Advancing 21st-Century Child Welfare through Community Building
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We know that no one child- and family-serving system has the mandate, resources, or reach to address the personal issues or social and community conditions that are related to risk factors faced by families involved with child welfare systems. Hundreds of thousands of children and families are helped every day by the child welfare system and other child- and family-serving systems. Millions more, however, do not have access to available, appropriate, or equitable services and supports. For far too many children and families, the failure to meet these human needs and basic rights has significant consequences. This includes lives filled with pain, suffering, and quiet desperation. Even so, as the articles in this volume suggest, we are learning and succeeding. Community building is becoming an essential part of all child and family practice. When we who work in or influence these systems; fundamentally change our roles with one another; change our relationships with the children, youth, and families we serve; and actively engage community stakeholders, we provide more strategic supports and can collaboratively achieve more effective outcomes for this most vulnerable population. This is the work before us. Early social reformers and Progressive Era activists called for community improvements to advance child and family well-being. In fact, for more than a century, researchers have argued that vulnerable children can be most effectively served in the context of their families and communities. Although family-centered and family support movements have evolved, especially in the past two decades, few if any comparable undertakings have occurred in community building. The Child Welfare League of America's (CWLA) National Framework for Community Action represents one of the first organizing tools for community building to advance child welfare. Reframing the concerns of vulnerable children and families as community-building issues places new challenges before policymakers, administrators, front-line service providers, and academics. Those at the forefront who develop the tools, models, and conceptual frameworks for community building need an opportunity to discuss lessons learned, develop action plans, and strategize next steps. To disseminate knowledge and raise awareness, CWLA cosponsored the first national symposium on Community and Child Welfare with the Boston Home for Little Wanderers and the University at Albany School of Social Welfare in September 2003. The symposium featured a keynote speech by Karl Dennis called Building Innovations for CommunityBased Care and 28 workshops in four tracks: understanding communities, leadership without easy answers, social and economic justice and developing, and maximizing and sustaining resources. The symposium featured collaborative practices involving parents, university-agency partnerships, and public and private child and family service agencies from across the country and Canada. Participants shared successful program innovation, culturally appropriate models, research projects, and system reform efforts. The Annie E. Casey Foundation sponsored the closing plenary on new models for funding and delivering services though place-based philanthropy and services, which featured Ira Barbell. The community-building movement has also been advanced by the CWLA Community Advisory Group, which is composed of representatives from more than 20 member agencies. This group has provided direction and leadership to CWLA's efforts to identify successful approaches and to help change professional practice. Sokoni Karanja, President, Center for New Horizons, Illinois, and James Mills, Executive Director Juvenile Welfare Board of Pinellas County, Florida, cochair this advisory group. The group convenes regional meetings, has developed values and principles for community building, and represents key child welfare stakeholders who are at the forefront of communitybuilding efforts. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".