Transcript Linkages Shared

Data Management:
Let's Talk About Using Data to Evaluate
November 6th 3pm to 4:30pm
Linkages Shared Learning Webinar #8
Stuart Oppenheim, CFPIC, Executive Director
Danna Fabella, Linkages Project Director
Peer County Advisors
• John Dufresne, MSW, Program Manager,
Fresno
• Johnny Alaniz, Social Services Program
Manager, Fresno
• Sarah Whittington, MSW, SW Practitioner,
Fresno on behalf of Madera
Agenda
• Overview of Evaluation/Research: Stuart Oppenheim
• What’s on the Toolkit? Danna Fabella
• What are some counties doing?
– John Dufresne & Johnny Alaniz: Fresno
– Sarah Whittington: Madera
• Q&A
• Discussion
– Next Steps
Research/Evaluation
• Research is directed toward increasing
knowledge, the primary aim being more
knowledge or understanding of a particular
group, problem or issue. The strict definition
of scientific research is to perform a
methodical study in order to prove a
hypothesis or answer a specific question.
• Evaluation is concerned with answering questions
about issues that arise in everyday practice. A
distinguishing characteristic of evaluation is that,
unlike traditional forms of academic research,
evaluation is grounded in the everyday realities of
organizations. Evaluations can be conducted of
programs, processes, products, systems,
organizations, personnel, and policies.
• Evaluation therefore answers questions like:
♦ Does it work?
♦ Does it do what we want it to?
♦ How well does it work?
Why Evaluate?
• Not required by the Statewide Project
• To let you know if and how Linkages is being
implemented
• To understand if you are getting the outcomes
that you want
• To let Leadership, staff, and stakeholders know
how it improves outcomes for families
Approaching Evaluation
• Know what you mean by Linkages.
• What is success?
– Create a Logic Model
• Inputs (training, , etc)
• Outputs (CCP, Family Engagement, TDM, etc)
• Outcomes (children remain at home, sanction cured, etc.)
• How will you measure it?
– What data will you use?
• How will it be collected?
– Automated/case flags
– Case Review
– Surveys
• Who will analyze it?
• How will you use it?
– Adjust program
– Build support
What we can find on the Toolkit:
http://www.cfpic.org/toolkit/
Fresno County Linkages
Data Collection Process
Presenters: John Dufresne Program
Manager
Johnny Alaniz – Social Services Program
Supervisor
County of Fresno Population,
2011 estimate
942,904
Persons under 5 years, percent, 2011
Persons under 18 years, percent, 2011
Persons 65 years and over, percent, 2011
Female persons, percent, 2011
8.5%
29.5%
10.3%
50.0%
White persons, percent, 2011
77.7%
Black persons, percent, 2011
5.9%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2011
3.0%
Asian persons, percent, 2011
10.3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander persons,
0.3%
percent, 2011
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2011
2.9%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino Origin, percent, 2011
50.9%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2011
32.4%
Living in same house 1 year & over, 2006-2010
83.7%
Foreign born persons, percent, 2006-2010
21.7%
Language other than English spoken at home, pct age 5+,
42.6%
2006-2010
High school graduates, percent of persons age 25+, 200673.1%
2010
Bachelor's degree or higher, pct of persons age 25+, 200619.7%
2010
Housing units, 2011
318,064
Homeownership rate, 2006-2010
55.0%
Housing units in multi-unit structures, percent, 2006-2010
25.8%
Median value of owner-occupied housing units, 2006-2010 $257,000
Households, 2006-2010
283,836
Persons per household, 2006-2010
3.14
Per capita money income in past 12 months (2010 dollars)
$20,329
2006-2010
Median household income 2006-2010
$46,430
Persons below poverty level, percent, 2006-2010
22.5%
Fresno County - Aid information as of November 1, 2012
General Relief
Cases 2,987
Persons – 3,017
CalFresh
Cases - 88,912
Persons – 215,194
Medi- Cal Only
Cases – 81,696
Persons – 205,524
CalWORKs
Cases – 27,904
Persons- 71,468
Child removed
from home TDM
Scheduled
Fresno County
Linkages Data
Collection
Process
TDM Scheduler sends
email the Intake
Linkages EW
EW completes EW/
TDM Datasheet on all
adults & children
who are part of TDM
Datasheet goes
into TDM
TDM SW
Facilitator
notifies Linkages
OA of outcome
OA notifies
Linkages JS’s of
eligible AB429
client Detention
Hearing, JS &
SW attend
Detention
Hearing
Heading
Children Detained Court involvement
After Hearing Linkages JS &
SW go over WTW CCP with
parents. If client agrees
CCP is signed by all parties.
