Family Group Decision Making for children at risk of abuse and neglect
Referencias
Additional references
Achenbach TM. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4‐18 and 1991 Profile. Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4‐18 and 1991 Profile. Burlington VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry, 1991.
American Humane Association. Historical timeline of FGDM. American Humane Association Website Association: http://www.americanhumane.org.site/DocServer/FGDM_timeline07.pdf?docID=5741 (accessed 5 June 2008)2008.
American Humane Association. Family group decision making in child welfare: Purpose, values, process. American Human Association Website: http://www.americanhumane.org.site/DocServer/FGDM_timeline07.pdf?docID=6781 (accessed 5 June 2008)2008.
Altman J. A qualitative examination of client participation in agency‐initiated services. Families in Society 2003;84(4):471‐79.
Burford G, Hudson J. General introduction: Family group conferencing programming. In: G. Burford, J. Hudson editor(s). Family group conferencing. New directions in community‐centered child and family practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000:(pp. xix‐xxvii).
Cashmore J, Kiely P. Implementing and evaluating family group conferences: the New South Wales experience. In: G Burford, J Hudson editor(s). Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in Community‐centered Child and Family Practice. Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 2000 :242‐252.
Clausen S‐E. Are abused children at higher risk of becoming criminal?. Journal of the Norwegian Psychological Association 2004;41(12):971‐8.
Connolly M. An Act of empowerment: The children, young persons and their families act. Journal of Social Work 1994;24:87‐100.
Connolly M, McKenzie M. Effective Participatory Practice: Family Group Conferencing in Child Protection. Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1999.
Connolly M. A perspective on the origins of Family Group Conferencing. American Humane FGDM Issues in Brief http://www.americanhumane.org/site/DocServer/fgdm_FGC_Origins_New_Zealand.pdf?docID=19012004.
Connolly M, Crichton‐Hill Y, Ward T. Culture and Child Protection: Reflexive Responses. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishing, 2006.
Crampton D. Family group decision‐making in Kent County, Michigan: The family and community compact. Protecting Children 2003;18(1 & 2):81‐3.
Crampton D. Family involvement interventions in child protection: Learning from contextual integrated strategies. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare 2004;31(1):175‐98.
Crampton D. Research review: Family group decision‐making: a promising practice in need of more programme theory and research. Child and Family Social Work 2007;12:202‐09.
Crampton D, Jackson W. Family group decision making and disproportionality in foster care: A case study. Child Welfare 2007;86(3):51‐70.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. Bringing Families to the Table: A Comparative Guide to Family Meetings in Child Welfare. Washington DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 2002.
Center for Social Services Research. The CaliforniaTitle IV‐E Child Welfare Waiver Demonstration Study Evaluation: Final Report. University of California at Berkeley, Centre for Social Services Website: http://www.cssr.Berkeley.edu.research_units/cwrc/publications_details.htm#waiver2004, issue Retrieved July 17 2008.
Cunning S, Bartlett D. Family group conferencing: Assessing the long‐term effectiveness of an alternative approach in child protection. Final report. Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare Website: http://www.cecw‐cepb.ca/files/file/en/Final%20Report%20Family%20Grp%20Conferencing%20March2007.pdf(accessed 6 June 2008)2006.
Deci E, Ryan R. Intrinsic motivation and self‐determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum, 1985.
Donner A, Piaggio G, Villar J. Statistical methods for the meta‐analysis of cluster randomized trials. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2001;10:325‐38.
Dumbrill G. Child welfare: AOP's nemesis?. In: Wes Shera editor(s). Emerging perspectives on anti‐oppressive practice. Toronto: Canadian Scholar’s Press Inc, 2003.
Dumbrill G, Maiter S. Child protection clients designing the services they receive: an idea from practice. Child and Family: A Journal of the Notre Dame Child and Family Institute 2003;7(1):5‐10.
English DJ, Upadhyaya MP, Litrownik AJ, Marshall JM, Runyan DK, Graham JC, Dubowitz H. Maltreatment’s wake: The relationship of maltreatment dimensions to child outcomes. Child Abuse and Neglect 2005;29:597‐619.
Faureholm J. From New Zealandto the rest of the world: The history of family group conferencing [New Zealand til resten af verden ‐ familieraadslagningens historie]. In: Faureholm J, Brønholt LL editor(s). Family Group Conferencing. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag, 2005.
