Addressing some of the support related issues that cause conditions that may result in contact with the Office of Children’s Services is one way to prevent further escalation of child neglect and maltreatment and perhaps additional contact with OCS. Preventive services as a cost savings action.
Sources:Mathematica-Cody 2010– Cody S, Reed D, Basson D, et al. Simplification of health and social services enrollment and eligibility: Lessons for California from interviews in four states. Princeton: Mathematica Policy Research (MPR); 2010.RAND-Europe 2012– RAND Europe, Ernst & Young LLP. National evaluation of the DH integrated care pilots. RAND Health Quarterly. 2012;2(1):8.MDRC-Support center– Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). Work advancement and support center demonstration.King 2006*– King G, Meyer K. Service integration and co-ordination: A framework of approaches for the delivery of co-ordinated care to children with disabilities and their families. Child: Care, Health, and Development. 2006;32(4):477-492.Packard 2013– Packard T, Patti R, Daly D, Tucker-Tatlow J. Implementing services integration and interagency collaboration: Experiences in seven counties. 2013;37(4):356-371.Fisher 2012*– Fisher MP, Elnitsky C. Health and social services integration: A review of concepts and models. Social Work in Public Health. 2012;27(5):441–68.Guerrero 2014*– Guerrero EG, Henwood B, Wenzel SL. Service integration to reduce homelessness in Los Angeles County: Multiple stakeholder perspectives. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance. 2014;38(1):44-54.Rosenheck 2001– Rosenheck R, Morrissey J, Lam J, et al. Service delivery and community: Social capital, service systems integration, and outcomes among homeless persons with severe mental illness. Health Services Research. 2001;36(4):691–710.YG-Program search– Youth.gov (YG), Interagency Working Group on Youth Programs (IWGYP). Evidence-based program directories: Program directory search.Smith 2013*– Smith TJ. One Stop Service Center Initiative: Strategies for serving persons with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2013;79(1):30-36.IHI-Craig 2011*– Craig C, Eby D, Whittington J. Care Coordination model: Better care at lower cost for people with multiple health and social needs. IHI Innovation Series white paper. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2011.CWF-McGinnis 2014– McGinnis T, Crawford M, Somers SA. A state policy framework for integrating health and social services. Commonwealth Fund (CWF). 2014.CDC-Community center– Alcaraz R. New community center to prevent youth violence. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Department of Health and Human Services (US DHHS).
Early childhood home visitation programs (such as Nurse Family Partnerships, Parents as Teachers, Early Head Start, Head Start, and Infant Learning Programs) are recommended to prevent child maltreatment on the basis of strong evidence that these programs are effective in reducing violence against visited children. Programs delivered by professional visitors (i.e., nurses or mental health workers) seem more effective than programs delivered by paraprofessionals, although programs delivered by paraprofessionals for ≥2 years also appear to be effective in reducing child maltreatment. Home visitation programs in this review were offered to teenage parents; single mothers; families of low socioeconomic status (SES); families with very low birth weight infants; parents previously investigated for child maltreatment; and parents with alcohol, drug, or mental health problems. (From The Community Guide)
Sources:http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/home/RRchildmaltreatment.htmlhttp://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=187http://policyforchildren.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Effectiveness-of-Early-Head-Start.pdfSama-Miller 2017– Sama-Miller E, Akers L, Mraz-Esposito A, et al. Home visiting evidence of effectiveness review: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.Casillas 2016*– Casillas KL, Fauchier A, Derkash BT, Garrido EF. Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse and Neglect. 2016;53:64-80.Selph 2013– Selph SS, Bougatsos C, Blazina I, Nelson HD. Behavioral interventions and counseling to prevent child abuse and neglect: A systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2013;158(3):179–90.Peacock 2013– Peacock S, Konrad S, Watson E, Nickel D, Muhajarine N. Effectiveness of home visiting programs on child outcomes: A systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:17.Sweet 2004*– Sweet MA, Appelbaum MI. Is home visiting an effective strategy? A meta-analytic review of home visiting programs for families with young children. Child Development. 2004;75(5):1435-56.MacLeod 2000*– MacLeod J, Nelson G. Programs for the promotion of family wellness and the prevention of child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2000;24(9):1127-49.CG-Violence– The Guide to Community Preventive Services (The Community Guide). Violence.Cochrane-Kendrick 2013*– Kendrick D, Mulvaney CA, Ye L, et al. Parenting interventions for the prevention of unintentional injuries in childhood. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(3):CD006020.Roberts 1996– Roberts I, Kramer MS, Suissa S. Does home visiting prevent childhood injury? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 1996;312(7022):29-33.MDRC-Michalopoulos 2017– Michalopoulos C, Faucetta K, Warren A, Mitchell R. Evidence on the long-term effects of home visiting programs: Laying the groundwork for long-term follow-up in the Mother and Infant Home Visiting Program Evaluation (MIHOPE). Washington, DC: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC). 2017.Goyal 2013*– Goyal NK, Teeters A, Ammerman RT. Home visiting and outcomes of preterm infants: A systematic review. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):502-516.Issel 2011– Issel LM, Forrestal SG, Slaughter J, Wiencrot A, Arden H. A review of prenatal home-visiting effectiveness for improving birth outcomes. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic & Neonatal Nursing. 2011;40(2):157-65.Kendrick 2000*– Kendrick D, Elkan R, Hewitt M, et al. Does home visiting improve parenting and the quality of the home environment? A systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2000;82(6):443-51.Cochrane-Dennis 2013*– Dennis CL, Dowswell T. Psychosocial and psychological interventions for preventing postpartum depression. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;(2):CD001134.El Fadl 2016– El Fadl RA, Blair M, Hassounah S. Integrating maternal and children’s oral health promotion into nursing and midwifery practice – A systematic review. PLOS ONE. 2016;11(11):e0166760.RAND-Kilburn 2017*– Kilburn MR, Cannon JS. Home visiting and use of infant health care: A randomized clinical trial. Pediatrics. 2017;139(1):e20161274.Cochrane-Yonemoto 2017*– Yonemoto N, Dowswell T, Nagai S, Mori R. Schedules for home visits in the early postpartum period. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017;(7):CD009326.Cochrane-Lopez 2015*– Lopez LM, Grey TW, Hiller JE, Chen M. Education for contraceptive use by women after childbirth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2015;(7):CD001863.Maravilla 2016*– Maravilla JC, Betts KS, Abajobir AA, Couto e Cruz C, Alati R. The role of community health workers in preventing adolescent repeat pregnancies and births. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2016;59(4):378-390.Prosman 2015*– Prosman GJ, Lo Fo Wong SH, van der Wouden JC, Lagro-Janssen ALM. Effectiveness of home visiting in reducing partner violence for families experiencing abuse: A systematic review. Family Practice. 2015;32(3):247-256.Sharps 2016*– Sharps PW, Bullock LF, Campbell JC, et al. Domestic violence enhanced perinatal home visits: The DOVE randomized clinical trial. Journal of Women’s Health. 2016;25(11):1129-1138.Mraz Esposito 2017– Mraz Esposito A, Coughlin R, Malick S, et al. Assessing the research on home visiting program models implemented in tribal communities – Part 1: Evidence of effectiveness. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2017.Cochrane-Turnbull 2012*– Turnbull C, Osborn DA. Home visits during pregnancy and after birth for women with an alcohol or drug problem. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2012;(1):CD004456
The strategies presented in this Report Form are from the Center for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) STOP SV: A Technical Package to Prevent Sexual Violence, which highlights strategies based on the best available evidence to help communities and states prevent and reduce sexual violence. Many of the strategies focus on reducing the likelihood that a person will engage in sexual violence. These strategies include the following: 1) Promote Social Norms that Protect Against Violence, 2) Teach Skills to Prevent Sexual Violence, 3) Provide Opportunities to Empower and Support Girls and Women, 4) Create Protective Environments, and 5) Support Victims/Survivors to Lessen Harm.Community initiatives in Alaska, supported by state and federal funds, are encouraged to be comprehensive, coalition driven, and culturally relevant. Ensuring that Alaskan communities are engaged in supporting the social and structural environments that promote healthy relationships is a key strategy across many statewide plans.Preventing sexual violence requires addressing factors at all levels of the social ecology—the individual, relational, community, and societal levels. The strategies presented below are focused on primary prevention efforts.
Sources:https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/sexualviolence/prevention.htmlhttps://andvsa.org/pathways/UCR Crime in Alaska 2018 Publication-https://dps.alaska.gov/getmedia/cedaeccd-674a-476a-a6fd-db16a609c15e/Crime-in-Alaska-2018
Current research through the CDC, identifies that sexual violence shares common risk and protective factors with other forms of violence including child maltreatment, bullying, teen dating violence and suicide attempts (CDC-connecting the dots and SV-Prevention-Technical Package). State level policy and implementation efforts that are integrated and align with shared factors have the potential for the broadest reach and positive impact.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed technical packages to help states and communities take advantage of the best available evidence to prevent violence.
Universal school-based violence prevention programming, that is evidence based, is recognized by the CDC as an effective approach to reducing violence and victimization among students. In recognition of the positive impact universal, grade specific, curriculum has in reducing violence, the Alaska Legislature passed legislation in 2015, titled the Alaska Safe Children’s Act that has (as part of the act) a requirement for school districts, across the state, to implement curriculum in grades 7-12 that specifically addresses teen dating violence and healthy relationships.
There is now significant research highlighting the relationships between the development of social-emotional competencies during early childhood and outcomes in learning and academic success, mental health, and general wellbeing (Rhoades, 2011; Shonkoff, 2000; Zins, 2004). In a meta-analytic review of SEL programs across diverse student outcomes, Durlak and colleagues (2011) found that students exposed to an SEL intervention demonstrated enhanced SEL skills/attitudes (e.g. motivation), positive social behaviors, and less emotional distress compared to a control group. Further, academic performance was significantly improved, with an 11% point difference between groups on standardized scores.
August 5, 2020
January 22, 2020
December 9, 2019
November 1, 2019
October 1, 2019