Working Report #4: Range of Services (Service Provider Perspectives)

This working report examines the differences in range of services across central, integrated, and school/community based sites including referrals to other services, direct support, advocacy, and collaborative efforts to provide services to families. Which models provide the most service options for families? How do service providers view the service options available to them in their work with families? How helpful are services to families? The range of services available within agency based settings seemed the narrowest in comparison to other types of service delivery settings. Integrated service models appeared to increase the range and access to many formal services. Community and school based programs seemed to increase the range of services available to families by broadening the scope of service options, using formal and informal partnerships and linkages, and participating in some preventative and community development approaches

Working Report #1: Service Model Accessibility (Service Provider Perspectives)

This report examines the differences in service accessibility across central, integrated, and school/community based child welfare service delivery models including geographic proximity to families, acceptability of the setting to families, and accessibility expectations of service providers. Results suggest that accessibility characteristics of the model can make a significant difference to front-line service delivery from the perspective of front-line protection workers. A defining feature of the community and school based child welfare models was increased accessibility for families and workers. Through making themselves more accessible, the community and school based settings had some significant service delivery advantages including more regular, varied, and timely contact with children and families. It seems likely that location along with a culture of accessibility has the potential to contribute to key child protection goals

Working Report #2: Client and Community Relations (Service Provider Perspectives)

This report addresses two important questions: how much emphasis is placed on building positive relationships with families and communities across agency based, integrated service, and community and school based models of service delivery? And, how successful is each model at building relationships, minimizing stigma for families, and improving the image of child welfare in the community? Educating clients and the community about child welfare services was identified as an important role for workers in some sites and not in others. While families’ fears of child protection services were a concern, some workers also expressed a fear of their clients and feared for their own personal safety in their work. Service providers within each model seemed to be oriented to different aspects of relationship building and also had different advantages and disadvantages. For example, community based and school based models provided unique forums for engaging with clients and other service providers. Heightened awareness and concern about stigma in many agency based settings was noted; while, in community based and school based settings workers saw themselves on the front-line of improving the agency’s image and building relationships with the community

Working Report #5: Child Welfare Jobs (Service Provider Perspectives)

This report compares how service providers experience their employment realities across central, integrated, and accessible service models. Differences in job satisfaction, worker retention, and feelings about the work itself are examined

Working Report #3: Use of Legal Measures and Formal Authority (Service Provider Perspectives)

The focus of this report is, across service delivery models, how front-line protection workers viewed their formal authority role and the extent to which they relied on legal measures in order to achieve protection goals. The analysis is guided by several overarching questions including (1) how does each model view the use of legal measures and formal authority? (2) How does each model impact service providers’ actual use of legal measures? (3) What value do workers place on the authority figure role? And (4) how effective is the use of formal authority in reaching child protection goals? Type of program model and setting can impact the use of legal measures in a number of ways including fundamental beliefs about the effectiveness of cooperative vs. legal measures, supervisory guidance, the presence or absence of legal apparatus, and the access, time and 4 support to seek creative alternatives to legal measures. Across all community based and school based models there seemed to be an expressed desire to avoid legal and authoritative measures and authoritarian approaches. Agency based sites did not have the same homogeneity and in some sites there was strong support for use of legal and authoritative measures. There also appeared to be a stronger identification with the authoritarian role in the discourse of workers. One cannot conclusively say that authoritative and legal approaches are more prevalent in one type of model than in another but one can surmise from the data that community based and school based programs are strongly in favour of alternatives to these measures

A Study of Three Community and School-Based Models of Child Welfare Service Delivery in Ontario: An Exploration Of Parents’, Service Providers’, and Community Experiences

This report highlights results from our study of three innovative child welfare programs in Ontario attempting to modify front line child protection practice. These programs endeavor to deliver child welfare services in ways that promote greater accessibility and acceptability of services for families, provide increased levels of assistance to families, afford a better understanding of daily living circumstances of children and families, and engage the community in protecting children. Study results confirm that the three programs were successful in accomplishing these goals. Parents’, service providers’, and community members’ perceptions of these programs showcase the positive helping relationships and community partnerships that are possible under existing child protection mandates