You are on page 1of 15

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest


04 June 2013 07:29 _______________________________________________________________

04 June 2013

ProQuest

Daftar isi
1. Toward building a typology for the evaluation of services in family support programs................................ 1

Daftar Pustaka.................................................................................................................................................. 13

04 June 2013

ii

ProQuest

Dokumen 1 dari 1

Toward building a typology for the evaluation of services in family support programs
Pengarang: Manalo, Victor; Meezan, William. Info publikasi: Child Welfare 79. 4 (Jul/Aug 2000): 405-29. Link dokumen ProQuest Abstrak: This article briefly reviews the history, philosophy, practice principles, and foci of family support programs, examines the typologies currently in use to classify these programs, and discusses the difficulties these classifications pose for program evaluators. The authors introduce a new typology that deconstructs family support programs into their component services and discuss the potential of this typology for evaluation of family support services. Teks lengkap: This article briefly reviews the history, philosophy, practice principles, and foci of family support programs, examines the typologies currently in use to classify these programs, and discusses the difficulties these classifications pose for program evaluators. The authors introduce a new typology that deconstructs family support programs into their component services and discuss the potential of this typology for evaluation of family support services. The creation of useful service typologies has been a difficult challenge for those working in the family support field. Leaders of the family support movement have recognized the limitations of current typologies, and have noted their inability to create mutually exclusive service categories, their shortcomings in fully reflecting the rich array of services currently delivered by family support programs, and their limited usefulness for classifying services for the purpose of program evaluation. Because of these and other shortcomings, the durability of current typologies is questionable (Kagan et al. 1996]. The difficulties encountered in creating a useful typology fox the evaluation of family support services are rooted in the evolution of these services. Modern family support programs developed as an amalgam of individual services. They are best described as a group of heterogeneous services, guided by a set of values and practice principles, derived from multiple theoretical underpinnings and numerous service delivery traditions. They thus differ significantly from one another and cannot be described as a unitary model with a set of defined, agreed upon outcomes. In fact, it is only in the last two decades that an attempt has been made to find commonalities among these diverse services and to unify them into a single, coherent "movement" [Kagan &Weissbourd 1994]. This article reviews the development of the early services and philosophies that helped to shape the modern family support movement, articulates how this movement emerged in the last 20 years, and describes the philosophical premises, principles, and practices that currently guide it. Family support program typologies currently in use are then detailed and critiqued to demonstrate their inability to guide outcome evaluations in the field. Finally, a typology of family support services is introduced that may better be used to conceptualize and design evaluations in this field. Historical Development of Family Support Programs The philosophical, theoretical, programmatic, and practice approaches of today's family support movement can be traced over the past 100 years to changing approaches to problem definition, the development of innovative services, the evolution of theory and knowledge, and an increasing commitment on the part of both community-based organizations and government to enhance the child-rearing capacities of families. Early Roots In reconceptualizing the causes of poverty, and shifting the responsibility for it from the individual to societal forces, the settlement house movement emphasized advocating for families within the community [Kagan &Weissbourd 1994], as well as helping residents to obtain services and concrete resources (Allen et al. 1992]. Thus, the settlement house movement foreshadowed some of the fundamental attitudes and values of the family support movement: a rejection of a deficit orientation, an emphasis on community and preventive interventions, an acknowledgment of the importance of providing social support, and the acceptance of advocacy as a service function [Kagan et al. 1996]. Parent education classes, a major component of today's 04 June 2013 Page 1 of 13 ProQuest

