SOWO 709 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WORK COURSE NUMBER: SOWO 709 COURSE TITLE: Service Members, Veterans, and their Families: Toward an Integrative Perspective for Social Work Practice SEMESTER: Spring 2011 (Tuesday, 5:30‐8:20 PM, RM 439 in TTK) PROFESSOR: Gary L. Bowen, Ph.D., ACSW Kenan Distinguished Professor School of Social Work 325 Pittsboro Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27599‐3550 Office Phone: 919‐962‐6542 Home Phone: 919‐967‐3196 Mobile: 919‐448‐4058 Email: glbowen@email.unc.edu OFFICE HOURS: Tuesday (1:00 – 4:00 p.m.)/By Appointment UNC‐CH Safe Zone COURSE DESCRIPTION: An application of behavioral and social science theories and research to examine the resilience of service members, veterans, and their families and communities in the context of adversity with implications for practice. OBJECTIVES: By course end, students will: 1. Understand the military culture, core values, language, and lifestyle and how these influence social work practice at the micro, mezzo, and macro levels . 2. Appreciate the special nature of military service as an occupational choice. 3. Appreciate the special opportunities and challenges faced by different populations of service members and veterans across the work and family life course, including DoD civilians and noncombatant uniformed service members. 4. Understand the role of research and theory in evidence‐based social work practice. 5. Understand the reciprocal and dynamic links among theory, research, and evidence‐based social work practice within the context of military social work. 6. Understand distinctions between problem theory and program theory in addressing social problems faced by service members, veterans, and their families and communities. 1 SOWO 709 7. Understand the development and application of problem and program theories, including 2 the development of evidence‐based interventions in the context of personal identities and statuses, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (pay grade), disability status, religion, sexual orientation, and culture and history. 8. Apply specific explanatory theories for framing and understanding social problems faced by service members, veterans, and their families and communities, and develop conceptual models from these theories to inform models and processes of assessment, intervention, and evaluation. 9. Evidence awareness of and respect for military and veteran cultures, and potential boundary and integration issues at the interface between these cultures and social work values and ethics. 10. Gain self‐awareness to eliminate the influence of personal biases and values that may interfere with assuming leadership and conducting effective social work practice in addressing issues and challenges faced by service members, veterans, and their families and communities. EXPANDED DESCRIPTION: This course examines variations in the ability of service members, veterans, and their families to meet their role responsibilities in the context of the positive challenges, as well as the adversities, commonly encountered in the context of life and military service. Multiple theories and conceptual perspectives are used to build an integrative perspective for social work practice with military populations. In the context of both theory and the empirical research, students will evidence competency in conceptualizing social problems for purposes of informing intervention planning at the policy, program, and direct practice levels. Students will identify a specific social problem faced by service members, veterans, their families or their communities; describe its incidence/prevalence and significance for social work intervention; specify a problem theory for understanding variation in the social problem; and specify a program theory, including identifying one or more evidence‐based interventions associated with treatment and/or prevention of the social problem. A special theme in this course is the importance of knowing about and appreciating the history, culture, composition, and mission of the armed forces in the delivery of effective social work services—the basis for contextual military social work practice. CLASSES: January 11, January 18, January 25, February 1, February 8, February 15, February 22, March 1, March 8 (no class, Spring Break), March 15, March 22, March 29, April 5, April 12, April 19, April 26 SOWO 709 MAIN TEXTS: MacDermid‐Wadsworth, S., & Riggs, D. (2010). Risk and resilience in U.S. military families. New York: Springer. (ISBN 978‐1‐4419‐7063‐3) (On Reserve) Defense Centers of Excellence (2010). A handbook for family & friends of service members before, during and after deployment. Vulcan Productions. (Copies available from Professor Bowen) http://www.realwarriors.net/materials/order/PBSHandbook.php The Defense Centers of Excellence (DCoE) recently collaborated with PBS to produce a handbook for military families. Created as a companion to the PBS series "This Emotional Life," A Handbook for Family & Friends of Service Members explores the stressors and feelings individuals may encounter throughout the different phases of deployment. The handbook aims to provide solutions for Service members and identifies outside tools and resources that may be useful to friends and family members before, during and after deployment. Topics include what to expect during deployment and how to strengthen or repair relationships (quoted from Website). A detailed list of Websites are listed from page 119 to page 137. Order the handbooks from the Real Warriors Campaign website at