THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK
COURSE NUMBER:
COURSE TITLE:
SEMESTER AND YEAR:
TIMES:
LOCATION:
INSTRUCTOR:
OFFICE HOURS:
SOWO 739
Child Welfare Policy Practice and Advocacy
Spring Semester, 2016
Tuesdays, 9:00 – 10:20 a.m.
Tate-Turner-Kuralt Building, Room 102
Mark Testa, Ph.D.
Spears-Turner Distinguished Professor
School of Social Work
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
325 Pittsboro St., Campus Box 3550
Chapel Hill, NC 25599-3550
Tel: (919) 962-6496 Fax: (919) 962-1486
mtesta@unc.edu
245-E, Monday, 12:00 – 1:30 pm or by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course engages students in the process of child welfare
policy practice and advocacy to formulate, analyze, implement, evaluate and
disseminate evidence-informed policies and interventions at all system levels.
COURSE OBJECTIVES: At the conclusion of this class students will be able to:
1. Demonstrate current knowledge of organizational, local, state, and federal
policies and proposed legislation that affect child welfare systems at all
levels.
2. Recognize the importance of historical, social, cultural, economic,
organizational, environmental, and global influences on policy formulation.
3. Apply knowledge of human behavior and the social environment to analyze
child welfare policies that impact client systems, organizations, and
communities.
4. Engage in research-informed policy practice to assess the strength of
evidence in support of a specific policy intervention or opposed to an existing
policy practice.
5. Use ethical principles to decide if existing child welfare policy policies and
practices are meritorious or are in need of change.
6. Engage in policy practice to effect changes that decrease discrimination and
oppression and in advocacy efforts to promote fairness and inclusion.
7. Demonstrate the analytical, theoretical, and value assessment skills to
evaluate the effects of contextual history on policy formulation and
implementation and choose the current context that is favorable for policy
advocacy.
1
8. Decide whether to focus policy advocacy at the local, state, federal, or
international level and whether to seek change in public policy or in the rules
and guidelines of a non-governmental or international organization.
9. Differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate uses of electronic
communications and technology in policy advocacy.
10. Develop leadership strategies for collaborating within and across systems
and empowering individuals or populations excluded from or limited by
aspects of a child welfare policy to advocate for the safety, family
permanence, and social and emotional well-being of children and families.
EXPANDED DESCRIPTION:
Child welfare, broadly conceived, refers to collective action by government and
its fiduciary and contractual agents to protect, care for, and potentially decide
upon the guardianship of children who have been abused or neglected by their
parents. Once considered a tame problem that was readily solvable by removing
maltreated children from their homes and placing them into substitute care, the
problems of public child welfare have become increasingly wicked over the
decades. They have become wicked because definitions of the sources of the
problem oscillate between fixing the blame individually on inadequate and
irresponsible parents versus locating the causes in the group inequities and toxic
stresses of the broader social environment. Whatever the source, parental blame
and environmental stress are both understood as interconnected to a host of
other problems, such a parental drug abuse, interpersonal partner violence, and
unmarried parenthood, at the individual level, and concentrated poverty,
institutional racism, and ineffective social policies, at the group level. Because of
the contradictory definitions and complex interconnections, there is little
consensus on whether a narrow focus on child safety or a more diffuse concern
with the social and emotional well-being of vulnerable children is the
appropriate scope of public interest or even what metrics should be used for
gauging success.
This course will focus on enhancing policy practice and advocacy skills that will
help to advance evidence-informed solutions to the wicked problems of child
welfare in the following key areas: 1) harnessing the natural motivations of
parents and kinship caregivers; 2) reversing the adverse effects of child
maltreatment on brain development; 3) evaluating the causal effects of out-ofhome care; 4) sustaining family continuity after legal permanence; 5)
incentivizing public and voluntary agency performance in the delivery of child
welfare services; and 6) building credible evidence for what works with pay-forsuccess (PFS) contracts.
REQUIRED READINGS:
Mallon, G. P. & Hess, P. M. (2014). Child welfare for the 21st century: A handbook of
practices, policies, and programs, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University
Press.
2
Nelson, C.A., Fox, N.A. & Zeanah, C.H. (2014). Romania’s abandoned children:
Deprivation, brain development, and the struggle for recovery. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Other required and supplemental readings (articles, newspaper series, and
selected book chapters) will be posted on Sakai.