family support programs, also had their beginnings in the progressive era, when organizations developed parenting guides and pamphlets, conducted training for parent educators and service providers, and brought mothers together in groups to discuss childrearing [Weiss &Halpern 1990; Weissbourd 1994]. From these beginnings, the family support movement developed its appreciation for the application of scientific knowledge to the understanding of child development, and of the usefulness of making this information available to all parents. Family support ideas also evolved from the self-help movements that originated in postindustrial England. The philosophies and approaches of these organizations can be seen in the emphasis of family support programs on fostering peer support to facilitate empowerment through the establishment of supportive connections among people with common issues and concerns. Today's family support movement also borrowed ideas from the War on Poverty Family support's focus on self-determination rather than dependence on service professionals, and its inclusion of service recipients in the design and implementation of services, can be traced to the Head Start program which, under the Office of Economic Opportunity, followed the mandate of "maximum feasible participation" and involved parents in the planning, implementation, and delivery of services [Zigler &Freedman 1987]. Because of this involvement, paraprofessionals, lay persons, and professionals developed cooperative and collaborative, rather than hierarchical, relationships. Modern Theoretical Foundations In the late 1970s, Bronfenbrenner [1979] articulated his ecological theory of human development, stating that one must understand the interrelationship between child, family, community, and the larger society to understand human development. Within this theoretical context, characteristics of the community need to be part of an assessment of family functioning, and families must be viewed as entities that can react to environmental stress in adaptive ways. This strengths-based perspective has been incorporated into family support programs. At about the same time, mental health professionals were developing primary prevention principles, and interestingly, the "beginnings of efforts at the prevention of mental and emotional disorders were laid down in attempts to teach poor mothers to be better parents" [Albee &Gullotta 1997:11 ]. Each of the articulated primary prevention principles has since been adapted by the family support movement: (1) building on strengths and coping resources; (2) the use of education and social engineering rather than therapy or rehabilitation; and (3) equipping people with environmental and personal resources rather than dealing with problems after they occur [President's Commission on Mental Health 1978, as cited in Albee &Gullotta 1997]. Further, in primary prevention mental health programs, as in family support programs, enhancing coping skills, self-esteem, and social support are seen as ways of buffering stress, leading to healthier adaptations to the social environment [Gullotta 1997]. In the late 1970s, the relationship between enhanced social support and adaptive functioning was also being articulated. In summarizing this body of work, Cameron &Vanderwoerd (1997] differentiate between two distinct impacts of social support that are closely tied to the objectives of family support programs: the buffering effect, which helps people cope with difficult life events and problems; and the main effect, which enhances a personal sense of well-being and social valuation. Most recently, literature focusing on resilience in children [Fraser 1997; Werner &Smith 1992] has added theoretical impetus to the establishment of family support programs. Family support programs are now seen as a means to both modify children's exposure to risk and to enhance individual and family protective factors [Smith &Carlson 1997], a dual focus that creates potentially powerful intervention packages with at-risk families. Practice Thrusts Modern family support services developed in diverse settings in response to local needs. These settings included local community-based organizations, religious institutions and organizations, and health-based settings in which parents came together for mutual support [Family Resource Coalition 1996]. The services that emerged from these efforts incorporated new knowledge about infant development and embraced the theoretical orientations described above. Research findings during the 1970s emphasized the relationship between children's experiences between birth and age three and their developmental outcomes. Programs such as those at the Syracuse University Family Development Research Project, the Perry Preschool Program, and the Yale University Child Study Center presented strong evidence of the positive effects of early intervention 04 June 2013 Page 2 of 13 ProQuest