http://www.realwarriors.net/materials/order. SUPPLEMENTAL TEXTS: Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. H. (2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. New York: Oxford University Press. (ISBN 978‐0‐19‐532549‐2) Boss, P. (2002). Family stress management: A Contextual Approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (ISBN 0‐8039‐7389‐X) [Paperback] TEACHING METHODS: This course has been designed to maximize student involvement, and it will be facilitated using a transformative learning model. From this model, students work with the instructor as full partners in assuming responsibility for the success of the course. BAD WEATHER POLICY: Please check your email by 7:00 a.m. on the day of class in case of snow, ice or other threatening and/or unsafe conditions. Use your best judgment about travel safety if you are driving to Chapel Hill from surrounding areas with inclement weather or threatening and/or unsafe conditions. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me. 3 SOWO 709 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT: 4 Class Attendance Students are expected to attend all class sessions, and classes will begin and end on time. If there is some reason that you cannot attend a class, please contact the instructor or leave a message for the instructor at the School of Social Work (919‐962‐6542). Students who miss two class sessions will be penalized by one letter grade (special exceptions may apply). Students who miss three or more class sessions will receive an "F" as their final grade for the class. Email Accounts All students are required to have a valid UNC email account. A valid UNC email address has the following extension: @email.unc.edu or @ unc.edu. Required Reading To facilitate class involvement and discussion, students are expected to read all required materials prior to class. Class Participation Students are expected to contribute meaningfully to class discussion. At the beginning of each class session, time will be allocated to address questions about readings and assignments. APA Format All written assignments should conform to the style guidelines of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). If you do not have a copy of this manual, I would suggest that you buy one. American Psychological Association (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC. Author. [www.apa.org/books/] Softcover: $28.95) SSW Writing Support Team School’s Writing Resources Page: http://ssw.unc.edu/students/writing. This link provides access to an array of resources including the newly updated “APA Quick Reference Guide.” ASSIGNMENTS: Additional Readings Students are asked to identify at least five additional readings during the course of the semester for adding to the syllabus, including a brief justification for the importance or contribution of the reading. Please send the readings to Professor Bowen who will post them on blackboard. SOWO 709 Reflective Essay 5 Four short reflective essays are due during the course of the semester. These essays are intended to: (a) Increase self awareness of values, beliefs and assumptions derived from the student’s own background and life experiences; (b) Develop critical analysis skills to review and evaluate literature; and (c) Integrate class readings with the student’s personal worldview. These essays should focus on your reactions to class discussions and/or to relevant military‐
related situations in your professional and/or personal life and/or your critical reaction to at least one of the required readings. Please keep your reflective essays to a reasonable length – ideally no more than 1 to 2 typed pages. The quality of the content, not the length, is the objective of the assignment. Please submit these essays in class on the due date. At times, we will use them to stimulate discussion. Evaluation of reflective essay entries will be based on instructor’s assessment of timeliness, completeness, and relevance to class discussion and assigned readings. (Due Dates: 2/8, 2/22, 3/15, 4/5) Website Presentation Students will be assigned a DoD Website from A handbook for family & friends of service members before, during and after deployment to present to the class in Week 2. A PowerPoint projector will be available for presentation purposes. The presentation should be approximately 12‐15 minutes. (Due Date: 1/18) Military Culture Essay Fraser & Galinsky (2010) discuss the importance of adapting established programs to fit the culture and context of implementation: “Cultural and contextual adaptation refers to the practice of altering the content of a proven program to improve its relevance to a population” (p. 464). In approximately two double‐spaced pages, students will identify three important cultural considerations in designing or adapting interventions for application in the U.S. Military. Students may decide to focus their discussion on a specific service branch or component. (Due Date: 1/25) Class Presentations Students will assume the lead role in developing/augmenting the reading list and promoting class discussion around a special population group in the U.S. Military. Students should plan on 30 minutes for each topic, although additional time may be negotiated, especially if audiovisual materials are used. (Due Date: 3/22) Major Paper Students will select a presenting issue or challenge faced by either service members (active duty, Reserve component, National Guard), veterans, or their family members (extended family, spouse/partner, or children) or communities. They will prepare a formal paper for SOWO 709 submission, as well as make a in‐class presentation, that: (1) identifies the priority issue/challenge, including the incidence/prevalence of the priority issue or challenge and target 6 groups for intervention planning (universal, selected, indicated); (2) defines resiliency/recovery outcomes if this priority/challenge is being addressed, including how the outcome(s) would be assessed; (3) specifies a problem theory that identifies bio‐psycho‐social‐spiritual processes (antecedents) that promote the achievement of desired resiliency/recovery outcomes at the individual, family, unit, or community level; and (4) identifies an evidence‐based intervention and/or promising practice that is designed to directly influence one of more of these bio‐
