IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting a grip on systems of care and child welfare using opposable thumbs


  • Fluke, John D.
  • Oppenheim, Elizabeth


The purpose of this response paper is to discuss issues raised by two of the components of the definition of systems of care proffered by Hodges et al. [Hodges, S., Ferreira, K., Israel, N., & Mazza, J. (this issue). Systems of care, featherless bipeds, and the measure of all things. Evaluation and Program Planning]. In particular, this response will present some implications of the definition of the focus population and the value and core principle of family-driven care. It will also consider why these two components of the definition might serve as challenges to the applicability of the concept of systems of care to child welfare, and, in turn, integration of the model across child welfare and mental health. Recommendations for expanding and refining these component terms are provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Fluke, John D. & Oppenheim, Elizabeth, 2010. "Getting a grip on systems of care and child welfare using opposable thumbs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 41-44, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:1:p:41-44

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Bunger, Alicia C. & Chuang, Emmeline & McBeath, Bowen, 2012. "Facilitating mental health service use for caregivers: Referral strategies among child welfare caseworkers," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-703.
    2. McBeath, Bowen & Jolles, Mónica Pérez & Chuang, Emmeline & Bunger, Alicia C. & Collins-Camargo, Crystal, 2014. "Organizational responsiveness to children and families: Findings from a national survey of nonprofit child welfare agencies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 123-132.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:1:p:41-44. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.