session. Failure to attend class or arriving late may impact your ability to achieve course objectives which could affect your course grade. Students are expected to notify the instructor by telephone or email of any anticipated absence or reason for tardiness.University of Southern California policy permits students to be excused from class, without penalty, for the observance of religious holy days. This policy also covers scheduled final examinations which conflict with students’ observance of a holy day. Students must make arrangements in advance to complete class work which will be missed, or to reschedule an examination, due to holy days observance.COURSE EXPECTATIONS AND GUIDELINES Students are expected to complete all reading assignments and to use them as the basis for informed participation in class discussions. It is expected that students will attend class regularly, be active contributors to the learning process, participate in class discussions, and submit assignments on the due date. Failure to meet these expectations may result in reduction in grades. 4 REQUIRED TEXTS Mather, J., Lager, P.B., & Harris, N.J. (2007). Child welfare policies and best practices. (Second edition). United States: Thompson/Brooks-Cole.Unless otherwise indicated, additional readings can be located on ARES ( http://usc.ares.atlas-sys.com/ares.dll) under instructor, Esther Gillies. Those posted to ARES are identified by an asterisk (*). Other additional readings may be located at the web addresses identified in the syllabus in the specific class session in the course outline. ACADEMIC ACCOMMODATIONS Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to the instructor as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.IX. EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION To receive information, call main number (213)740-2711, press #2. “For recorded announcements, events, emergency communications or critical incident information.”To leave a message, call (213) 740-8311 For additional university information, please call (213) 740-9233 Or visit university website; http://emergency.usc.eduIf it becomes necessary to evacuate the building, please go to the following locations carefully and using stairwells only. Never use elevators in an emergency evacuation.University Park Campus City Center MRF – Lot B Front of the building (12th & Olive) SWC – Lot B Orange County Campus WPH – McCarthy Quad Faculty Parking Lot VKC – McCarthy Quad Skirball Campus Front of buildingDo not re-enter the building until given the “all clear” by emergency personnel.5 COURSE OUTLINE AND READING ASSIGNMENTSSession 1. Introduction to the sequence and themes of the course 8/25 Addresses objectives 1, 3, 5. Required Reading: *Jacquelyn McCroskey. (2003). Child welfare: Controversies and possibilities. In Lerner, Jacobs & Wertlieb (eds.). Promoting positive child, adolescent and family development: A handbook on program and policy innovations, Volume II. Thousand Oaks: Sage. DILEMMAS EMBEDDED IN THE HELPING SYSTEMSSession 2 & 3. History—The Roots of Controversy at Multiple levels 9/1 & 9/8 Addresses objectives 1, 2, 3, 5.Required Reading: Mather et. al. Ch 1. The Evolution of Child Welfare Services*Homer Folks (1902). The care of destitute neglected and delinquent children. Washington DC: NASW Classics Series: 167-78, 239-246.*Watkins, S. (1990). The Mary Ellen Myth: Correcting Child Welfare History. Social Work. (35 (6): 500 – 503.Suggested reading: DePanfilis, D. & Salus, Marsha K. (2003). Child protective services: a guide for caseworkers. United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children's Bureau, Office on Child Abuse and Neglect. http://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/faculty_and_research/bios/depanfilis/cps.pdf Ch. 1. Purpose and Overview Ch. 2. Child Protective Services Theory and Practice Ch. 3. The Helping Relationship Session 4. The relationship of Federal, State and Local Child Welfare Policies 9/15 Addresses objectives 2, 3Required Reading:6 Mather et. al. Ch. 3 – Policy and Research in Child WelfareNeedell, B. & Patterson, K. (2004). Policy Brief: The Child Welfare System Improvement and Accountability Act (AB 636): Improving Results for Children and Youth in California. http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/cdssweb/PG52.htmFact Sheet, Children’s Bureau, Child and Family Service Reviews http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/recruit/cfsrfactsheet.htmSuggested Readings: *Limb, G. E., Chance, T., Brown, E. F. (2004). State compliance with the Indian child welfare act to improve outcomes for American Indian families and children. Protecting Children, Using Outcome Measures: To Improve Child Safety, Permanency, and Well-Being. American Humane Association. 