psycho‐social‐spiritual processes, including a discussion of the underlying program theory and the evaluative processes that have been involved in estimating intervention efficacy and effectiveness. Format all references using APA guidelines. Students will submit section outlines of the major paper as we progress through the semester. (Due Dates: 2/15, 2/22, 3/1, 3/29, 4/12); (Final Paper Due: Exam Date) Students will present a PowerPoint summary of their papers on April 19: (10‐12 slides) (30 minutes for presentation). GRADING SYSTEM: The core assignments and their relative weights in the grading system are listed below: 1. Additional Readings (5 x .01) 2. Reflective Essays (4 x .03) 3. Website Presentation 4. Military Culture Essay 3. Class Presentation 4. PowerPoint Summary (Major Paper) 5. Major Paper 6. Class Participation 5.0% 12.0% 4.0% 4.0% 15.0% 10.0% 40.0% 10.0% Each assignment/requirement will be graded using the following numeric system: H = 94‐100 P = 80‐93 L = 70‐79 F = 69 and below To qualify for a grade of Clear Excellence (H), students will need to complete all assignments with a grade of 70% or better, with an average grade of 94% or better. POLICY ON INCOMPLETES AND LATE ASSIGNMENTS: Unless negotiated in advance with the professor, assignments are due on the date specified in the syllabus. All assignments must be completed to receive a Passing Grade for the course SOWO 709 (H/P/L). Students will receive 0 credit for assignments submitted past the due date unless approved for late delivery in advance of the due date. POLICY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY: All academic work submitted by students will be conducted within the letter and spirit of the Honor Code, which is described in The SSW Manual and the Graduate School Record. Please refer to the APA Style Guide, The SSW Manual, and the SSW Writing Guide for information on attribution of quotes, plagiarism and appropriate use of assistance in preparing assignments. All written assignments should contain a signed pledge (//signed//) from you stating that, “I have not given or received unauthorized 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. POLICY ON ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: Students with disabilities that affect their participation in the course and who wish to have special accommondations should contact the University’s Disabilities Services and provide documentation of their disability. Diabilities Services will notify the instructor that the student has a documented disability and may require accommodations. Students should discuss the specific accommodations they require (e.g., changes in instructional format, examination format) directly with the instructor. POLICY ON THE USE OF ELECTRONIC DEVICES IN THE CLASSROOM Computers and other electronic devices may be used in the classroom only for purposes of presentation and note taking. The use of electronic devices for non‐class related activities (e.g., checking email, playing games) is prohibited. 7 SOWO 709 COURSE OUTLINE AND READINGS1 Week 1: January 11, 2011 Introductions and Syllabus Review Required Readings *Flynn, M. & Hassan, A. M. (2010). Unique challenges of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Journal of Social Work Education, 46, 169‐173. [Editorial] *Council on Social Work Education (2010). Advanced social work practice in military social work. Washington, DC: Author. National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp Defense Centers of Excellence (2010). A handbook for family & friends of service members before, during and after deployment. Vulcan Productions. (Department of Defense Resources, pp. 119‐137) Model Article *Dekel, R., & Monson, C. M. (2010). Military‐related post‐traumatic stress disorder and family relations: Current knowledge and future directions. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 303‐
309. Assignment (Due: January 18, 2011) Students will be assigned a DoD Website from A handbook for family & friends of service members before, during and after deployment to present to the class in Week 2. A PowerPoint projector will be available for presentation purposes. The presentation should be approximately 12‐15 minutes. 1
