NCJ Number
73118
Date Published
1977
Length
237 pages
Annotation
This report presents an analysis framework for studying the impacts of 11 demonstration child abuse and neglect projects on their local child abuse and neglect service systems. In the context of this framework, the impact of individual projects on their community systems and a comparative analysis of impact are discussed.
Abstract
Central to the analysis are factors associated with improvement in the following areas: community coordination mechanisms, interdisciplinary input at all treatment stages, a centralized and responsible reporting system, availability of a comprehensive set of services, the quality of case management throughout the system, and the level of community education and public awareness. A series of interviews with personnel from key agencies (i.e., protective services, hospitals, schools, etc.) in each community where conducted to determine the status of the community system before implementation of the project. These people were reinterviewed at yearly intervals to gauge the progress made in each community. Also, supplemental data about changes in each community system were obtained during site visits and from knowledgeable individuals in the community and were analyzed. Findings indicate that the project had significant success in correcting many of the deficiencies in the community systems, especially problems of coordination and expansion of services under the projects' auspices. However, several problems consistently remain in the project communities at the end of the demonstration period. Coordination among both public and private agencies is inadequate, interdisciplinary input is not generally afforded the majority of the communities' cases, and existing community resources have not been fully used in providing services. Also, child neglect and high-risk cases are provided minimal services, preventive services and therapeutic services for children are inadequate; and the case management function, particularly concerning adherence to appropriate termination procedures and the provision of followup, is generally less than optimally carried out. Tables and footnotes are included. Appendixes list evaluation reports and papers, discuss community data collection instruments, present the intracommunity analysis framework and individual project analyses, and examine the possible impacts of community education. (Author abstract modified)