18 (3): 13 - 23.CONTROVERSIES: CHILD WELFARE PRACTICESession 5 Assessment and Case Management 9/22 Addresses objectives 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8.Required Reading: Mather et. al. Ch. 5 – Neglect Ch. 6 – Abuse and Emotional Maltreatment Ch. 7- Child Sexual Abuse Ch. 8 – Behavioral and Delinquency IssuesGrowing Up In America. (2004) The Future of Children: Children of Immigrant Families. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 14 (2), 122 - 137. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/gua.pdfPerez, S. M. "Shaping New Possibilities for Latino Children and the Nation's Future" pp. 122 - 127.Yang, K.Y., "Southeast Asian American Children: Not the 'Model Minority." pp. 127 - 134.Edelman, M.W. & Jones, J. M. "Separate and Unequal: America's Children, Race and Poverty." pp. 134 - 137. Berger, L. M., McDaniel, M. & Paxson, C. (2006). How does race influence judgments about parenting? Focus, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Institute for 7 Research on Poverty: 24-30. http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc242e.pdf*Soydan, H. (2008). Evidence-based practice and the California clearinghouse for child welfare: Great tools for social workers. Child Welfare: Section Connection. Issue 1, 2008. pp. 6 – 8.*Shlonsky, A. & Lambert, Liz. (2006). Constructive uses of risk: The promise and peril of decision-making systems in child welfare. APSAC Advisor. 18 (4), 5 – 12.Suggested Reading: *Mark A. Winton & Barbara A. Mara. (2001). The process of diagnosing, assessing and interviewing in child abuse. Child abuse and neglect, Multidisciplinary approaches. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon: 124-160.*Rycus, J.S. & Hughes, R.C. (2004). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. APSAC Advisor. (16 (1): 2 - 10.*Rowena Fong. (2001). Cultural competency in providing family-centered services. In Elaine Walton, Patricia Sandau-Beckler & Marc Mannes (eds.) Balancing family- centered services and child well-being, Exploring issues in policy, practice, theory and research. NY: Columbia University Press: 55-68.DePanfilis et. Al. Ch. 5. Intake Ch. 6 Initial Assessment or investigation Ch. 7 Family Assessment Ch. 8. Case Planning Ch. 9. Service Provision http://www.ssw.umaryland.edu/faculty_and_research/bios/depanfilis/cps.pdf*Richardson, B. & Jean, N. M. (2005). Eradicating disparities: Iowa works to eliminate minority overrepresentation in the juvenile justice, child welfare, and education systems. NASW InterSections in Practice. 4 (fall 2005): 9 – 14.**Boffa, J. & Podesta, H. (2004). Partnership with families and risk assessment in child protection practice. Protecting Children: Advancing Partnership-based Practice with Families. American Humane 19 (2): 36 - 48. *Aisenberg, E., Garcia, A., Ayon, C., Trickett, P.K. & Mennen, F.E. (2007). The co- occurrence of community violence and child maltreatment among racially diverse adolescents:Assessing risk for mental health and behavior problems. Protecting Children. 22 (3&4): 20-31.Session 6. Impact of Child Maltreatment on Children and Families8 9/29 Addresses objectives 1, 3, 5, 6, 8.Required Readings: Perry, B. D. (2001). The neurodevelopmental impact of violence in childhood. In Shetky, D. and Benedek, (Eds.) Textbook of Child and Adolescent Forensic Psychiatry (pp. 221-238). Washington, D.C.:American Psychiatric Press, Inc. http://www.childtrauma.org/CTAMATERIALS/Viol_APA_webversion.pdf*Wolfe, D. (1999). Child abuse, implications for child development and psychopathology. 2nd ed., Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Chap. 3 - A Developmental Perspective of the abused child.Suggested Readings: Huston, A.C. (2002) Reforms and child development. The Future of Children, Child and Welfare Reform. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 12 (1), 59 - 78. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/2-huston.pdfSession 7. Controversies: the Legal perspective 10/6 Addresses objectives 1, 2, 5, 6, 8. Required Reading: *Downs, et. al. Ch. 5. Law and Procedure: Court Intervention with Children, Youth and Families*Richard J. Gelles. (2000). Children’s rights in the American child welfare system, Protecting Children, 16(2): 4-9.*Furness, J. (2005). 'Reasonable efforts': a call to clarify child protection law. APSAC Advisor. 17 (2): 2 - 6.Suggested Reading: Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2008) A roadmap for juvenile justice reform. Essay and Data Brief from 2008 KIDS Count Data Count. http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/AEC180%20essay_booklet_MECH.pdfDILEMMAS AND OPPORTUNITIES: PROVIDING SAFETY, PERMANENCY AND ENSURING WELL BEING FOR CHILDREN Session 8 & 9. Issues in Achieving Healthy Communities, Strong families, Thriving Children Addresses objectives 1,2, 5, 6, 7, 8. 