[Schorr 1988]. This knowledge strengthened family support's preventive orientation [Weissbourd 1994]. As a result, family support services placed greater emphasis on assisting parents to establish a nurturing family environment in the earliest years of a child's life. They provided basic information about child development, activities for children and parents, and links to other community resources. In addition, they fostered a welcoming environment so that parents could feel that, in at least one place in their community, someone understood and valued their efforts to fulfill their difficult role [Family Resource Coalition 1996]. State Initiatives In the 1980s, as state governments struggled to provide effective alternatives for families, some looked to family support services as a way of augmenting their service-delivery systems [Family Resource Coalition 1996]. Many states helped to establish or support programs in a variety of agencies and arenas, which proved popular with local communities and their residents [Bruner 1994]. The earliest of these efforts was Minnesota's Early Childhood and Family Education Program, implemented statewide in 1984. It is designed to provide all families with children from birth through enrollment in kindergarten with specific services, including parent education, parent-child interaction programs, and early childhood education. Local communities determine the specific services provided-home visiting, lending libraries, family events, workshops, lectures, parents-only programs, etc. [Carter 1994]. Missouri's Parents as Teachers program, implemented statewide in 1985, is designed to enhance child development and school achievement. Available to parents from the third trimester of pregnancy until their child reaches age three, the program operates through the public school system and has four components: (1) home visiting from a parent educator, (2) group meetings for parents, (3) regular monitoring of child health and development, and (4) referrals to social service and other agencies. This basic model is supplemented in individual school districts to meet local conditions and family needs [Allen et al. 1992]. In Maryland, family support centers were established in highrisk areas to provide free universal support to lowincome, poorly educated, very young single mothers [Kamerman &Kahn 1990]. Through a public-private partnership, a common core of services are offered: parent education, ongoing child development screening and assessment, education and employment assistance, and recreation and social activities. These services are supplemented by others that address local needs. In Hawaii, the Ewa Healthy Start Program works to improve family functioning and reduce the incidence of child abuse through the use of a family support worker, who provides assistance to at-risk families. Emphasis in this program is placed on parenting skills, child development, and the parent-child relationship. Concrete needs such as housing, preventive and remedial medical care, and nutritional assistance are also addressed through referral and advocacy [Allen et al. 1992]. In 1985, Illinois' Ounce of Prevention Fund began as a private/public partnership. It finances a variety of activities throughout the state for parents who are at risk for child abuse and neglect. These comprehensive, communitybased programs include prenatal and postpartum home visits, peer-support groups for teen parents, developmental day care for infants and toddlers, and community drop-in centers [Muenchow 1987]. The Kentucky Education Reform Act, passed in 1990, established school-based family and youth resource centers in every school district in which more than 20% of the students qualified for the federal school lunch program. The centers offer access to parent education, a home-visitor program, child development training, preschool programs, referrals to other community services, and other activities that respond to local families' needs. The youth centers provide direct access to services for teenagers: employment counseling, training, and placement; drug and alcohol abuse counseling; family and mental health counseling; and, in some areas, services for teenage parents [Allen et al.1992]. In addition to these early statewide initiatives, the advent of federal funding (see below) has promoted the development and implementation of statewide family support programs in a number of states: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin [Koser 1996]. The Emergence of a Federal Commitment Federal recognition of the importance of family support services came relatively recently, beginning in the 1990s. In 1991, as part of Head Start reauthorization legislation, two small-scale initiatives were begun: (1) a clearinghouse for family resource and support programs, and (2) authorization of a federal 04 June 2013 Page 3 of 13 ProQuest