TEACHING METHODS
Teaching methods will include lecture, discussion, presentations, case scenarios,
and in-class policy debates. Full engagement is essential to your learning
process in the class, and will allow you to apply successfully the course material
in a way that is personally and professionally meaningful.
POLICY ON CLASS ATTENDANCE AND PARTICIPATION:
Students are expected to attend every class and come prepared to share concepts from
the readings, ask questions, and respond to questions about the materials. If you
should need to miss a class session for any reason, e-mail me your reasons for
missing class prior to the day of the session. An unexcused class absence may result
in a loss of points from your grade for active participation (see Grading Components
below). Any student who foresees difficulty with fulfilling the class attendance
requirements should speak with me at the beginning of the semester so that
alternative forms of participation can be arranged.
POLICIES ON THE USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CLASSROOM:
I expect that we will all be invested in creating a learning environment of respect
and engagement. I welcome the use of laptops in class for taking notes or
completing small group tasks. However, I ask that you use them only for
relevant activities – not for checking email or surfing the Web. During class, cell
phones and other devices should be silenced.
ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES:
Students with disabilities that affect their participation in the course should
notify the instructor if they wish to have special accommodations in
instructional format, examination format, etc., considered. Accommodations and
services are provided by Disability Services (Voice/TDD 962-8300; 966-4041).
Learning Disability Services (962-7227) provides supportive services for
students with learning disabilities and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorders.
POLICY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY:
Academic dishonesty is contrary to the ethics of the social work profession,
unfair to other students, and will not be tolerated in any form. All written
assignments should include the following signed pledge: “I have neither given nor
received unauthorized aid in preparing this written work.” Omission of a
statement to this effect will result in the return of your assignment without a
grade. It’s OK to receive help as long as you acknowledge the assistance in your
3
signed pledge, e.g., “I have received editorial aid in preparing this written work.”
In keeping with the UNC Honor Code, if reason exists to believe that academic
dishonesty has occurred, a referral will be made to the Office of the Student
Attorney General for investigation and further action as required. Please refer to
the APA Style Guide for information on attribution of quotes, plagiarism, and
appropriate citation.
POLICY ON INCOMPLETES AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS:
Late assignments are strongly discouraged, but may be accepted in some cases.
All assignments are due at the beginning of class on the day noted. You must
contact me prior to a due date if you would like to request an extension, or you
will lose 10% of the assignment’s points per day (including weekends and the
date on which the assignment was due, if submitted after the beginning of class).
Incompletes may be granted if (a) there are extreme and unforeseeable
circumstances that affect your ability to complete the semester’s work, and (b)
you meet with me in advance to develop a plan and timeline for completing your
work.
ASSIGNMENT GUIDELINES:
APA format should be used for all written assignments. Students should refer to the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.) for
information on APA format. A self-paced APA tutorial can be found at
http://www2.lib.unc.edu/instruct/citations/index.html?section=apa
ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTIONS:
Descriptions of the course assignments are below. All written assignments
should be submitted electronically on Sakai before midnight on the day prior to
when they are due. As needed, we will discuss further guidelines and resources
as we move through the semester.
Assignment 1: Wicked Problems Policy Debates
February 16, March 22, March 29 & April 12
Four students will be assigned to two-person debate teams that will advocate
for and against a child welfare resolution in four 50 minute policy debates
scheduled for weeks 6, 11, 12 & 14. The “affirmative” team presents a case in
support of the resolution. The “negative” team argues against the resolution.
A judge will be selected for each debate to assess the relative merits of the
arguments and evidence put forth by the participant speakers.
The resolutions that will be debated are as follows:
 Wicked Policy Debate I—Resolved: Co-Sleeping with Infants Should Be
Outlawed as Child Maltreatment
 Wicked Policy Debate II—Resolved: Developmental Trauma Disorder for
Children and Adolescents Should Be Included in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
4


Wicked Policy Debate III—Resolved: Adoption Should Be Ruled Out
Before Relatives Are Permitted to Become Subsidized Permanent
Guardians
Wicked Policy Debate IV—Resolved: Racial Disproportionality in Child
Welfare is an Indicator of Racial Bias
The format of the policy debates will be reviewed in class.
Assignment 2: Advocacy Exercise
Due Midnight February29/March 1
For this assignment, you will develop a 200- 800 word (½ to 1¾ pages, single
spaced) advocacy statement based on one of the following readings: 1) The
complicated, short life of Laquan McDonald (December 11, 2015) Chicago
Tribune; 2) A. Fisher’s, Finding Fish (2001), New York: Harper Torch; or 3) A.