10/13 & 10/20 9 Required Reading: Mather et. al. Ch. 2 – Child Welfare Services: Formal and Informal Ch 12 – Alternatives and Early Intervention Ch. 4 – Cultural Competency in Child Welfare*Sawyer, R. & Lohrbach, S. (2005). Differential response in child protection: selecting a pathway. Protecting Children: Differential Response in Child Welfare. American Humane. 20(2&3): 44 – 53.Casey Family Programs (2007). Implementing Differential Response in California. Part III – Promising Practices in Implementing Differential Response in California pp. 18 – 76 http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/BreakthroughSeries_Differentia lResponse.pdfCasey Family Programs (2006 ). Supporting LGBTQ youth and families. Child welfare issues: Focus on foster care. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/FocusOnFC_SupportingLGBTQ.pdf*Roberts, D. (2007). Toward a community-based approach to racial disproportionality. Protecting Children: Exploring Practice, Philosophical and Political Complexities with the Implementation of Family Group Decision Making. 22 (1): 4 – 9. Suggested Reading: American Human website on Differential Response. http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=pc_initiatives_differential*Brooke-Weiss, B., Haggerty, K.P., Fagan, A.A., Hawkins, J.D. and Cady, R. (2008). Creating community change to improve youth development: The communities that care system. The Prevention Researcher. Integrated Research Services, Inc. 15 (2): 21 – 24. *Sandau-Beckler, P. (2001). Family-centered assessment and goal setting. In Elaine Walton, Patricia Sandau-Beckler & Marc Mannes (eds.) Balancing family- centered services and child well-being, Exploring issues in policy, practice, theory and research. NY: Columbia University Press: 92-127.*Sandau-Beckler, P., Reza, S., & Terrazas, A. (2005). Familias primero: family group decision making in el paso county, texas. Protecting Children. American Humane Association. 19 (4): 54 -62. *Guterman, N. (2001). The paradox of child protection, The promise of home visiting. In N. B. Guterman, Stopping child maltreatment before it starts, Emerging horizons in early home visitation services. Thousand Oaks: Sage: 38-62.10 Altshuler, S. J. (2003). From barriers to successful collaboration: public schools and child welfare working together. Social Work. 48 (1): 52 -63.*Bussey, M. & Lucero, N.M. (2005). A collaborative approach to healing substance abuse and child neglect in an urban American Indian community. Protecting Children: Child Maltreatment and Substance Abuse: Research Guiding Practice. 20 (4): 9 – 22. Schene, P. (2005). The emergence of differential response. Protecting Children: Differential Response in Child Welfare. American Humane. 20(2&3):4– 7. http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/PSchene_article.pdf?docID=4529Connolly, M. (2005). Differential responses in child care and protection: innovative approaches in family-centered practice. Protecting Children: Differential Response in Child Welfare. American Humane. 20 (2&3): 8 – 20.Hohman, M., Oliver, R., & Wright, W. (2004). Methamphetamine abuse and manufacture: The child welfare response. Social Work. 49 (3). 373 - 381. An-Pyng, S. (2004). Principles for practice with substance-abusing pregnant women: A framework based on the five social work intervention roles. Social Work. 49 (3), 383 - 394.Lundgren, L.M., Schilling, R. F., & Peloquin, S.D. (2005). Evidence-based drug treatment practice and the child welfare system: the example of methadone. Social Work. 50 (1): 53 - 63.*Stevens, M. (2003). Reconstruction works? Constructing family perspectives of the outcomes of family group conferences. Protecting children, Promising Results, Potential New Directions: International FGDM Research and Evaluation in Child Welfare. American Humane. 18(1/2): 30 - 41.Session 10 Challenges and Benefits: Kinship Care 10/27 Addresses objectives 1, 5, 6, 7.Green, R. (2004) The evolution of kinship care policy and practice. The Future of Children: Children, Families and Foster Care. 14 (1), 131 - 151. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/8-geen.pdfSuggested Reading: Casey Family Programs (2007). Supporting kinship care: Promising practices and lessons learned. Breakthrough Series Collaborative. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/BreakthroughSeries_Kinship.pdf11 *Jill Duerr Berrick. (2000). What works in kinship care? ? In Miriam P. Kluger, Gina Alexander & Patrick A. Curtis (eds.). What works in child welfare? Washington DC: CWLA Press: 127-137.Session 11 Issues and Needs: Youth in Foster Care/Residential Care 11/3 Addresses objectives 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. Required Reading: Hochman, G., Hochman, A., & Miller, J. (2004 ) Foster care: Voices from the inside. Commissioned by the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care http://www.pewfostercare.org/research/voices/voices-complete.pdfPew Commission on Children in Foster Care. (2004). Fostering the future: Safety, permanence and well-being for children in foster care. http://www.pewfostercare.org/research/docs/FinalExecSum.pdfHarden, B. J. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: a developmental perspective. The Future of Children, Children, Families and Foster Care. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 14 (1): 31 – 47. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/3-harden.pdfLincroft, Yali, (2008). Helping immigrant families: Interviews with four California Social Workers. Children’s Voice. Child Welfare League of America. September/October 2008. http://www.cwla.org/voice/0809immigrantfamilies.htmSuggested Reading: Hasenecz, N.M. (2009). Fixing foster care. Social Work Today. 9(2), 30 – 33. http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/031109p30.shtml*Williams, L. (2001). Bridging the gap: Meeting the special education needs of incarcerated youth. Placement Magazine. 1 (2): 31-35. Price, J., Chamberlain, P., Landsverk, J., Reid, J.B., Leve, L. D., & Laurent, H. (2008). Effects of a foster parent training intervention on placement changes of children in foster care. Child Maltreatment. 13 (1): 64 – 75. Haight, W. L., Kagle, J. D., & Black, J.E. (2003). Understanding and supporting parent-child relationships during foster care visits: Attachment theory and research. Social Work. (48 (2), 195 - 207.12 Session 12 – Issues and challenges: Emancipating Youth 11/10 Addresses objectives 1, 5, 6, 7, 8. Casey Family Programs (2001). It’s my life: A framework for youth transitioning from foster care to successful adulthood. http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/ItsMyLife_Framework.pdfMichael, J. (2005). From custody to career: After leaving foster care or incarceration, young people often struggle to find footholds in the work world. Children’s Voice 14(6). http://www.cwla.org/voice/0512custody.htm*Kimberly A. Nollan. (2000). What works in independent living preparation for youth in out-of-home care? In Miriam P. Kluger, Gina Alexander & Patrick A. Curtis (eds.). What works in child welfare? Washington DC: CWLA Press: 195-201.Session 13 Creating new families: Adoption 11/17 Addresses objectives 1, 5, 6, 7, 8.Required Reading: Mather et. al. Ch. 11 – Permanency Planning and AdoptionBurton Sokoloff. (1993). Antecedents of American adoption, The future of children, Adoption, 3(1): 18-25. http://www.futureofchildren.org/usr_doc/vol3no1ART1.PDF*Susan B. Edelstein, Jill Waterman, Dorli Burge, Carolyn McCarty & Joseph Prusak. (2000). TIES for adoption: Supporting the adoption of children who were prenatally substance exposed. In R. P. Barth, D. M. Brodsinsky & M. Freundlich (eds.) Adoption and prenatal alcohol and drug exposure: Research, practice and policy. Washington DC: CWLA Press: 115-145.Suggested Reading: Hollingsworth, L.D. (2003). International adoption among families in the United States: Considerations of social justice. Social Work. 48 (2), 209 - 217.Kreisher, K. (2002). Supporting loving families: after the adoption. Children’s Voice. Child Welfare League of America. November/December. http://www.cwla.org/articles/cv0211supporting.htm13 Session 14. Role of Research and Administrative Data in Child Welfare Decision- Making 11/24 Addresses objectives 4, 5, 6,Child Welfare Systems Improvement in California 2003 – 2005. Early Implementation of Key Reforms http://www.cwda.org/downloads/2yearreport.pdfBissell, M. & Miller, J. (2007). Child welfare and technology. Children’s Voice. Child Welfare League of America. 16 (4): 10 – 14. http://www.cwla.org/voice/0707technology.htmSolomon, B. (2002). Accountability in public child welfare: linking program theory, program specification and program evaluation. Children and Youth Services Review. 24 (6/7): 385 - 407.*Zalenski, J. ( 2002). Community stakeholder involvement in the child and family services review: opportunities, challenges, recommendations. Protecting Children. American Humane Association. 17 (2): 54 - 63.Session 15 Future Trends 12/1 Addresses objectives 1, 5, 6.Required Reading: Mather et. al. Ch. 13 – Leadership and ChangeAssignment #4 is due the first class day during final exams.* = Reading is located on ARES14

University of Southern California s9

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support