Readings with an asterisk are available on blackboard. 8 SOWO 709 Week 2: January 18 Steps in Developing Social Interventions In‐Class Presentations: Websites Required Reading *Kazdin, A. E. (1997). A model for developing effective treatments: Progression and interplay of theory, research, and practice. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 114‐129. *Fraser, M. W., & Galinsky, M. J. (2010). Steps in intervention research: Designing and developing social programs. Research on Social Work Practice, 20, 459‐466. *Thyer, B. A., & Myers, L. L. (2011). The quest for evidence‐based practice: A view from the United States. Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 8‐25. *Mullen, E. J., & Shuluk, J. (2011). Outcomes of social work intervention in the context of evidence‐based practice. Journal of Social Work, 11(1), 49‐63. Example: Problem Theory *Bowen, G.L., & Martin, J. A. (in press). The resiliency model of role performance of service members, veterans, and their families. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment. Example: Program Theory *Bowen, G. L., Martin, J. A., Liston, B. J., & Nelson, J. P. (2009). Building community capacity in the U.S. Air Force: The Community Readiness Consultant Model. In A. R. Roberts (Eds.), Social Workers’ Desk Reference (2nd ed., pp. 912‐917). New York: Oxford University Press. Supplemental Reading Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., Galinsky, M. J., & Day, S. H. (2009). Intervention research: Developing social programs. New York: Oxford University Press. (ISBN 978‐0‐19‐532549‐2) Assignment (Due: January 25, 2011): Fraser & Galinsky (2010) discuss the importance of adapting established programs to fit the culture and context of implementation: “Cultural and contextual adaptation refers to the practice of altering the content of a proven problem to improve its relevance to a population” (p. 464). In approximately two double‐spaced pages, please identify three important cultural considerations in designing or adapting interventions for application in the U.S. Military. You may decide to focus your discussion on a specific service branch or component. 9 SOWO 709 Week 3: January 25, 2011 In‐Class Reports: Cultural Considerations The Military Culture, Language, and Lifestyle Required Readings *Martin, J.A., & Sherman, M.D. (2009). The impact of military life on individuals and families: Resources and intervention. In S. Price & C. Price, (Eds.), Families and change: Coping with stressful events and transitions (4th ed., pp. 381‐397). New York: SAGE. *Martin, J.A., & Sherman, M.D. (in press). Understanding the effects of military life and deployment on couples and families. In D. K. Snyder and C. M. Monson (Eds.), Couple‐based interventions for military and Veteran families: Promoting individual and relationship well‐
being. New York: Guilford. Hall, L. K. (2010). The military culture, language, and lifestyle. In R. B. Everson & C. R. Figley (Eds.), Families under fire: Systemic therapy with military families (pp. 31‐52). New York: Routledge. (On Reserve) *Grim, P. (2004). Semper Fi. New England Journal of Medicine, 351(1), 3‐5. Supplemental Readings *ICF International (2010). Demographics 2008: Profile of the military community. Washington, DC: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy). *Greendlinger, R., & Spadoni, P. (2010). Engaging and delivering services to America’s veterans and their families. Newton Centre, MA: The National Center on Family Homelessness. *Segal, M. W. (1986). The military and the family as greedy institutions. Armed Forces and Society, 13, 9‐38. 10 SOWO 709 Class 4: February 1, 2011 11 In‐Class Video Showing: This Emotional Life (Facing Our Fears) War, Deployment, and Resiliency: Positive challenges and adversities faced by military members and families (Service Members) Required Readings *Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center (AFHSC) (2010, November). Selected mental health disorders among active component members, U.S. Armed Forces, 2007‐2010. Medical Surveillance Monthly Report (MSMR), 17(11). *Doyle, M. E., & Peterson, K. A. (2005). Re‐entry and reintegration: Returning home after combat. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76, 361‐370. *Hoge, C., Castro, C., Messer, S., McGurk, D., Cotting, D., & Koffman, R. (2004). Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. The New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 13‐22. *Institute of Medicine (IOM). (March, 2010). Returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Preliminary assessment of readjustment needs of Veterans, servicemembers and their families. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. *Ruger, W., Wilson, S. E., & Waldrop, S. L. (2002). Warfare and welfare: Military service, combat, and marital dissolution. Armed Forces and Society, 29, 85‐107. Assignment: Reflective Essay 1 (Due February 8, 2011) Class 5: February 8, 2011 Due: Reflective Essay 1 War, Deployment, and Resiliency: Positive challenges and adversities faced by military members and families (Families) In‐Class Video Showing: This Emotional Life (Family, Friends, & Lovers) Required Readings *Burrell, L. M., Adams, G. A., Durand, D. B., & Castro, C. A. (2006). The impact of military lifestyle demands on well‐being, Army, and family outcomes. Armed Forces and Society, 33, 43‐
58. SOWO 709 *Cozza, S. J., Chun, R. S., & Polo, J. A. (2005). Military families and children during Operation 12 Iraqi Freedom. Psychiatric Quarterly, 76, 371‐378. *Dekel, R., Goldblatt, H., Keidar, M., Soloman, Z., & Polliack, M. (2005). Being the wife of a veteran with posttraumatic stress disorder. Family Relations, 54, 24‐36. Karney, B. R., & Crown, J. S. (2011). Does deployment keep military marriages together or break them apart? Evidence from Afghanistan and Iraq. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 23‐45). New York: Springer. (On Reserve) *Orthner, D. K., & Rose, R. (2010). Work separation demands and spouse psychological well‐