program to develop state networks of family resource and support programs [Farrow 1994]. This early federal legislation was quickly followed by the passage of the Family Preservation and Support Program, as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 [RL. 103-66], which provided federal support, for the first time, to family support programs. By mandating a comprehensive planning process, the program gave states wide latitude in designing programs to meet local needs. The legislation defined family support services as: community-based preventive activities designed to alleviate stress and promote parental competencies and behaviors that will increase the ability of families to successfully nurture their children; enable families to use other resources and opportunities available in the community; and create supportive networks to enhance childrearing abilities of parents and help compensate for the increased social isolation and vulnerability of families. [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1994: 9] The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (RL.10589) continued and expanded the Family Preservation and Support Services Program, renaming it the Promoting Safe and Stable Families Program. Although ASFA reauthorized the family support program through fiscal year 2001 at increased funding levels, a number of its provisions reduce or limit the federal commitment to support and preserve families. Additionally, in administering and conducting this program, states are now required to give assurances in their plans that the safety of children, rather than the preservation of the family, will be of paramount concern [Child Welfare League of America 1997; Children's Defense Fund 1997; Hardin 1997]. Emergence of the Family Support Movement During the 1980s, academics at both Harvard [Weiss &Jacobs 1988] and Yale [Kagan et al. 1987], examined a number of programs and became convinced that what appeared to be disparate services had important commonalities-that there was, indeed, a service paradigm that held these seemingly disparate program activities together. This recognition was furthered by the founding of the Family Resource Coalition, which began to organize services and their providers under an umbrella organization. What emerged from these efforts were a number of attempts to articulate the philosophy, principles, and practice elements that unified family support services into a "movement." As set forth by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [1994] and the Family Resource Coalition [1996] the philosophical premises underlying family support programs comprise the following beliefs: Primary responsibility for the development and well-being of children lies within the family, and all segments of society must support families as they rear their children. The developmental processes that make up parenthood and family life create needs that are unique at each stage in the life span. Assuring the well-being of all families is the cornerstone of a healthy society and requires universal access to support programs and services; families are empowered when they have access to information. Child-rearing patterns are influenced by parents' understandings of child development and of their children's unique characteristics, personal sense of competence, and cultural and community traditions and mores. Kagan et al. (1996], articulating the principles of family support, noted that the family support paradigm nourishes diversity, maximizes choices, moves service delivery to prevention and optimization, makes the family a participant rather than a client, encourages staff to be learners rather than experts, emphasizes strength-based rather than deficit-oriented assessments, and encourages the promotion of independence and interdependence rather than dependence. From these philosophical premises and principles have emerged an explication of the common elements of family support practice [Allen et al. 1992; Family Resource Coalition 1996; Weiss &Halpern 1990; Weiss &Jacobs 1988; Weissbourd 1994]: Services are focused on the family as a whole. Family strengths are identified, enhanced, and respected. Families are resources to their own members, to other families, to programs, and to communities. Services are community based, involve community organizations and residents (including parents) in their design and delivery, and contribute to the community-building process. Services are easily accessible and are delivered in a manner that affirms and strengthens families' cultural, racial, and linguistic identities. Services are flexible and continually responsive to emerging family and community issues, and are intensive enough to meet family needs. Linkage to a wide variety of supports and services are generally crucial to meeting families' and children's needs. Staff and families work together as partners in identifying and meeting individual and family needs in relationships 04 June 2013 Page 4 of 13 ProQuest

based on equality and respect. Staff mobilize formal and informal resources and enhance families' capacity to support the growth and development of all family members. Staff advocate with families for services and systems that are fair, responsive, and accountable to the families served. Principles of family support are modeled in all program activities, including planning, governance, and administration. Initial Attempts to Develop Family Support Program Typologies Having initially succeeded in finding common elements among services in the family support programs, it is not surprising that some attempted to create higher order conceptualizations of programs within the family support movement, since such typologies are needed to educate policymakers about the distinctions between these programs and others. Despite their shared philosophies, principles, and practices, however, family support programs do not fit into "neat, clean categories" [Weissbourd 1994], and problems arise when one attempts to fit diverse programs, with multiple services, into conceptually coherent frameworks. Allen et al. [1992] used a "setting" focus and an "organizational" focus to classify family support programs. Their setting-- focused category includes: (1) family resource centers, which serve as informal meeting places for regularly scheduled classes, groups, and activities; and (2) home visitor programs, which focus on pre- and postnatal education and support, the prevention of child abuse and neglect, or the promotion of healthy child development. Their organizational-focused category includes: (1) state initiatives, which tend to focus either on the development of local family resource centers or home-visiting services; and (2) add-on programs, which incorporate family support programs into larger programs that started with different foci (e.g., job training, child care, community development, schools). Christopher [1990] organized family support programs into seven categories that can be characterized as having a "setting" focus, an "outcome" focus, or a "recipient" focus. Setting-focused initiatives include community-based services that provide opportunities for new relationships, exposure to needed resources, and referrals to additional community resources. Outcomefocused services include: (1) self-sufficiency programs designed to help families prevent or break the cycle of poverty; (2) early childhood development and school success programs that focus on modeling and teaching age appropriate child rearing practices; (3) programs that promote maternal and child health, and focus on the needs of pregnant women; and (4) programs that emphasize child abuse and neglect prevention and provide support, reduce isolation, and give information to help parents form more realistic expectations of normal child behavior. Recipient-focused programs include: (1) programs for adolescent parents, which provide supportive services and prevention programming to discourage teen pregnancy; and (2) programs for families with children with special developmental needs, which provide support, information, advocacy, and resources for families with children with special developmental needs. In describing family support programs, Goetz [1992] also used an "organizational" focus, an "outcome" focus, and a "setting" focus, but added one additional program category, a "delivery" focus. His organizational-focused category includes (1) family support as a component of larger programs that provide parent education to families with special needs, including substance abuse, literacy issues, and the need for quality child care; and (2) state initiatives, which represent different strategies for funding and administering family support initiatives. His outcomefocused category includes services that enhance parenting skills and family functioning to promote healthy environments for children, but differ from each other in terms of population served, setting, and size. His setting-focused category targets schools, where family support programs are physically or philosophically linked to academic institutions and encourage school success. Finally, his delivery-focus category includes comprehensive and collaborative services, which provide services to address families' basic needs and parenting skills. Using the program's mission as the organizing construct, the Yale/Abt typology [Kagan et al.1996], also employed by the U.S. General Accounting Office [U.S. GAO 1997], offers a comprehensive look at family support services. This typology divides services into 10 different categories, each characterized as "program" focused or "outcome" focused. The program-focused category includes: (1) comprehensive/community family support programs, which offer a wide array of services and typically serve multiple populations, including teen parents, juvenile offenders, and jobless adults; (2) infant and child health and development programs, which serve families from before birth until the child reaches the 04 June 2013 Page 5 of 13 ProQuest