Linkages JS allows AB429/
WTW post aid services for the
next 6 months and will
maintain monthly contact with
FR SW on progress of adults
Parents accept VFM
Data
Collection and
tracking
database
Linkages JS will review AB429
Recertification after 6months
and will contact SW and
determine if an additional 6
months of services are to
continue
OA fast
tracks case
to
Linkages JS
CCP developed
by Linkages JS,
VFM SW and
parent(s)
CCP Reviewed by all
parties monthly and
recertified every 6
months
FRESNO COUNTY LINKAGES
DATA COLLECTION PARAMETERS
Who and/or
where data
is located
CCP
OA
CC
P
CCP
AB429
Linkage
s
Court
Report
Date
Clie
nt
Last
Na
me
XX
XX
L/AB42
9
J
S
(OA
CWS)
CCP
CCP
CCP
CCP
JS
Client
First
name
Ethnicity
CWS
ID #
CWS
Svc
Com
p
SW
Dist #
CWS
Closure
Date
CWS
Outcome
+/-
XXX
X
Caucas
ian
XXXX
VFM
OLB
D
2/1/20
12
Positive
Data that is
collected
Sample Client data collected
CCP
CalWi
n Id #
XXXX
CCP
JS
(CALWIN)
Linkag
e JS
Dist #
WTW
STATUS
ABCD
Registere
d
JS
JS
CCP
OA
Remin
d
Empl
Status
No Emp
Sancti
on
Reocc
Y/N
Date
CCP
6 MO CCP
Review
signed
date
4/11/20
11
9/11/2011
PT Emp
FT Emp
No
Emp
N
J
S
JS
JS
CCP
G/C/
D
Y/N
No
Longer
Linkage
s
Secon
d CCP
Signe
d
2/1/20
12
OA
CCP
Recertificatio
n
AB429
Closed
date
2/1/20
12
EW TDM Datasheets
CalWORKs / WTW Active
Adults
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
01/11 02/11 03/11 04/11 05/11 06/11 07/11 08/11 09/11 10/11 11/11 12/11
Adults Active on CalWORKs
22
20
30
29
25
29
16
23
21
18
23
27
WTW Active Adults
13
13
12
15
17
17
11
12
13
12
13
11
WTW NON Participating Adults
9
7
18
14
8
12
5
11
8
6
10
16
WTW Exempt
7
2
11
9
5
6
2
7
7
6
8
14
WTW Never Enrolled
1
5
6
4
2
5
2
2
1
0
1
0
Teen Parent Cal Learn
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
1
2
NonNeedyPayee
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
WTW Adults for Given Month
TDM Referrals Sent to EW
Eligibility Worker TDM Datasheet Stats
EW TDM Datasheets
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
01/11
02/11
03/11
04/11
TDM Data Sheets
55
48
78
70
Adults
70
58
101
101
Adults on CalWorks Cas e
36
36
48
64
Adults no CalWorks Cas e
34
22
53
37
05/11
06/11
07/11
08/11
09/11
10/11
11/11
84
84
64
71
114
103
82
88
61
58
47
53
45
35
74
80
85
84
99
97
95
103
44
54
50
55
57
44
45
47
40
46
Number of TDM Datasheets Completed for Given Month
12/11
EW TDM Datasheets
Adults No CalWORKs Case
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
01/11
02/11
03/11
04/11
05/11
06/11
07/11
08/11
Adults No CalWORKs Cas e
34
22
53
37
53
45
35
44
No Public As s is tance
10
13
19
13
27
16
15
18
Active Cal Fres h Cas e
3
3
5
2
2
11
1
2
Active Medi-Cal Cas e
7
4
12
4
4
7
4
09/11
10/11
11/11
12/11
45
47
40
46
16
15
17
17
6
5
7
3
7
6
11
4
8
10
2
14
12
15
10
13
16
10
13
11
16
Pending Applications
4
0
2
4
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
AAP./ Fos ter Care/ GR
0
0
1
2
0
1
2
1
5
3
1
1
Active Cal Fres h / Medi-Cal Cas e
