Description
Since 1996, the Community Partnership for Protecting Children initiative has made concerted efforts to change fundamental thinking about how society protects children and to reform our nation's child welfare system. The community partnership approach starts from the premise that no single factor is responsible for child abuse and neglect, and therefore that no one public agency can safeguard children. Children's safety depends on strong families, and strong families depend on connections with a broad range of people, organizations, and community institutions.
Underlying Principles
Key Strategies
The community partnership initiative began in four cities - St. Louis, Missouri; Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Jacksonville, Florida; and Louisville, Kentucky. Today there are 50 partnerships across the country. Each site implements the community partnership approach that involves four key, interwoven strategies:
Evaluation of the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children Initiative
The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago has completed the Phase II Outcome Evaluation of the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children initiative. This evaluation was implemented between 2000 and 2004 to assess the initiative's impact and provide guidance to the field on how the concept of community child protection might be advanced. The evaluation and other critical documents related to the evaluation are below.
The evaluation sought to determine if the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children initiative achieved the outcomes to reduce: likelihood of abuse and neglect among children in each community; likelihood of re-abuse; and the rate of severe injuries to children. Outcomes across the four original sites, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; Louisville, Kentucky; Jacksonville, Florida; and St Louis, Missouri, were compiled to determine the effectiveness of the initiative. The evaluation report also itemizes positive findings from the initiative including ways in which child welfare practices were positively affected and improvements in worker job satisfaction.
The executive summary provides an overview of the evaluation methodology, findings from the evaluation and the implications for the Community Partnership framework.
This discussion paper delineates the impact the Community Partnership for Protecting Children initiative had in the four original sites. Information related to practice implications is provided to assist communities in their efforts to further a community response to child safety and well being.
This joint statement is issued to assist the field in contextualizing the evaluation and provides additional information related to the implications of the evaluation. It outlines the next steps to be taken as the new knowledge gained from the evaluation is integrated into the theory and practice of the community partnership approach.
The sites have reviewed the evaluation and provided their perspectives on the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children as they enter their tenth year of implementation.
Louisville, Kentucky completed a ten year retrospective of their work to implement the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children initiative. This paper discusses the Louisville specific progress on each of the CPPC outcomes as well as provides an overview of how child protection is different today than it was ten years ago in their community.
The work of the Community Partnerships for Protecting Children has yielded extensive information over the last ten years about improving child welfare support systems and services. "Lessons Learned" have been pulled together from the evaluation as well as from interviews with child welfare staff, technical assistance providers, community members and consumers to present a comprehensive view of what has worked well and where there are new opportunities for moving forward to improve child safety and family well being.
Partners / Funders
The Center for Community Partnerships in Child Welfare, a part of the Center for the Study of Social Policy, is supported through core funding from the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
|
