Challenges of Street-Level Child Welfare Reform and Technology Transfer: The Case of Team Decisionmaking

Abstract

Team Decisionmaking (TDM) involves a meeting of community representatives, family members, and social workers who review every decision to remove children from their parents or change of placement, including reunification or adoption. Even when the leadership of child welfare organizations mandates the use of TDM, implementing TDM is very challenging. To understand these challenges, a research team visited five diverse communities and conducted 74 focus groups and interviews involving 180 administrators, caseworkers, community partners, supervisors, and TDM facilitators. This article reviews the findings of this TDM study through previous research on street-level bureaucracy and technology transfer. The results suggest successful TDM implementation requires attention to the discretion of street-level caseworkers and the organizational constraints they face.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aarons

G. A.

, & Palinkas

L. A.

(2007). Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 34, 411–419.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2006, September 28). Family to Family key elements, team decision making. Retrieved March 13, 2008, from http://www.aecf.org/upload/pdffiles/familytofamily/keyelements.pdf.

Batterson

, Crampton

, Crea

, Harris

, Madden

, Usher

, . (2007). Implementing Family to Family. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Brodkin

(1997). Inside the welfare contract: Discretion and accountability in state welfare administration. Social Service Review, 71, 1–33.

DeMuro

, & Rideout

(2002). Team decisionmaking: Involving the family and community in child welfare decisions. Baltimore: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Fixsen

D. L.

, Naoom

S. F.

, Blase

K. A.

, Friedman

R. M.

, & Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network.

Landsman

M. J.

, Thompson

, & Barber

(2003). Using mediation to achieve permanency for children and families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 84(2), 229–239.

Lipsky

(1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Luongo

(2007). Re-thinking child welfare training models to achieve evidence-based practices. Administration in Social Work, 31(2), 87–96.

10.

Marsh

, & Crow

(1998). Family group conferences in child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

11.

Sieppert

J. D.

, Hudson

, & Unrau

(2000). Family group conferencing in child welfare: Lessons from a demonstration project. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 81(4), 382–391.

12.

Smith

B. D.

, & Donovan

S. E. F.

(2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541–562.

13.

Usher

, Needell

, Wildfire

, & Webster

(2007). Evaluation plan for Family to Family. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

14.

van Wormer

(2003). Restorative justice: A model for social work practice with families. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 84(3), 441–448.

15.

Wieder

B. L.

, Boyle

P. E.

, & Hrouda

D. R.

(2007). Able, willing and ready: Practitioner selection as a core component of integrated dual disorders treatment implementation. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 7(1/2), 139–165.