Adults / No Active CalWORKs Case for Given Month
#2302 - CalWORKs Referrals
35
CalWORKs Applications
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
01/11
02/11 03/11
04/11
05/11 06/11
07/11
08/11 09/11
10/11
11/11 12/11
#2302 CalWORKs Referrals
19
25
20
16
10
29
28
32
9
19
11
18
Return to Parent
15
20
16
9
7
21
19
25
6
16
9
13
Placed with Relative
4
5
4
7
3
8
9
7
3
3
2
5
Processed Return to Parent
9
11
15
8
7
9
9
11
3
6
5
9
Processed Placed w/Relative
2
4
4
4
1
5
3
3
3
1
1
3
Applications Pending
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
0
4
2
1
No Application Taken
8
8
3
4
2
14
12
11
2
6
2
5
Cal Fresh Only Applications
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Courtesy Applications
0
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Denied
0
2
2
0
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
0
CalWORKs Referrals / Applications for Given Month
EW T DM Datasheets
70
CalWORKs Adults
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
01/11 02/11 03/11 04/11 05/11 06/11 07/11 08/11 09/11 10/11 11/11 12/11
Adults with CalWORKs Cases
36
36
48
64
61
58
47
44
54
50
55
57
Adults Active on CalWORKs
22
20
30
29
25
29
16
23
21
18
23
27
Adults Not Active on CalWORKs
14
16
18
35
36
29
31
21
33
32
32
30
Sanction
5
5
7
9
6
8
4
3
5
7
9
2
Drug Felon
2
3
1
3
2
1
5
1
0
5
0
4
SSI
3
1
1
5
2
2
1
1
4
4
5
5
Time Out
3
6
6
9
15
7
16
9
9
11
12
11
Undocumented
1
1
1
5
6
5
1
4
7
2
6
3
Ineligible
0
0
2
4
5
6
4
3
8
3
0
5
CalWORKs Adults for Given Months
EW TDM Datasheet - 2011 Year in Review
2011 Totals
TDM Datasheets
877
Adults
1,111
Adults w/CalWORKs Case
610
Adults no CalWORKs Case
501
Adults Active CalWORKs
283
Adults Not Active CalWORKs
327
Sanction
70
Drug Felon
27
SSI
34
Time Out
114
Undocumented
42
Ineligible
40
Monthly Average
73
92
50
41
23
27
5
2
2
9
3
3
2011 Total
WTW Active Adults
WTW Non-Participating Adults
WTW Exempt
WTW Never Enrolled
Teen Parent
Non Needy Payee
No Public Assistance
Active Cal Fresh
Active Medi-Cal
Active Combo-CF&MC
Pending Applications
AAP/ GR
#2302 C/WORKs Referrals
Return To Parent
Placed w/Relative
Processed Return to Parent
Processed Placed w/Relative
Applications Pending
No Application Taken
Courtesy Applications
Denied
159
124
84
29
8
75
196
50
78
142
18
17
236
176
60
102
34
14
77
5
13
Monthly Average
13
10
7
2
6
16
4
6
11
1
1
19
14
5
8
2
1
6
1
Lessons Learned
• The amount of time that the Linkages data collection takes to
compile.
• Lack of communication at times between:
– JS/EW and SW
– JS & OA
– Linkages clients going to Intake rather than being referred
to Linkages Intake EW
• Current Excel collection method is not user friendly and is
difficult to access reports in a timely manner.
Future Plans
• Expand Linkages to Emergency Housing
population
• Expand Linkages to include Tribal TANF
• Development of a comprehensive Database
allowing to access reports at any given point
in time.