being. Family Relations, 58, 392‐403. *Sheppard, S. C., Malatras, J. W., & Israel, A. C. (2010). The impact of deployment on U.S. military families. American Psychologist, 65, 599‐609. *Solomon, Z., Dekel, R., & Zerach, G. (2008). The relationship between posttraumatic stress symptom clusters and marital intimacy among war veterans. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 659‐666. Supplemental Readings *Drummet, A. R., Coleman, M., & Cable, S. (2003). Military families under stress: Implications for family life education. Family Relations, 52, 279‐287. *MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2010). Family risk and resilience in the context of war and terrorism. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 537‐556. *Mmari, K., Roche, K. M., Sudhinaraset, M. & Blum, R. (2009). When a parent goes off to war: Exploring the issues faced by adolescents and their families. Youth & Society, 40, 455‐475. Booth, B., Segal, M. W., Bell, D. B., Martin, J. A., Ender, M. G., Rohall, D. E., & Nelson, J. (2007). What we know about Army families: A 2007 update. Fairfax, VA: Caliber. http://www.army.mil/fmwrc/documents/research/WhatWeKnow2007.pdf SOWO 709 Assignment (Two‐page Outline Due February 15, 2011) 13 (1) Identify a priority issue/challenge (social problem) faced by service members (active duty, Reserve component, National Guard), veterans, their family members (extended family, spouse/partner, or children) or their communities, including the incidence/prevalence of the priority issue or challenge and target groups for intervention planning (universal, selected, indicated). • Introduction. Provide an opening that introduces the topic, identifies the focus of your review, including the population of interest, and provides the reader with a roadmap for your review. (1.5 pages) • Statement of the social problem. Describe/illustrate the phenomenon or problem. Present what is known about the scope or the problem (e.g., the incidence and prevalence of the problem). (1.5 pages) • Significance of the problem. What relevance/implication does the social problem have for comprises the welfare and/performance of service members, their families, their communities. (1 page) • Background review. What is currently known and understood about the phenomenon, problem or issue? Identify unresolved research issues (gaps in knowledge, unresolved puzzles, measurement problems, research design/methodological issues, analysis limitations) (3 pages) Class 6: February 15, 2001 In‐Class Reports: Assignments The Concept of Resilience Required Readings *Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543‐562. *Fergus, S., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2005). Adolescent resilience: A framework for understanding healthy development in the face of risk. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 399‐419. *Hawley, D. R., & DeHaan, L. (1996). Toward a definition of family resilience: Integrating life‐
span and family perspectives. Family Process, 35, 283‐298. *MacDermid Wadsworth, S. M. (2010). Family risk and resilience in the context of war and terrorism. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 537‐556. *Mancini, J. A., & Bowen, G. L. (2009). Community resilience: A social organizational theory of action and change. In Jay A. Mancini and Karen A. Roberto (Eds.), Pathways of Human Development: Explorations of change (pp. 245‐265). Lanham, MD: Lexington. SOWO 709 14 *Palmer, C. (2008). A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families. Military Psychology, 20, 205‐217. Supplemental Readings *Earvolino‐Ramirez, M. (2007). Resilience: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 42(2), 73‐82. *Fraser, M. W., Richman, J. M., & Galinsky, M. J. (1999). Risk, protection, and resilience: Toward a conceptual framework for social work practice. Social Work Research, 23, 131‐144. *Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35, 261‐281. Assignment (One‐page Outline Due: February 22, 2011) Specify and define resiliency/recovery outcomes if this priority/challenge is being addressed, including a nominal definition of this/these outcomes. Assignment: Reflective Essay 2 (Due: February 22, 2011) Class 7: February 22, 2011 In‐Class Reports: Assignment Due: Reflective Essay 2 Preparation Assignment: Students will be provided with ticket codes on February 15 for taking the AF Support and Resiliency Inventory Assessment Tools. In‐Class Video Showing: This Emotional Life (Rethinking Happiness) Resiliency Measures Required Readings *Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27‐41. *Kazdin, A. (2006). Arbitrary metrics: Implications for identifying evidence‐based treatments. American Psychologist 61(1), 42–49. *King, D. W., King, L. A., & Vogt, D. (no date). DRRI: A survey of experiences before, during, and after military deployment. Boston, MA: NCPTSD. SOWO 709 *Johnson, D. C., et al. (2008). Response to stressful experiences scale. Boston, MA: VA National Center for PTSD. *Campbell‐Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of the Connor‐