age of three, are often home-based, and incorporate a strong emphasis on health and nutrition; (3) situationspecific programs, which are designed to meet the unique needs of families in special situations (e.g., homeless families, military families, families with incarcerated members, and single-parent families); and (4) special-needs programs, which serve families whose children have special developmental needs or disabilities. The outcomefocused programs include: (1) child abuse and neglect prevention programs, which focus on the prevention of abuse and neglect by working to eliminate social isolation through the linkage of families to one another and to services, including home visiting, parenting education classes, peer support groups, and child-related services; (2) economic self-sufficiency programs, which offer job preparation, skills development workshops, training sessions, job placement services, and other services; (3) family literacy programs, which focus on enhancing the basic skills of parents and children; (4) school readiness/achievement programs, which prepare children for school success by providing cognitive skills training and might include components to enhance their social, emotional, and/or physical competence; (5) substance abuse prevention programs, some of which are designed for all children and families and are preventive in orientation, and others that target children and youths known to be atrisk and attempt to strengthen self-esteem and to promote healthy lifestyles; and (6) wellness programs that serve families who are dealing with the normal stresses of parenting and offer a wide range of supports in the areas of parenting education. A Family Support Services Typology Although the typologies presented above might be helpful for policymaking and programming, for the purposes of evaluation they are limited and somewhat confusing. While setting-focused typologies can be used to describe an array of family support programs, they do little to help the field focus on the target population or the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the specific services provided. Outcome-focused typologies, while helping to specify goals, often have mixed or unspecified target populations and do not clearly lead to operational objectives. Organizationalfocused typologies stress the location or auspices of services, but place little emphasis on specifying target populations or outcomes; they place family support programs within larger structures but do not specify services, target population, or programmatic goals. Recipient-focused typologies specify the target population, but do not necessarily specify desired program results. Most importantly, typologies that mix these various classifications (as most currently do) diminish the ability to view family support programs and their outcomes through a single conceptual lens for the purpose of evaluation. Although family support programs exist to enhance the functioning and abilities of families to meet their needs, using the family as the conceptual lens through which to conduct evaluations is problematic. In reality, most family support programs provide specific services for specified family members, although some offer an array of services targeted at different members of the same family. Thus, the service recipient should be used as the organizing concept of family support typologies. Additionally, family support programs must be broken into their component services to allow for meaningful evaluations, since specific services, delivered to specified recipients, allow for the articulation of precise outcomes based on the program's goals and objectives. The typology presented in figure 1 is a starting point for using these ideas to conceptualize family support services. Using the service recipient as the organizing variable, the typology presented identifies services targeted to a particular family member. In column one, service recipients are organized into the following categories: infant/toddler, children, youths/adolescents, adults, families, parent-child, agency, and community. The "parent-child" category was conceptualized to capture those services that truly focus on the relationship between the parent and the child, and to differentiate them from services specifically for parents (adults) or for children (infant/toddler, children, youth/ adolescents). The categories of "agency" and "community" incorporate into the typology the philosophical premises of family support, which guide practitioners to empower families not only to improve their own families, but to improve the well-being of their community.

