Getting a grip on systems of care and child welfare using opposable thumbs
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.
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.
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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.