Linkages: A Collaborative Effort to Serve the
Needs of Clients: An Analysis of the
Implementation of the Linkages Program in
Madera County, Department of Social Services
Sarah Whittington
MSW Graduate Student
California State University, Fresno
In Collaboration with Madera County Department of Social
Services
Madera County at a Glance
Bureau of Labor Statistics & madera-county.com
•
•
•
•
•
LOCATION: Madera County is located in the exact
center of California, in the heart of the Central Valley
and the Central Sierras. Fresno County borders on
the south, Mariposa and Merced counties on the
north, and Mono County to the east.
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: 1,374,160 acres; 2,147
square miles, stretching from the rich San Joaquin
Valley to the crest of the Sierra Nevada, the highest
mountains in the contiguous United States. Bordered
on the north by the Chowchilla River and on the
south by the San Joaquin River, the County includes
some of the richest agricultural land in the nation.
CITIES: Chowchilla and Madera. Unincorporated
communities: Ahwahnee, Bass Lake, Berenda,
Coarsegold, Fairmead, Madera Ranchos, North
Fork, Oakhurst, O'Neals, Raymond, and Rolling Hills.
ECONOMY & EMPLOYMENT : Agriculture is the
largest industry in the county, accounting for 29.9%
of the employment. Government, another significant
sector, accounts for 19.5% and services makes up
16.8% of the total. The county’s leading commodities
include: almonds, grapes, milk, and pistachios.
UNEMPLOYMENT: The Bureau of Labor Statistics
has the unemployment rate in Madera County at
11.6 % in September 2012, down from a revised
13.0% percent in August 2012.
Madera County At A Glance
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 2011 Madera County
Population as estimated by the US
Census Bureau equals 152,925.
Persons under the age of 18 equal
28.2% of the population. (CA =
24.6%)
Hispanic/Latino = 54.5% of the
Madera Co. population. (CA =
38.1%)
White = 37.5% of the Madera Co.
population. (CA = 39.7%)
American Indian = 4.5% of the
Madera Co. population. (CA =
1.7%)
Black = 4.4% of the Madera Co.
population. (CA = 6.6%)
•
•
•
•
•
Asian = 2.2% of the Madera Co.
population. (CA = 13.6%)
Percentage of high school
graduates in Madera Co. = 67.9%
(CA = 80.7%)
Percentage of Madera County
population with a Bachelors
degree or higher = 13.5% (CA =
30.1%)
Median household income, 20062010 = $46,039 (CA = $60,883)
Percentage of persons in Madera
County living below the poverty
level, 2006-2010 = 19.3% (CA =
13.7%)
Madera County Department of Social Services:
2011 Madera County DSS Client Profile
•
July 2011 (Client Profile) Program
and Number of Clients
CALWORKS = 8,782
FOOD STAMPS (NON-CALWORKS) = 17,559
MEDI-CAL (NON-CALWORKS) = 33,165
CMSP = 2,437
GENERAL ASSISTANCE = 114
ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES = 106
IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES =1,426
CHILD WELFARE SERVICES = 330
PUBLIC GUARDIAN = 152
Total Number of Individuals Served by our
Department = 64,071
Linkages: A Collaborative Effort to Serve the Needs of
Clients: An Analysis of the
Implementation of the Linkages Program in
Madera County, Department of Social Services
Research Completed By California State University,
Department of Social Work Education
Graduate Student: Sarah Whittington in Partnership with Madera County DSS
Background and Impetus
•
The current Linkages Program/Policy that exists in Madera County (pilot Linkages project in 2003, formal Linkages policy
approved 2011) is the result of many different progressions of research and a combination of various legislative efforts.
•
Poverty and Child Maltreatment
•
Between 2000 and 2009, the number of poor children (children living in families earning 100% or less of the federal
poverty level) increased by 33% (Chau et al., 2010).
•
The correlation between poverty and child maltreatment is a phenomena that has been widely studied and has come
to be recognized as one the strongest predictors of child maltreatment.
•
The Fourth National Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (NIS-4) explains that children from low socioeconomic status
households experienced some form of maltreatment at a rate of more than 5 times the rate for children from higher
socioeconomic statuses (Sedlak, Mettenburg, Basenaer, Petta, McPherson, Greene, & Li, 2010).
•
It is of no great surprise that families experiencing more economic hardships, such as unemployment, homelessness,
food insecurity and loss of utility services are at greater risk of coming to the attention of Child Welfare Services .