04 June 2013

Page 6 of 13

ProQuest

04 June 2013

Page 7 of 13

ProQuest

Column two of the typology is the general type of service provided. Overlap in services between recipient categories such as counseling, health services, educational services, and employment services could not be avoided in this column, since such services can and should be provided to numerous populations. This issue is resolved in the third column, however, which describes in detail the service provided for the recipient. For example, "health services" is found under three recipient categories: infant/toddler, families, and parent-child, but the service description is specific to the target recipient. Health services for infants/toddlers include developmental screening, health services for families include primary health care and immunizations, and health services for the parent-child include maternal-child health programs and pre- and postpartum home visiting. In effect, this typology links specific family support services with their intended recipient(s). Although beyond the scope of this article, one can imagine a fourth column in this typology in which the specific program goals and objectives for the specific services are specified. Based on such specifications, a fifth column could also be visualized in which operational outcomes can be stipulated. As outlined earlier, family support services adhere to specific philosophical premises, principles, and practices. This typology assumes that the service being evaluated is located within a program and/or an organization that adheres to the basic tenants of the family support movement. Although this typology is useful for evaluating effectiveness questions as they relate to family support services, it does not help one to determine whether a family support service, rather than a family- or individual-focused service, is being evaluated. Implications for the Evaluation of Family Support Services At a time when many public officials continue to question the usefulness of social programs, and many more do not understand the importance of prevention programs and perceive these services as superfluous, the need to document the implementation and multiple impacts of family support services is critical. Powell [1994] states that family support services researchers realize the need to identify specific service strategies that are