Bridge’s Hope’s Boy (2008), New York: Hyperion. Your advocacy statement
should address a program or policy issue raised by the reading, which is
relevant to child protection and child welfare services. You can format your
statement as a 200-250 word letter to the editor, a 300-500 word letter to an
elected official, or a 600 -800 word OP-ED submission to a newspaper. In any
case, you should clearly convey the issue of concern, cite relevant data (e.g.
demographic, economic), identify issues of discrimination or social injustice,
and propose a viable and ethical solution. You can focus on the local, state, or
national level, as desired.
Prior to preparing your advocacy statement, outline in a theoretical note the
following: a) The value orientation(s) of the official, newspaper, or audience
you want to reach; b) the social construction of the vulnerable target
population on whose behalf you are advocating; c) the type of benefit you
hope to increase or burden you hope to decrease; and d) the rational and
non-rational components of the claims you intend to make to bolster your
arguments. Attach your theoretical note as an appendix to your advocacy
statement. The note should draw from the lecture and the required and
supplemental readings from Week 4.
Regardless of format, your statement will be graded according to the
following criteria:
 Mechanics (grammar, spelling, style, typing)
 Organization and logic of arguments
 Content (e.g. data, evidence, policy analysis, implications)
 Ability to summarize and draw conclusions
 Congruence with theoretical note
5
Assignment 3: Pay for Success Request for Information (RFI)
Due Midnight April 25/26
This assignment asks you to respond to a Request for Information (RFI)
regarding the use of Pay for Success contracts to improve outcomes for
children and families involved in the child welfare system. Your response
should be limited to 10 double-spaced pages (exclusive of tables, charts and
references).
A standard Pay for Success contract, or Social Impact Bond, is an agreement
between a government and a private organization to provide services with
private investment for a set period of time. Private investors provide upfront
funding and receive payment, including a return on investment, if the service
meets benchmarks for outcomes, which usually involve cost savings and
social benefit. The private investors bear the risk for missed benchmarks.
Your response to the RFI should include: 1) an executive summary; 2) the
role your organization would play in a pay for success contract and any
potential partners you have identified to fill other roles; (3) the nature of the
program your organization wishes to implement and the target population
you intend to serve, (4) the child welfare outcomes to be achieved and
existing evidence for baseline comparisons, (5) the evaluation design that
will be used, and (6) the projected cost per service unit without the program
and the projected cashable savings anticipated over the full contractual
period, which can be used to provide a return on investment if the
benchmarks for outcomes are met.
SUMMARY OF COURSE EVALUATION COMPONENTS AND GRADING SCALE:
Grades will be assigned based on the following components and weights:
Policy Debates
30
Advocacy Statement
30
Request for Information
30
Active Participation
10
Total
100
94 – 100 = H
80 - 93 = P
70 – 79 = L
<70
=F
6
COURSE OUTLINE, READINGS, AND DUE DATES
Date
Topic & Readings
Week 1
Jan 12
Wicked Problems, Grand Challenges and Evidence-Based Policymaking
Week 2
Jan 19
Evolution of Child Welfare Policy and Practice
Assignments
due
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 11-43.
Nelson, Fox & Zeanah, ch. 3
Supplemental Reading:
Skolnick, A. (1997). The triple revolution: Social sources of family
change. In S. Dreman (Ed.) The family on the threshold of
the 21st century: Trends and implications (pp. 167-180).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Week 3
Jan 26
Child Maltreatment, Brain Development, and Psychosocial Well-Being
Required Readings:
Nelson, Fox & Zeanah, chs. 1 & 6.
Mallon & Hess, pp. 115-144.
Supplemental Readings: What is the Appropriate Scope of Public Child
Welfare Interest Beyond Safety and Permanence?
Wulczyn, F., Barth, R.P., Yuan, Y.T. Harden, B.J. & Landverk, J.
(2005). Beyond common sense: Child welfare, child wellbeing and the evidence for policy reform (pp. 167-190).
New Brunswick: Aldine Transaction.
Testa, M. F. & Poertner, J. (2010). Child Welfare in the 21st Century.