•
It has been shown that within the state of California, 60% of the children involved in Child Welfare Services, have a
history of Aid to Dependent Families (AFDC) and/or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) use (Garrison, 2011).
•
Recent federal and state efforts and legislation have moved the Child Welfare System into a more empirical direction,
in which specific outcomes based on the effectiveness of the agency in serving clients (safety, permanence and
wellbeing) is assessed and reported to the state and federal levels (The 1997 Adoptions and Safe Families Act
(ASFA) & The 2011 Child Welfare Systems Outcomes and Accountability Act, also known as AB 636).
•
AB 429 mandates continued WTW services for families dually involved in CWS and CalWORKs (CA TANF).
Hypotheses/ Research Question
• Research Question
• Is the Madera County Linkages Program/Policy, which includes interagency
collaboration between CalWORKs and Child Welfare Services to holistically serve
dual clients with a plethora of service needs, being fully implemented by the
parties involved (CalWORKS workers, social workers, supervisors, agency
administrators) with current Linkages cases?
• Hypothesis One
• If the written Linkages policy in Madera County Department of Social Services is
(or is not) being fully implemented by the designated employees, the quantitative
data (secondary data analysis) will show the presence (or absence) of the
elements of the policy in the documented work being done for clients.
• Hypothesis Two
• If the written Linkages policy in Madera County Department of Social Services is
(or is not) being fully implemented by the designated employees, the qualitative
data (worker surveys) will show the presence (or absence) of the elements of the
policy in the work they describe being done for clients.
• Research Design/Rationale
• Pre experimental, focused on one cohort in one agency, without control group.
• Study is exploratory and descriptive in nature, due to sparse research on this
topic.
• Instrumentation
• The Linkages Case Audit Survey Using Secondary Data Analysis is a quantitative
case audit tool based directly on the Madera County Linkages Program Policy.
(Approved by MCDSS leadership)
• The Linkages Child Welfare Services Social Worker Survey and the Linkages
CalWORKs Worker Survey were developed to collect qualitative data. (pilot
studied)
• Procedures
• The data used for secondary analysis as outlined in the Linkages Case Audit
Survey Using Secondary Data Analysis was gathered from CWS/CMS and CIV
Databases and Child Welfare Services and CalWORKs hard cases.
• The Linkages Child Welfare Services Social Worker Survey and the Linkages
CalWORKs Worker Survey, the letters of informed consent and posted envelopes
were distributed to the Madera County DSS worker participants via Madera
County interdepartmental mail and mailed directly back to the student researcher.
Sample-Study Participants
• Secondary Data Analysis
• A convenience sample of the 15 Linkages cases open between
9/12/2011 and 10/10/2011 were analyzed.
• Staff Surveys
• 50% response rate (11 of 22 surveyed responded)
• Participants included: 6 Child Welfare staff, 4 Welfare to
Work Staff and 1 Eligibility Worker (Total of 5 CalWORKs
staff).
Data Analysis
• Secondary Data Analysis
• The quantitative data gathered from the Linkages Case Audit
Survey Using Secondary Data Analysis was analyzed using the
Statistical Package for the Social Services (SPSS) to provide
descriptive statistics.
• Staff Surveys
• Content analysis, specifically, thematic coding was used to
assess the Child Welfare Services Social Worker Survey and the
Linkages CalWORKs Worker Survey responses.
• Elements of grounded theory data analysis
Results
Summary of Quantitative Data Analysis
•
8 of 15 cases had no documentation of the ER social workers consultation or tandem visit with
WTW case manager at the onset of the Linkages referral.
•
Of the 10 cases audited that did result in a protective hold on the children, only 1 of the CWS cases
had documentation of the ER worker inviting the WTW case manager or the EW worker to the
detention staffing.
•
14 of the 15 cases analyzed (whether opening to FM or FR), the CWS social worker did arrange for
a Linkages Staffing with the family, WTW case manager and EW. However, all but three of these
staffing were not held within the designated 7 day period from opening the case.
•
A MAD 454 Coordinated Case Plan was documented in 13 of the 15 total cases reviewed.
•
8 of 15 had documentation of the CWS social workers notification to the parents for their
attendance at the Linkages Staffing.
