No description available.

Thesis (M.S.)--Boston University / This study was undertaken to compare the views of leaders, former members of discussion groups and the agency's view of what is involved in discussion groups carried on by the Family Life Education Department of the Greater Boston Family Service Association. It is felt that by gaining additional insight into how the practitioner, in the case of the leaders, and the consumer, in the case of the former members, see the discussion groups, it is hoped that some of these views obtained may eventually be applied in improving future groups. It is also felt that if the agency's stated purpose of the discussion groups is considered in the comparison of the leaders' views and the former members' views of the groups, this will serve to suggest ways of improving the future groups. Another purpose of this study is that it is believed that it will yield indications as to the value of discussion groups of this type.

This qualitative study examines collective responsibility for the well-being of maltreated children who remain at home. Based on accounts of mothers, teachers and child welfare workers, and policy officials, the study uses institutional ethnography to examine how schools and child welfare authorities work together and with families. Contributing to the socio-legal literature, it explores understandings of responsibility in formal law and in practice. The policy response to these children’s needs raises significant theoretical and political issues because they are on the borderlands of public and private responsibility. Child welfare involvement signals public intervention is required to ensure protection and well-being. Strong, proactive, and coordinated support by public authorities should follow. However, data suggest three pervasive theoretical or political accounts legitimize very limited support. (1) The notion of home and school as separate spheres. Participants understand and in theory support the highly prescriptive regulation governing reporting and contact between schools and CAS. But in practice participants pointed to limits on responsibility for knowledge or communication across the boundaries. Participants acknowledged limited knowledge or communication despite a regulatory regime that promotes and assumes it. (2) Comprehensive family responsibility. Deeply-rooted notions of family responsibility and autonomy render public support for struggling families and children relatively discretionary. A policy and practice scan shows child welfare provides less educational support to children living in the community relative to those in foster care, and minimal individual or systemic accountability for services to these children. (3) Persistent heroic narratives of the teacher who ‘makes a difference’ through exceptional commitment to struggling students. To relegate caring work to realm of personal commitment privatizes responsibility for an important aspect of effective teaching. Though cited as exemplary, the exercise of these responsibilities is not supported, not demanded, and not planned for, which is problematic for interagency co-operation and teacher burnout. These political and institutional narratives limit the system’s response to the needs of these vulnerable children to discretion and chance. Meeting their needs requires not only a focus on coordination across bureaucratic boundaries, but also strengthening the visibility of, and accountability for, issues of well-being within education and child welfare.

This qualitative study examines collective responsibility for the well-being of maltreated children who remain at home. Based on accounts of mothers, teachers and child welfare workers, and policy officials, the study uses institutional ethnography to examine how schools and child welfare authorities work together and with families. Contributing to the socio-legal literature, it explores understandings of responsibility in formal law and in practice. The policy response to these children’s needs raises significant theoretical and political issues because they are on the borderlands of public and private responsibility. Child welfare involvement signals public intervention is required to ensure protection and well-being. Strong, proactive, and coordinated support by public authorities should follow. However, data suggest three pervasive theoretical or political accounts legitimize very limited support. (1) The notion of home and school as separate spheres. Participants understand and in theory support the highly prescriptive regulation governing reporting and contact between schools and CAS. But in practice participants pointed to limits on responsibility for knowledge or communication across the boundaries. Participants acknowledged limited knowledge or communication despite a regulatory regime that promotes and assumes it. (2) Comprehensive family responsibility. Deeply-rooted notions of family responsibility and autonomy render public support for struggling families and children relatively discretionary. A policy and practice scan shows child welfare provides less educational support to children living in the community relative to those in foster care, and minimal individual or systemic accountability for services to these children. (3) Persistent heroic narratives of the teacher who ‘makes a difference’ through exceptional commitment to struggling students. To relegate caring work to realm of personal commitment privatizes responsibility for an important aspect of effective teaching. Though cited as exemplary, the exercise of these responsibilities is not supported, not demanded, and not planned for, which is problematic for interagency co-operation and teacher burnout. These political and institutional narratives limit the system’s response to the needs of these vulnerable children to discretion and chance. Meeting their needs requires not only a focus on coordination across bureaucratic boundaries, but also strengthening the visibility of, and accountability for, issues of well-being within education and child welfare.

Thesis (M.A.S.A.)--Ohio State University, 1948. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 53-54). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

No description available.

The Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver Area is composed of a Main and branch offices. At this time, the Agency is asking whether the service delivery patterns in the Main and branch offices match the characteristics of their respective clients. As a result, this study was undertaken with the following general hypotheses: that there are significant differences between the Main Office, North Shore and Burnaby branches of the Family Service Centres of Greater Vancouver in the characteristics of those requesting service, the nature of their request and the type of approach to the Agency. A cross-sectional survey was made of all persons approaching the Main, Burnaby and North Shore offices during a four week period in October/November, 1967. A data schedule was used by intake personnel to secure information on the total of 411 approaches. Information regarding four variables was sought—socioeconomic status, family life stage, request for service, and type of approach. The Blishen Occupational Class Scale and the Duvall Family Life Stages were used as models. A computer was used in analysing the data. The findings revealed that there were some differences between the three offices in the four variables tested, and that the differences were most marked in socioeconomic class. The general hypothesis was therefore accepted. Further, it was found that generally, the clients came from the lower socioeconomic classes, and that they were child rearing families. Strikingly few aged persons approached the Agency for service. Information/referral was the most requested service in the total sample, and self-referral was found to be the most common type of approach. It is concluded that the Agency should consider varying the service delivery patterns to meet the unique constellation of needs of the clients approaching each office. There are implications also for a general evaluation of services in relation to client characteristics as well as for further research. / Arts, Faculty of / Social Work, School of / Graduate

No description available.

No description available.

Current legislation and recommended practice have a primary focus on Early Intervention that meets the priorities set forth by families with children who have disabilities. Many theories and current research emphasize the importance of delivering services in a way that supports families to enhance the development of their children through models that reflect the recommendations. Although there are multiple contributions to what is recommended for family-centered philosophy and practice, one single document, the IFSP, guides the delivery of services.Using the content of 91 IFSPs from the state of Kentucky, 8 indicators were analyzed along with service coordinator demographics. This tool was used to determine the frequency of identified unsatisfactory routines that were used as the foundation for outcome development, if service coordinator demographics impacted this process and if certain domains lent more opportunity for inclusion in outcomes. In addition, frequency of sibling inclusion in priorities, concerns, outcomes and strategies were analyzed.Findings indicate that approximately 50% of the routines identified as unsatisfactory were used in outcome development. Significant interactions between service coordinator demographics were discovered as well as a strong correlation between routines and domain. Sibling interaction is discussed as well as limitations and future research.