Davidson Resilience Scale (CD‐RISC): Validation of a 10‐item measure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20, 1019‐1028. *Westphal, R. J., & Woodward, K. R. (2010). Family fitness. Military Medicine, 175 (August Supplement), 97‐102. *Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2011). The Support & Resilience Inventory for civilian spouses (SRI‐CS, 2011). Chapel Hill, NC: Bowen & Colleagues, Inc. Assignment (1/2‐page Outline Due: March 1, 2011) How would the resiliency/recovery outcome(s) be assessed? Identify one or more specific measures and discuss the reliability and validity of these measures (1 pages). Class 8: March 1, 2011 In‐Class Reports: Assignment Problem Theory: Conceptual Frameworks and Perspectives Life Course Perspective Required Readings *Elder, G. H., Jr., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of Life Course Theory. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the Life Course (pp. 3‐19). New York: Plenum. (see principles of Life Course Theory) *MacLean, A., & Elder, G. H. (2007). Military service in the life course. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 175‐196. Supplemental Readings Kahn, R. L. & Antonucci, T.C. (1980). Convoys Over the Life Course: Attachment, Roles, and Social Support." In P. B. Baltes and O. G. Brim, Jr., Life‐span development and behavior (Vol. 3, pp. 253‐86). New York: Academic Press. (BF712.L535, Davis Library) 15 SOWO 709 Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). Life course theory and human development. Sociological Analysis, 1(2), 16 1‐12. Elder, G. H., Jr. (1998). The life course as developmental theory. Child Development, 69, 1‐12. Elder. G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4‐15. Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability and mechanisms in the life course theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 667‐692. Symbolic Interactionism Required Readings *Forte, J. A. (2004a). Symbolic interactionism and social work: A forgotten legacy, part 1. Families in Society, 85, 391‐400. *Carroll, J. S., Olson, C. D., & Buckmiller, N. (2007). Family boundary ambiguity: A 30‐year review of theory, research, and measurement. Family Relations, 56, 210‐230. *Faber, A. J., Willerton, E., Clymer, S. R., MacDermid, S. M., & Weiss, H. M. (2008). Ambiguous absence, ambiguous presence: A qualitative study of military Reserve families in wartime. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 222‐230. Supplemental Readings *Forte, J. A. (2004b). Symbolic interactionism and social work: A forgotten legacy, part 2. Families in Society, 85, 521‐531. Boss, P. (1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (ISBN 0‐674‐01738‐2) [Paperback] Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. (ISBN 0‐393‐70449‐1) [Hardcover] Assignment: Reflective Essay 3 (Due: March 15, 2011) Spring Break: March 8, 2011 SOWO 709 Class 9: March 15, 2011 Due: Reflective Essay 3 Problem Theory: Conceptual Frameworks and Perspectives Contextual Model of Family Stress and Coping *Wiens, T. W., & Boss, P. (2006). Maintaining family resiliency before, during, and after military separation. In C. A. Castro, A. B. Adler and T. W. Britt (Eds.), Military life: The psychology of serving in peace and combat (Vol. 3): The military family (pp. 13‐38). Westport, CT, Praeger Security International. (On Reserve) *Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349‐360. Supplemental Readings Boss, P. (2002). Family stress management: A Contextual Approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (ISBN 0‐8039‐7389‐X) [Paperback] (On Reserve( Boss, P. (Ed.). (2003). Family stress: Classic and contemporary readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (ISBN 0‐7619‐2612‐7) [Paperback] (On Reserve) Peters, M. F., & Massey, G. (1983). Mundane extreme environmental stress in family stress theories: The case of black families in white America. In H. I. McCubbin, M. B. Sussman, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Social stress and the family: Advances and developments in family stress theory and research (pp. 193‐218). New York: The Haworth Press. *VanBreda, A. D. (2001, October). Resilience theory: A literature review with special chapters on deployment resilience in military families & resilience theory in social work. Theory of Community Action and Change *Bowen, G . L., Mancini, J. A., & Martin, J. A. (Submitted). Military family resilience: Theoretical perspectives. In M. A. Fine & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Family theories: A content‐based approach. New York: Taylor and Francis/Routledge. *Bowen, G. L., Richman, J. M., & Bowen, N. K. (2000). Families in the context of communities across time. In S. J. Price, P. C. McKenry & M. J. Murphy (Eds.), Families across time: A life course perspective (pp. 117‐128). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury Publishers. 17 SOWO 709 *Mancini, J. A., Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2005). Community social organization: A 18 conceptual linchpin in examining families in the context of communities. Family Relations, 54, 570‐582. Supplemental Readings *Chilenski, S. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Feinberg, M. E. (2007). Community readiness as a multidimensional construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 347‐365. *Hoshmand, L. T., ,& Hoshmand, A. L. (2007). Support for military families and communities. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 171‐180. *Mancini, J. A., & Bowen, G. L. (in press). Families and communities: A social organization theory of action and change. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (3rd ed.). New York: Springer. *Mancini, J. A., Nelson, J. P., Bowen, G. L., & Martin, J. A. (2006). Preventing intimate partner violence: A community capacity approach. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 13(3/4), 203‐227. Assignment (Three‐page Outline Due: March 29, 2011) (3) Specify a problem theory that identifies bio‐psycho‐social‐spiritual processes (antecedents) that promote the achievement of desired resiliency/recovery outcomes at the individual, family, unit, or community level. • Theoretical perspective. A presentation and critical analysis of a theory or conceptual perspective that frames and informs the desired outcome. Discuss the conceptualization of the desired outcome from the perspective of this theory or conceptual perspective. In other words, rather than review the theory per se, apply the theory to your topic at hand, although it is important to specify key assumptions and concepts from the theory that frame and inform your analysis. (2‐3 pages) • Theoretical model. Include the development of a heuristic in the form of a conceptual/empirical model that explains variation in the desired outcome. Identify the major components and variables of this model in a table and provide a diagram that specifies the proposed linkages among the components. Discuss each component of this model, as well as proposed linkages among the components. (2‐3 pages) • Empirical support. How does the theoretical model fit with the available data? Evaluate the empirical support for the theoretical model. (2‐3 pages) Examples: *Hoffman, K. L., & Edwards, J. N. (2004). An integrated theoretical model of sibling violence and abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 185‐200. SOWO 709 *Townsend, A. L., Biegel, D. E., Ishler, K. J., Wieder, B., & Rini, A. (2006). Families of persons with substance use and mental disorders: A literature review and conceptual framework. Family Relations, 55, 473‐486. Class 10: March 22, 2011 Special Populations/Challenges (Student Presentations) Reserve Component and National Guard Members and their Families2 *Wheeler, A. R., & Torres Stone, R. A. (2010). Exploring stress and coping strategies among National Guard spouses during times of deployment: A research note. Armed Forces & Society, 36, 545‐557. Veterans3 *Camacho, P. R., & Atwood, P. L. (2007). A review of the literature on Veterans published in Armed Forces & Society, 1974‐2006. Armed Forces & Society, 33, 351‐381. *Suris, A., & Lind, L. (2008). Military sexual trauma: A review of prevalence and associated health consequences in veterans. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 9, 250‐269. *Teigen, J. L. (2007). Debt of a nation: Understanding the treatment of military veterans in the United States. Armed Forces & Society, 33, 438‐444. Single Service Members4 Bray, R. M., Spira, J. L., & Lane, M. E. (2011). The single service member: Substance use, stress, and mental health issues. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 325‐342). New York: Springer. (On Reserve) Dual Military Couples5 2
Presenter will assign readings. The issue of homelessness among veterans would be an excellent presentation topic (see work by Jay Mancini and Hugh Milroy). 4
Presenter will assign readings. 5
Presenter will assign readings. 3
19 SOWO 709 Single Parents6 20 Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearson, M. R. (2011). Single military mothers in the new millennium: Stresses, supports, and effects of deployment. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 343‐363). New York: Springer. (On Reserve) *Bowen, G. L., Orthner, D. K., & Zimmerman, L. I. (1993). Family adaptation of single parents in the United States Army: An empirical analysis of work stressors and adaptive resources. Family Relations, 42, 293‐304. Sexual Orientation (LGBT ) *Rand (2010). Sexual orientation and U.S. Military personal policy: An update on Rand’s 1993 study. Class 12: March 29, 2011 In‐Class Reports: Assignment Special Populations/Challenges Children and Adolescents: Growing Up in Military Families Required Readings Chandra, A., Burns, R. M., Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. H. (2011). Understanding the deployment experience for children and youth from military families. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 175‐192). New York: Springer. (On Reserve) *Department of Defense (2010, October). Report on the impact of deployment of members of the Armed Forces on their dependent children. Washington, DC: Author.7 *Flake, E. M., et al. (2009). The psychosocial effects of deployment on military children. Journal of Development & Behavioral Pediatrics, 30, 271‐278. *Huebner, A. J., Mancini, J. A., Wilcox, R. M., Grass, S. R., & Grass, G. A. (2007). Parental deployment and youth in military families: Exploring uncertainty and ambiguous loss. Family Relations, 56, 112‐122. 6
Presenter will assign readings. 7
Definitely use. SOWO 709 Supplemental Readings 21 Huebner, A. J., & Mancini, J. A. (2008). Supporting youth during parental deployment. The Prevention Researcher, 15, 10‐13. *Mmari, K., Roche, K. M., Sudhinaraset, M. & Blum, R. (2009). When a parent goes off to war: Exploring the issues faced by adolescents and their families. Youth & Society, 40, 455‐475. Military Families with Children with Special Needs (Guest Lecturer) *Ferguson, P. M. (2002). A place in the family: An historical interpretation of research on parental reactions to having a child with a disability. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 124‐
130. *Taylor, N. E., et al. (2005). Mother and soldier: Raising a child with a disability in a low‐income military family. Exceptional Children, 72(1), 83‐99. Assignment: Reflective Essay 4 (Due: April 5, 2011) Class 13: April 5, 2011 Due: Reflective Essay 4 Catch‐UP Session (No Readings) Assignment (One‐page Outline Due: April 12, 2011) Identify an evidence‐based intervention/promising practice that is designed to directly influence one of more of these bio‐psycho‐social‐spiritual processes, including a discussion of the underlying program theory and the evaluative processes that have been involved in estimating intervention efficacy and effectiveness. Class 14: April 12, 2011 In‐Class Reports: Assignment Program Theory: Evidence‐based Interventions Required Readings *McHugh, R. K., & Barlow, D. H. (2010). The dissemination and implementation of evidence‐