•
12 of 15 did not have the Linkages staffing appropriately documented as Family Engagement
Efforts (FEE) in the CWS/CMS database.
•
7 of the 9 cases that were maintained in FR, all but 2 cases continued to receive CalWORKs
services under AB 429 and had the appropriate FR aid code updated after 30 days.
Sample of Graphs and Tables
Generated from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables Generated
from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables
Generated from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables
Generated from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables
Generated from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables
Generated from SPSS
Sample of Graphs and Tables Generated
from SPSS
Results
Summary of Qualitative Data Analysis
•
All but one of the workers of both CWS and CalWORKs indicated that they had attended at least
one Linkages training and many had attended several within the last few years.
•
All but two respondents from both CWS and CalWORKs indicated that they did have collateral
contact with their counterparts when managing a Linkages case. However, the frequency and
purpose of these collaterals was not consistently practiced or understood.
•
7 of the 11 respondents did state that they complete the MAD 454 Coordinated Case Plans and
Detention Staffing C-IV Datasheets for all of their Linkages cases.
•
The majority of the CWS staff respondents reporting that they indeed had failed to document
Linkages activities that they had completed.
•
the majority of both the CalWORKs and CWS staff agree that the coordinated case planning has
made it easier for Linkages clients to comply with both the CalWORKs and Child Welfare case
plans.
•
there was mixed responses from both CWS and CalWORKs staff regarding what they saw as the
impact of the Linkages Program on poverty and child maltreatment in the Linkages cases.
•
Staff members from both CWS and CalWORKs indicated that more ongoing training, flexibility of
funding, engagement of parents and increased communication across programs is needed.
Discussion
•
Both the Linkages Case Audit Survey Using Secondary Data Analysis and The Linkages Child Welfare
Services Social Worker Survey and the Linkages CalWORKs Worker Survey did provide quantitative and
qualitative evidence of whether or not the Madera County Linkages Policy/Program is being fully
implemented by the designated employees. In turn, the conclusions about these two hypotheses allowed
the student researcher to draw conclusions about the overall research question.
•
The analysis of the data suggests that the core elements of the Linkages Policy/Program, as written in
Madera County Department of Social Services, are being carried out, such as the joint Linkages staffings
and the coordinated case planning. However, other parts of the written policy, such as collateral contacts,
tandem visits, specific Linkages documentation in the data systems, timely staffing with all required parties
present, parental notification and communication regarding the detention staffings are not occurring on a
consistent basis and or are not being documented properly.
•
Staff also seemed to indicate that they understand the impact of Linkages on individual clients and cases
but do not seem to recognize the philosophy behind the creation of Linkages, which includes the
recognition of one of the prevailing root issues of child maltreatment, poverty, indicating more training and
coaching may be needed.
•
Overall, it appears that the core elements of the policy are being carried out; yet, consistent
documentation, clear direction and purpose seem to be lacking. Therefore, although great progress has
been made in terms of the implementation of the Linkages Program/Policy in Madera County, the
quantitative and qualitative data reveals that the Linkages Program/Policy is not being fully implemented
at this time.
Implications for the Future
• The research findings may lead to more valid outcome studies of the Madera County
Linkages Program in the future, since this study informs the degree of fidelity to the
policy itself.
•
Also, further study may be done on the financial imperatives of inter-agency/interdepartmental collaboration and the cost savings to counties from reducing duplicate
services and providing joint services through more flexible funding streams.
• Through the course of this study the need for more consistent and more worker
friendly documentation methods for linkages related activities became apparent.
• Due to the increasingly important role of collaboration between child welfare agencies
and other social service agencies for the provision of multiple and complex needs of
the clients, this study helps to inform the departments and the academic community
about the status of this collaborative effort between CalWORKs and CWS (Linkages)
in Madera County in terms of implementing the Linkages policy and program.
• This study also extend the literature on inter-agency and inter-departmental
collaboration, a growing filed of study.
Follow Up: we’ll email with…
– Copy of this PowerPoint
– Updated Linkages Coordinators Directory
Next Webinar
– December 4th 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
Helping Sanctioned Linkages Families Succeed:
Best Practices From the Field