04 June 2013

Page 8 of 13

ProQuest

well-suited to particular service recipients. In using the "recipient and service specific-focus" of the typology presented here, evaluators can link an agency's specialized family support services to its intended target clients for a variety of evaluation efforts focused on program implementation, effectiveness, and efficiency. Patton [1997], in his utilization-focused outcomes framework, states that a particular participant or client target group needs to be specified to focus an evaluation on client services or outcomes. Processes and outcomes can vary substantially for subgroups within wide-ranging, multifaceted programs. In family support services, outcomes may vary substantially between the infants/ toddlers, children, youth/ adolescents, and adults within a family, even when they are participating in the same program. Using the typology presented here, an evaluator can specify recipient groups and subgroups, link them to service components, and begin to conceptualize meaningful measures of process and outcomes. The typology presented in this article can also assist the evaluator using Patton's [1997] "user-focused theory of action approach" to evaluation. "Theory of action" is a "straightforward articulation of what is supposed to happen in the process that is intended to achieve desired outcomes. The linkages between processes and outcomes are made explicit" [p. 223]. This articulation consists of a program's "means-ends hierarchy" that links immediate objectives to intermediate objectives to ultimate objectives. If the immediate or intermediate objectives are not met, the ultimate objective will not be realized. In evaluating a program's theory of action, the evaluator must look at each level of the program's objectives. For example, a family support services' ultimate goal may be "to support the growth and development of teen mothers." The immediate objective of providing an educational and support group for teen mothers could be evaluated by measuring the amount of support received and knowledge obtained. The intermediate objective of improving parenting skills could be evaluated by measuring the level of use of specific parenting techniques by the teens at the end of the program. The ultimate objective could be captured by measures of family functioning and continued use of specific parenting techniques at a later point in time. In this simple example, the evaluator thus uses this typology to link individual family members to specific service objectives and assess whether the services delivered are keeping clients on track toward the ultimate objective. Conclusions This typology of family support services speaks to the diverse nature of the programs involved in the family support movement and to the vast array of services that can be used to support families. As family support programs continue to evolve, based on the changing needs of families and their environments, the need to justify the continuation of such services will increase. In this context, this typology is a step toward developing a comprehensive and detailed definition of family support services and an approach to their evaluation. This typology assumes that the services being evaluated are, in fact, family support services, that is, that they are located in programs that follow the philosophical premises and practice principles of the family support movement. Therefore, it does not help an evaluator address such research questions as: Are families involved in services planning and, if so, does that facilitate better functioning? Does flexibility in service delivery increase a parent's responsiveness to intervention? Does joint family/staff planning lead to better outcomes for clients? The limitations of this typology also reflect the difficulty of capturing the complexity of many family support programs. By deconstructing programs into their service components, one loses the ability, under most circumstances, to adequately capture the multiple goals of a comprehensive family support program. And, one is left with such questions as: Can the evaluation of individual program components adequately capture the impact of an organization with multiple programmatic thrusts? Does the typology adequately capture the unique interaction of individual family members, the family as a whole, the family support staff, and the community? Despite these limitations, it is only through the development and testing of meaningful typologies and their use in the evaluation of services, that a "new normative family support system" [Kagan &Weissbourd 1994: 473], which embraces and sustains current family support philosophies, principles, and programs, can emerge in the current policy arena. References References References Albee, G. W., &Gullotta, T. P (1997). Primary prevention's evolution. In G. W Albee &T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), Primary prevention works (pp. 3-22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Allen, M., Brown, P., &Finlay, B. (1992). Helping children by strengthening families: A look at family support programs. Washington, 04 June 2013 Page 9 of 13 ProQuest

DC: Children's Defense Fund. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. References Bruner, C. (1994). State government and family support: From marginal to mainstream. In S. Kagan &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 338-357). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Cameron, G., &Vanderwoerd, J. (1997). Protecting children and supporting families: Promising programs and organizational realities. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Carter, J. (1994). Funding family support. In S. Kagan &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 276294). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Child Welfare League of America. (1997). Summary of the adoption and safe families act of 1997. [Online]. Available: http://www.cwla.org/cwla.hr868.html. References Children's Defense Fund. (1997). Summary of the adoption and safe families act of 1997. [Online]. Available: http:/ /www childrensdefense.org/pass3.html. Christopher, G. C. (1990). Community-based family support and education: Local program examples. In Helping families grow strong: New directions in public policy. Washington, DC: The Center for the Study of Social Policy. Family Resource Coalition. (1996). Guidelines for family support practice. Chicago: Author. Farrow, F. (1994). Family support on the federal policy agenda. In S. Kagan &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 358-372). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Fraser, M. W. (Ed.). (1997). Risk and resilience in childhood: An ecological perspective. Washington, DC: NASW Press. References Goetz, K. (1992). Programs to strengthen families: A resource guide (3rd ed. Chicago: Family Resource Coalition. Gullotta, T. P (199. Operationalizing Albee's incidence formula. In G. W Albee &T. P Gullotta (Eds.), Primary prevention works (pp. 23-37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hardin, M. (199. Congress extends court empowerment program and approves other provi sions affecting court proceedings in child protection cases. [Online]. Available: http:// www.fmdmail.com/listsaver/childcourt/165.html. Kagan, S., Cohen, N., Hailey, L., Pritchard, E., &Colen, H. (1996). Toward a new under standing of family support: A review of programs and a suggested typology. New Haven, CT: Yale University, The Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy. References Kagan, S., Powell, D., Weissbourd, B., di Zigler, E. (Eds.). (1987). America's family support programs: Perspectives and prospects. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Kagan, S., &Weissbourd, B. (1994). Toward a new normative system of family support. In S. Kagan &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 473-490). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Kamerman, S., dz Kahn, A. (1990). Innovations in programs and service delivery. Children and Youth Services Reu,12,113143. Koser, G. (Ed.). (1996). From communities to capitols: State experiences with family support. Chicago: Family Resource Coalition. References Muenchow, S. (1987). Innovative funding and private/public partnerships. In S. Kagan, D. Powell, B. Weissbourd, &E. Zigler (Eds.), America's family support programs: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 269-281). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Powell, D. (1994). Evaluating family support programs: Are we making progress? In S. Kagan dz B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 441-470). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. President's Commission on Mental Health. (1978). Report to the president. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday. References Smith, C., &Carlson, B. E. (1997). Stress, coping and resilience in children and youth. Social Service Review, 71, 231-256. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children Youth and Families. (1994). Program instruction. ACYF-PI-94-01. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Child welfare: States' progress in implementing family preservation and support services. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives (GAO/ HHS-97-34 Implementing FPS Services). Washington, DC: Author. Weiss, H., dz Halpern, R. (1990). Community-based family support and education programs: Something old or something new? New York: National Center for Children in Poverty. 04 June 2013 Page 10 of 13 ProQuest