In M. F. Testa, & J. Poertner (Eds.), Fostering accountability:
Using evidence to guide and improve child welfare policy
(pp. 35-74). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rindos, J.M. (2008). Note- Fallen on deaf ears: Deshaney revisited.
The Quinnipiac Probate Law Journal, 21(3&4), 321-344.
Week 4
Feb 2
Policy Practice and Theoretical Perspectives
Required Reading:
Jansson, B. S. (2011). Becoming an effective policy advocate: From policy
practice to social justice. Belmont, CA: Books/Cole, pp. 79-87.
Supplemental Readings:
7
Date
Topic & Readings
Assignments
due
O’Connor, M.K. & Netting, F.E. (2010). Analyzing social policy:
Multiple perspectives for critically understanding and
evaluating policy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Chs. 4 & 6.
Kahan, D. K. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the
cultural theory of risk. In S. Roeser, R. Hillerbarnd, P.
Sandin & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory (pp.
726-759). New York: Springer.
Schneider, A. & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target
populations: implications for politics and policy. The
American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334-347.
Week 5
Feb 9
Attachment, Psychopathology, and the Alternative Care of Children
Guest Lecturer: Warren Ludwig, Jordan Institute for Families Fellow
Required Readings:
Nelson, Fox & Zeanah, chs. 5, 10-11.
Humphreys, K., Gleason, M., Drury, S., Miron, D., Nelson, C., Fox, N. &
Zeanah, C. (2015). Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on
psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: Follow-up of an
open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(7), 625634.
Supplemental Readings:
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation. (2013). National
survey of child and adolescent well-being, II (NSCAW II)
Child Well-Being Spotlights. Washington, DC:
Administration of Children and Families.
Pires, S.A., Grimes, K.E., Allen, K.D., Gilmer, T., & Mahadevan, R. M.
(2013). Identifying opportunities to improve children’s
behavioral health care: An analysis of Medicaid utilization
and expenditures. Faces of Medicaid Data Brief (December),
Hamilton, NJ: Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc., pp. 7 &
13.
Courtney, M.E., Dworsky, A., Lee, J.S. & Raap, M. (2010). Midwest
evaluation of the adult functioning of former foster youth:
Outcomes at ages 23 and 24- Executive summary. Chicago &
Seattle, WA: Chapin Hall & Partners for Our Children.
Week 6
Feb 16
Wicked Policy Debate I—Resolved: Co-Sleeping with Infants Should Be
Outlawed as Child Maltreatment
Policy Debate
I
8
Date
Topic & Readings
Assignments
due
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 207-235.
Additional Readings for Debaters:
Colson, E.R., Willinger, M., Rybin, D., Heeren, T., Smith, L.A., Lister,
G. & Corwin, M.J. (2013). Trends and factors associated
with infant bed sharing, 1993-2010: The national infant
sleep position study. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(11), 1032-1037.
Bergman, A.B. (2003). Bed sharing per se is not dangerous. JAMA
Pediatrics, 167(11), 998-999.
McKenna, J.J. & McDade, T. (2005) Why babies should never sleep
alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation
to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding. Paediatric
Respiratory Reviews, 6, 132-152.
Week 7
Feb 23
Child Protective Services, Family Support and Preservation
Guest Lecturer: Warren Ludwig, Jordan Institute for Families Fellow
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 236-252, 51-69 & 270-287.
Supplemental Readings: Should Differential Response Be Scaled-Up to
Support and Preserve Families
Loman, L. A. & Siegel, G.A. (2004). Minnesota alternative response
evaluation: Final report. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied
Research.
Stahl, B. (2014, October 13). Hennepin County judge 'sickened' by
abuse program's failures. Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/hennepincounty-judge-sickened-by-abuse-program-sfailures/278908851/
Week 8
Mar 1
Residential Treatment and Transitional Living Services
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 498-515, 467-479.
Supplemental Readings: Should Residential Treatment Be Eliminated
from the Continuum of Alternative Care?
Advocacy
Statement
Due before
midnight
February
28/March 1
9
Date
Topic & Readings
Assignments
due
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Rightsizing congregate care: A
powerful first step in transforming child welfare systems.
Baltimore, MD: Author.
Barth, R. (2002). Institutions vs. foster homes: The empirical base
for a century of action. Chapel Hill, NC: Jordan Institute for
Families.
Courtney, M. & Huering, D. H. (2005). The transition to adulthood
for youth “aging out” of foster care. In D.W. Osgood, M.E.