based psychotherapy treatments: Review of current efforts. American Psychologist 65(2), 73–84. SOWO 709 Lester, P. et al. (2011). Wartime deployment and military children: Applying prevention science to enhance family resilience. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience 22 in U.S. military families (pp. 149‐173). New York: Springer. (FOCUS Review) *Huebner, A., Mancini, J. A., Bowen, G. L., & Orthner, D. K. (2009). Shadowed by war: Building community capacity to support military families. Family Relations, 58, 216‐228. Heyman, R. E., Smith Slep, A. M., & Nelson, J. P. (2011). Empirically guided community intervention for partner abuse, child maltreatment, suicidality, and substance misuse. In S. MacDermid Wadsworth & D. Riggs (Eds.), Risk and resilience in U.S. military families (pp. 85‐
107). New York: Springer. (On Reserve) *Knox, K. L., et al. (2010, May 13). The US Air Force suicide prevention program: Implications for public health policy. American Journal of Public Health (published ahead of print). *Krasny, M. E., Pace, K. H., Tidball, K. G., & Helphand, K. (in press). Nature engagement to foster resilience in military communities. In K. G. Tidball & M. E. Krasny (Eds.), Greening in the red zone. New York: Springer Press. Supplemental Readings Gambrill, E. (2006). Evidence‐based practice and policy: Choices ahead. Research on Social Work Practice, 6, 338‐357. Gibbs, L., & Gambrill, E. (2002). Evidence‐based practice: Counterarguments to objections. Research on Social Work Practice, 12, 452‐476. Gilgun, J. F. (2005). The four cornerstones of evidence‐based practice in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 15, 52‐61. McNeill, T. (2006). Evidence‐based practice in an age of relativism: Toward a model for practice. Social Work, 51, 147‐156. McNeece, C. A., & Thyer, B. A. (2004). Evidence‐based practice and social work. Journal of Evidence‐Based Social Work, 1(1), 7‐25. Mullen, E. J., & Streiner, D. L. (2004). The evidence for and against evidence‐based practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4, 111‐121. Class 15: April 19, 2011 Special Project Presentations SOWO 709 Class 16: April 26, 2011 Toward an Integrative Perspective for Military Social Work Practice Class Discussion SOWO 709 is framed by a course description (30 words), an expanded description, and ten objectives. Please be prepared to discuss the extent to which we accomplished course objectives. Course Evaluation Students will be asked to complete end‐of‐course evaluations. A student will volunteer to administer the evaluation and submit the evaluation package to Beth Sauer. The Professor will leave the classroom during the course evaluation. Final Exam 23 SOWO 709 Evidence‐Based Research Web Sites Evidence Based Practice Annotated Bibliography and Resource Guide See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/musher/EBP%20Resource%20Guide%205_28_04.doc from which the descriptions below of the Campbell Collaboration were copied. *Campbell Collaboration (C2): The Campbell Collaboration Library and Database Philidelphia, USA http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ “The C2 website posts a searchable database of randomized controlled clinical trials and systematic reviews of social, psychological, education, and criminological research. All research presented on the website has met rigorous methodological standards and are designed to provide researchers, policy makers, and practitioners with critical reviews of current research. Currently twenty one full reviews are available to download from the website and several more are currently in progress.” Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (CSAP): Model Programs and National Registry of Effective Programs. Maryland, USA http://modelprograms.samhsa.gov/template.cfm?page=default “The website provides information about substance abuse and mental health programs tested in communities, schools, social service organizations, and workplaces in the United States. Nominated programs are reviewed by research teams who rate the programs primarily on methodological quality, but also consider other factors such as theoretical development and community involvement. Programs are rated in increasing order of quality as either: promising, effective, or model. Information briefs are provided regarding each of the programs including an overview description, estimated costs, background, target areas, references, and creator or developer contact information. The website also includes information about funding, helpful topic‐specific links, and technical assistance information. Also available for download from this site is the “Comparison Matrix for Science Based Prevention Programs,” an outline of research‐based programs and their comparative ratings by five different U.S. federal agencies as well as their rating standards.” The Cochrane Collaboration http://www.cochrane.org/ “The Cochrane Collaboration is an international non‐profit and independent organisation, dedicated to making up‐
to‐date, accurate information about the effects of healthcare readily available worldwide. It produces and disseminates systematic reviews of healthcare interventions and promotes the search for evidence in the form of clinical trials and other studies of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration was founded in 1993 and named for the British epidemiologist, Archie Cochrane.” (This description was copied from the web site.) 24