References Weiss, H., dz Jacobs, R (1988). Family support and education programs: Challenges and opportunities. In H. Weiss &R Jacobs (Eds.), Evaluating family programs (pp. xixxxix). New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Weissbourd, B. (1994). The evolution of the family resource movement. In S. Kagan &B. Weissbourd (Eds.), Putting families first: America's family support movement and the challenge of change (pp. 28-48). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. Werner, E. E., &Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High risk children from birth to adulthood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Zigler, E., &Freedman, J. (1987). Head Start: A pioneer of family support. In S. Kagan, D. Powell, B. Weissbourd, &E. Zigler (Eds.), America's family support programs: Perspectives and prospects (pp. 57 78). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. AuthorAffiliation Victor Manalo, M.S.W, is Research Associate and Lecturer, and William Meezan, D.S. W., is Marion Elizabeth Blue Professor of Families and Children, University of Michigan School of Social Work, Ann Arbor, MI. AuthorAffiliation (Address requests for a reprint to Victor Manalo, University of Southern California School of Social Work, MRF 214 University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411.) Subjek: History; Philosophy; Families & family life; Family counseling; Social work; Classification MeSH: Adult, Child, Child Welfare, Female, Humans, Male, Family (utama), Program Evaluation (utama), Social Support (utama) Judul: Toward building a typology for the evaluation of services in family support programs Pengarang: Manalo, Victor; Meezan, William Judul publikasi: Child Welfare Volume: 79 Edisi: 4 Halaman: 405-29 Jumlah halaman: 25 Tahun publikasi: 2000 Tanggal publikasi: Jul/Aug 2000 Tahun: 2000 Penerbit: Child Welfare League of America, Inc. Tempat publikasi: Washington Negara publikasi: United States Publication subject: Social Services And Welfare, Psychology, Sociology, Medical Sciences--Psychiatry And Neurology, Children And Youth - About ISSN: 00094021 CODEN: CHWFAS Jenis sumber: Scholarly Journals Bahasa publikasi: English Jenis dokumen: Journal Article Nomor aksesi: 10925766 ID dokumen ProQuest: 213804379

04 June 2013

Page 11 of 13

ProQuest

URL Dokumen: http://search.proquest.com/docview/213804379?accountid=148614 Hak cipta: Copyright Transaction Inc. Jul/Aug 2000 Terakhir diperbarui: 2013-01-26 Basis data: ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source; ProQuest Research Library

04 June 2013

Page 12 of 13

ProQuest

Daftar Pustaka
Citation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition Manalo, V., & Meezan, W. (2000). Toward building a typology for the evaluation of services in family support programs. Child Welfare, 79(4), 405-29. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/213804379?accountid=148614

_______________________________________________________________
Hubungi ProQuest

Hak cipta 2012 ProQuest LLC. Semua hak cipta dilindungi. - Syarat dan Ketentuan

04 June 2013

Page 13 of 13

ProQuest