Foster, C. Flanagan, & G.E. Ruth (Eds.) On your own without
a net: The transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations
(pp. 27-67). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Week 9
Mar 8
Foster Family, Kinship Care, and Placement Stability
Guest Discussant: Carol Williams Spigner, Kenneth L. M. Pray Distinguished
Professor/Clinician Educator, University of Pennsylvania, School of Social
Policy and Practice
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 382-400, 480-497 & 583-600.
Supplemental Readings: Is kinship foster care riskier than foster family
care for the safety, permanence, and well-being of children?
Testa, M. F. (2013). Systems of kinship care: Enduring challenges
and emerging opportunities. Journal of Family Social Work,
16(5), 349-363.
Winokur, M., Holtan, A. & Batchelder, K. E. (2014). Kinship care for
the safety, permanency, and well-being of children Week
11 Mar 24removed from the home for maltreatment: A
systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2, 1-292.
Week
10 Mar
15
No Class (Spring Break)
Week
11
Mar 22
Wicked Policy Debate II—Resolved: Developmental Trauma Disorder for
Children and Adolescents Should Be Included in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
Policy Debate
II
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 288-338.
10
Date
Topic & Readings
Assignments
due
Additional Readings for Debaters:
D’Andrea, W., Ford, J. Stolbach, B., Spinazzola, J. & von der Kolk, B.
(2012). Understanding interpersonal trauma in children:
Why we need a developmentally appropriate trauma
diagnosis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 187200.
Browning, C. R. & Laumann, E.O. (1997). Sexual contact between
children and adults: A life course perspective. American
Sociological Review, 62(4), 540-560.
Schmid, M., Petermann, F. & Fegert, J.M. (2013). Developmental
trauma disorder: Pros and cons of including formal criteria
in the psychiatric diagnostic systems. BMC Psychiatry, 13,
1-12.
Week
12 Mar
29
Wicked Policy Debate III—Resolved: Adoption Should Be Ruled Out Before
Relatives Are Permitted to Become Subsidized Permanent
Guardians
Policy Debate
III
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 355-381, 401-423, 455-466.
Additional Readings for Debaters:
Bartholet, E. (1999). Nobody’s children (pp. 59-97). Boston: Beacon
Press.
Coupet, S. (2005). Swimming upstream against the great adoption
tide: Making the case for "impermanence." Capitol
University Law Review, 34, 405-458.
Week
13 Apr
5
Child Welfare Administration and Performance Incentives
Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 601-615, 624-643.
Supplemental Readings: Are Market Incentives Superior to Fiduciary
Ethics in Improving Child Welfare Agency Performance?
Taylor, K. & Shaver, M. (2010). Performance-based contracting:
Aligning incentives with outcomes to produce results. In M.
F. Testa & J. Poertner (Eds.), Fostering accountability: Using
evidence to guide and improve child welfare policy (pp. 291327). New York: Oxford University Press.
Meezan, W. & McBeath, B. (2008). Market-based disparities in
foster care outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review,
30(4), 388–406.
11
Date
Week
14 Apr
12
Topic & Readings
Wicked Policy Debate IV—Resolved: Racial Disproportionality in Child
Welfare is an Indicator of Racial Bias
Assignments
due
Policy Debate
IV
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 680-693, 710-720.
Additional Readings for Debaters:
Drake, J. (2008). The African-American child welfare act: a legal
redress for African-American disproportionality in child
protection cases. Berkeley Journal of African-American Law
and Policy, 10(1), 109-145.
Bartholet, E. (2009). The racial disproportionality movement in
child welfare: False facts and dangerous directions. Arizona
Law Review, 51(4), 871-931.
Week
15 Apr
19
Post-Permanency Services
Required Readings:
Mallon & Hess, pp. 437-454, 543-566.
Supplemental Readings: Should Post-Permanency Services Be a Publicly
Funded Program?
Liao, M. & Testa, M.F. (2014). Post-adoption and guardianship: An
evaluation of the adoption preservation, assessment, and
linkage (APAL) program. Research on Social Work Practice,
1-11.
Testa, M. F., Snyder, S.M., Wu, Q., Rolock, N. & Liao, M. (2015).
Adoption and guardianship: A moderated mediation
analysis of predictors of post-permanency continuity.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(2), 107–118
Week
16 Apr
26
The Future of Child Welfare
RFI due
before
midnight Apr
25/26
12