IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v32y2010i4p595-603.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Key features of effective citizen-state child welfare partnerships: Findings from a national study of citizen review panels

Author

Listed:
  • Bryan, Valerie
  • Jones, Blake
  • Lawson, Emily

Abstract

Objective This study reports findings from a national study of citizen review panels (CRPs) for child protective services, examining the relationships between previously identified panel characteristics (including information flow between CRPs and states, group cohesion and panel self-governance) and perceptions of CRP effectiveness.Methods Panel members from 32 states and Washington, D.C. (n = 426) and CRP coordinators in 30 states and D.C. (n = 42) completed surveys regarding the functioning of their panels, which contained measures of perceived information flow, group cohesion, and self-governance in the panel member survey, and an assessment of CRP federal mandate fulfillment in the coordinator survey. Regression and path analyses were conducted to assess the relationship of these panel characteristics to members' perceived positive impact upon child welfare and to coordinators' assessments of CRP mandate fulfillment.Results Perceived information flow between panels and states, group cohesion and self-governance explained 53% of the variance in CRP members' perceptions of effectiveness. These same characteristics, as well as use of existing citizen volunteer panels (such as foster care review boards) instead of panels created solely for CRP work, explained 21% of the variance in CRP coordinators' assessment of their panels' mandate fulfillment.Conclusions These findings support prior research identifying these group characteristics as important in promoting effective CRP efforts, and help clarify how these characteristics work together to support effective citizen-state partnerships. However, relationships between panel characteristics and coordinators' assessments of CRP mandate fulfillment were not as strong, indicating the presence of other, unknown influences upon their perceptions of CRP efforts. This indicates a need for further study of state agency and other stakeholder perspectives pertaining to CRPs and, likely, to the more general topic of citizen review in child welfare.Practice implications The model suggests that the panels should be as autonomous as possible, that information should be shared consistently with the panels, and that states should establish their CRPs with the intent to build relationships between panel members and state agencies which will lead to authentic collaboration. Recommendations are given for how CRP coordinators and citizen volunteers can use these findings to strengthen CRP efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Bryan, Valerie & Jones, Blake & Lawson, Emily, 2010. "Key features of effective citizen-state child welfare partnerships: Findings from a national study of citizen review panels," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 595-603, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:4:p:595-603
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(09)00356-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jones, Blake L., 2004. "Effectiveness of citizen review panels," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 1117-1127, December.
    2. Bryan, Valerie & Jones, Blake & Allen, Erin & Collins-Camargo, Crystal, 2007. "Civic engagement or token participation? Perceived impact of the citizen review panel initiative," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1286-1300, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bryan, Valerie & Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Jones, Blake, 2011. "Reflections on citizen-state child welfare partnerships: Listening to citizen review panel volunteers and agency liaisons," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 612-621, May.
    2. Miller, J. Jay & Vaughn, LaToya Burns, 2018. "Training child welfare citizen review panel members: A promising approach?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 94-97.
    3. Miller, J. Jay & Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Jones, Blake, 2017. "Exploring the university partnership model for child welfare citizen review panels: A research brief," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-4.
    4. Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Buckwalter, Neal & Jones, Blake, 2016. "Perceptions of state child welfare administrators regarding federally-mandated citizen review panels," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 83-89.
    5. McBeath, Bowen & Jolles, Mónica Pérez & Chuang, Emmeline & Bunger, Alicia C. & Collins-Camargo, Crystal, 2014. "Organizational responsiveness to children and families: Findings from a national survey of nonprofit child welfare agencies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 123-132.
    6. Miller, J. Jay & Jones, Blake, 2015. "Using concept mapping as a planning tool: Child welfare citizen review panels," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 99-106.
    7. Wilson, Samita & Hean, Sarah & Abebe, Tatek & Heaslip, Vanessa, 2020. "Children’s experiences with Child Protection Services: A synthesis of qualitative evidence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Buckwalter, Neal & Jones, Blake, 2016. "Perceptions of state child welfare administrators regarding federally-mandated citizen review panels," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 83-89.
    2. Bryan, Valerie & Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Jones, Blake, 2011. "Reflections on citizen-state child welfare partnerships: Listening to citizen review panel volunteers and agency liaisons," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 612-621, May.
    3. Miller, J. Jay & Jones, Blake, 2015. "Using concept mapping as a planning tool: Child welfare citizen review panels," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 99-106.
    4. Miller, J. Jay & Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Jones, Blake, 2017. "Exploring the university partnership model for child welfare citizen review panels: A research brief," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 1-4.
    5. Kobulsky, Julia M. & Cage, Jamie & Celeste, Gabriella, 2018. "The perceived effects of volunteer use by public child welfare agencies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 27-33.
    6. McBeath, Bowen & Jolles, Mónica Pérez & Chuang, Emmeline & Bunger, Alicia C. & Collins-Camargo, Crystal, 2014. "Organizational responsiveness to children and families: Findings from a national survey of nonprofit child welfare agencies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 123-132.
    7. Nasim Gholami & Mojtaba ANSARI & Mohammadjavad MAHDAVINEJAD, 2018. "A Scientometric Review Of Citizen Participation Research: World Trend," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 13(3), pages 37-53, August.
    8. Miller, J. Jay & Vaughn, LaToya Burns, 2018. "Training child welfare citizen review panel members: A promising approach?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 94-97.
    9. Wilson, Samita & Hean, Sarah & Abebe, Tatek & Heaslip, Vanessa, 2020. "Children’s experiences with Child Protection Services: A synthesis of qualitative evidence," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:4:p:595-603. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.