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.
Fluke
John D
JD
Child Protection Research Center, American Humane Association, 63 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112, USA. johnf@AmericanHumane.org
Oppenheim
Elizabeth
E
D000293:Adolescent; D016497:Adolescent Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration*; D002648:Child; D002662:Child Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration*; D002669:Child Welfare; D019058:Community Networks / Q000458:organization & administration*; D003695:Delivery of Health Care / Q000458:organization & administration*; D005190:Family; D006285:Health Planning / Q000458:organization & administration*; D006301:Health Services Needs and Demand; D006801:Humans; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000458:organization & administration*; D009937:Organizational Objectives; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D012922:Social Change