Defining the scope of systems of care: An ecological perspective
The definition of a system of care (SOC) can guide those intending to develop and sustain SOCs. Hodges, Ferreira, Israel, and Mazza [Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., Israel, N., & Mazza, J. (in press). Systems of care, featherless bipeds, and the measure of all things. Evaluation and Program Planning] have emphasized contexts in which services are provided to families, plus the adaptive, dynamic, complex nature of systems and multiple components that comprise SOCs. However, two areas need additional clarification: (1) the nature of the "system" of concern in a "system of care," and how it should differ from a "service delivery system"; and (2) the degree to which intended, or desired, outcomes of a SOC extend beyond increased access to "necessary" services and supports. These prime issues in the conceptualization of SOCs are addressed, drawing on ecological theory to underscore the need for broader systems - including factors in the proximal and distal contexts of children and families - to be engaged in the process of promoting well-being and helping children and families function and participate fully in their communities. A revised definition is proposed, with implications for the implementation of SOCs.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hodges, Sharon & Ferreira, Kathleen & Israel, Nathaniel & Mazza, Jessica, 2010. "Systems of care, featherless bipeds, and the measure of all things," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 4-10, February.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:1:p:18-20. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.