Goldstein A. Restorative Practices in Israel:The State of the Field. Presented at The Next Step: Developing Restorative Communities Part 2. October 18‐20 Bethlehem, Pennsylvania:http://www.realjustice.org/library/beth06_goldstein.html2006.
Gunderson K, Cahn K, Wirth J. The Washington State long‐term outcome study. Protecting Children 2003;18(1‐2):42‐7.
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration Website: www.cochrane‐handbook.org. Version 5.0.0 2008.
Kempe C. Recent developments in the field of child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect 1978;2(4):261‐7.
Lee C, Ayon C. Is the client‐worker relationship associated with better outcomes in mandated child abuse cases?. Research on Social Work Practice 2004;14:351‐57.
Littell J, Tajima E. A multilevel model of client participation in intensive family preservation services. Social Service Review 2000;74:405‐35.
Lupton C, Nixon P. Empowering practice? A critical appraisal of the family group conference approach. Bristol: Policy, 1999.
Marsh P, Crow G. Family group conferences in child welfare. Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1998.
Merkel‐Holguin L. The intersection between family group decision making and systems of care. American Humane Association Website: http://www.americanhuman.org/site/DocServer/FGDM_Brief_8.pdf?docID=32212005, issue Retrieved June 6 2008.
Pelton L. For reasons of poverty: A critical analysis of public child welfare in the United States. For reasons of poverty: A critical analysis of public child welfare in the United States. New York: Praeger, 1989.
Pennell J, Burford G. Family group decision making: New roles for "old" partners in resolving family violence: Implementation Report. St. John's Newfoundland, Canada: Memorial University of Newfoundland, School of Social Work, 1995.
Pennell J, Burford G. Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare 2000;79:131‐58.
Pennell J. Restorative practices and child welfare:Toward an inclusive civil society. Journal of Social Issues 2006;62(2):259‐79.
Pinheiro P. Statement to the United Nations General Assembly‐Third Committee Agenda Item 63: Promotion and protection of the rights of children. http://www.violencestudy.org/IMG/pdf/IE_Statement_GA‐06.pdf issue Retreived Sept. 2 2006.
Robertson J. Research on family group conferences in child welfare in New Zealand Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice. In: J Hudson, A Morris, G Maxwell, B Gallaway editor(s). Family Group Conferences: Perspectives on Policy and Practice. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, 1996:49‐64.
Rockhill A, Rodgers A. Family Decision Meetings: Final Report. Portland, Oregon: Child Welfare Partnership, Portland StateUniversity, 1999.
Ryan R, Plant R, O'Malley S. Initial motivations for alcohol treatment: Relations with patient characteristics, treatment involvement, and dropout. Addictive Behaviors 1995;20(3):279‐97.
Sedlack A, Broadhurst D. The third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS‐3). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.
Sieppert J, Hudson J, Unrau Y. Family group conferencing in child welfare: Lessons from a demonstration project. Families in Society 2000;81:382‐91.
Springer KW, Sheridan J, Kuo D, Carnes M. Long‐term physical and mental health consequences of childhood physical abuse: Results from a large population‐based sample of men and women. Child Abuse & Neglect 2007;31:517‐30.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney‐McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues 1996;17(3):283‐316.
Sundell K, Vinnerljung B, Ryburn M. Social workers' attitudes towards family group conferences in Sweden and the UK. Child and Family Social Work 2001;6:237‐336.
Sundell K, Vinnerljung B. Outcomes of family group conferencing in Sweden. A 3‐year follow‐up. Child Abuse and Neglect 2004;28, Issue 3:267‐87.
Sutton A, Duval S, Tweedie R, Abrams R, Jones D. Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta‐analyses. BMJ 2000;320:1574‐77.
Trocmé N, Fallon B, MacLaurin B, Daciuk J, Felstiner C, Black T, et al. Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect‐2003: Major Findings. Gatineau, Quebe: Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 2005.
UNICEF. Convention on the Rights of the Child. UNICEF Website: http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm1989; Vol. 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, issue Retrieved August 6 2008.
Walker S, Eketone A, Gibbs A. An exploration of kaupapa Maori research, its principles, processes and applications. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2006;9(4):331‐44.
World Health Organization. Preventing child maltreatment: A guide to taking action and generating evidence. Available at http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2006/9241594365_eng.pdf (accessed May 2009)2006.
Yatchmenoff D. Measuring client engagement from the client's perspective in nonvoluntary child protective services. Research on Social Work Practice 2005;15(2):84‐96.
