Case Advocacy: A Study of the Interventive Process in Child Advocacy.

240 Pages·2007·4.44 MB·English

DOCUMENT RESUME
PS 008 314
ED 118 242
McGowan, Brenda G.
AUTHOR
Case Advocacy: A Study of the Interventive Process in
TITLE
Child Advocacy.
Columbia Univ., New York, N.Y. School of Social
INSTITUTION
Work.
Office of Child Development (DREW), Washington, D.C.d
SPONS AGENCY
REPORT NO
* OCD-CB-386
PUB DATE-
73
240p.; For other section of this two-part final
NOTE
report on the project, "Child Advoc
y Methods. and
Techniques: An Evaldatiire Study,"' e4 PS 008 315;
Light print areas throughout ddcument
MF-$0.83 HC-$12.71 Plus Postage
EDRS PRICE
Agency Role; Case Studies; Change Strategies; *Child
DESCRIPTORS"\
Advocacy; Critical incidents Method; *Elementary
Education; *Intervention; Literature ReOiews;
Measurement Techniques; *Preschool Education; Social
Agencies; Social Rork; *Social Workers; Theories
*Child Advocacy Research Project; Childrens Rights
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
r
An exploratory study of child advocacy cases as
conducted and reported by social agency workers is presented in this
report. Most of the data were collected with the use of a critical
incident techniqu, by, which case workers from eight agencies
reported selected child advocacy cases in which they had participated
over a 4-month period:* Information obtained from 163 of the case
worker reports was coded and analyzed in terms of the advocate,
\client, problem, target system, objective, available resources,
receptivity of target system, intervention level and method used, and
outcome involved in each case. The resources used by the case worker
oand the receptivity of the target system involved are suggested to be
especially influential in case outcomes, as portrayed by the data.
..--\
The implications of the data for case advocacy practice and theory
are discussed. A reviewof advocacy and social intervention
,
literature is included.
(BRT)
***************************4******************************************
Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpublished
* materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes every effort *
*-to obtain thee best copy avail4ble. Nevertheless, items dt marginal
*
* reproducibility are often encountered and this affects the quality
*
* of the wicrofiche and hardcopy reproddctions ERIC makes available
*
* via the EPIC Document Reptoduction Service (EDRS). EDRS is not
* responsible' for the quality of the original document. Reproductions *
* supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original.
*
*
***********************************************************************
r.
U S IRPARIMENT OF MEAL IM
EDUCATION WELFARE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
E DUCA TION
OW. '0.0,1,tAf N,
II,.
kI Pkl,
III
I N
/ I ..f f I /4,./A"
f Xi.,
N k.N
TN/ Pf k',ON '44 ,k,AN /A'
f, NI '1
.
1.
'Ve
1
N
I -'Ak
rI Pk/
',TA
NI
%INT Of
'1
N
r
IP', A TH,,n,
r
CABS ADVOCACY:
A."4,1
,un
1913
,e*
4
CASE ADVOCACY: A STUDY OF THE INTERVENTIVE PROCESS
IN CHILD ADVOCAW
a
1r
Brenda G. McGowan
This 'monograph constitutes one of a two-part firial
report on the project, "Child Advocacy Methods and
Techniques: An Evaluative Study," OCD=CB-386,
submitted to the Office of Child .DevelopMent,
U.S. Department of Health, Education and We,lfare,
The other section of this report
December, 1973.
was submitted under the title, .4'Community Based
Child Advocacy Projects: A Study in Evaluation."
C C c
0
tii
t
PREFACE
chilid advocacy
worker in a federally-funded
A Social
%he folloWing
metropolitan city repotted
'project in a large
example of her work:
as a typical
old Indian youth who is
John is a fourteen year
Shortly
responsiW.e and self-sufficient.
usually quite
into my
a new sexester,' he walked
after the start of
by the
just been suspended
office saying that he had
When
around in the elevator.
principal for fooling
didn't
class, he explained that .he
asked why he-wasn't in
(This made immediate sense since
hours.
like his last two
unstructured classes,
ad been placed in very
I knew he
that he needs structure and
although hS openly admits
discussed this problem
I asked John if he had
direCtion.)
at his
,aounselor; he said he had hinted
with his s hool
him
that the counselor doesn't take
dlssatisfa tion, but
aboutit."
d "won't do anything
seriously
explained John's
t went to the principal,
I fi
suspension so
and,asked'him to revoke the
difficulty
He refused,
problem.
d work on the schedule
that we co
"it wouldn't
the suspension,
saying that\if he revoked
wanted to talk
He also admitted that he
mean anythihg."
brother and thought that the
with John's mother about his
I responded that-
this.
suspension might facilitatt
,
and that he should not
suspensions are meaningless anyway
The impor-
problem.
with his brother's
use John to deal,
wouldn't have
John rescheduled so he
tant thing was to get
I also pointed out that
the halls.
time tb fool,arougA in
that afternoon.
matters tore-admit'John
it would facilitate
until the
refused to meet with John
However, the principal
ofplaying
lectured him on the danger
following day when he
his recent
and then complimented him on
in the elevator
office feeling neither
John left the principtl!s
schoolwork.
threatened nor impressed.
4
getting a
the counselor about
I had also talked with
'The counselor agreed that this
schedule change for John.
be done until
but said that nothing could
was necessary,
When I said that I,didn't
cleared up.
some policies were
said that I would have to
want John to continue in flux, he
Therefore,
he just didn't have time.
work something out as
following
schedule which John started the
I worked out a new
day.
OHO&
4,
iv
The new.schedule was; of course, the only Vhing
vihich was needed from
he be4inning; 'if the counselor
had been a more resourceful person or more sensitive to
students' needs, the whole'incident mt;ht nave been avoided.
.
As it was, hOwever, the student had to go through
a maze
'of nonsense and I had to intervene actively before the
principal or counselor were willing to focus
on what
should be 'their basic task of doing whatever is
necessary
to facilitate the education of studegts.
As the preceding exawle'derinstrates, advocacy for
children need not be a,very dramatic affair.
The issues are
often clear, the problems relatively minor, and the ir4er
-,
ventions simple and direct.
Yet the writer undertook to
study this phenomenon because of a conyictiOnthat there
(.
is need for more effective and fre4uent practice...of child
advocacy.
In' the incident just cited, it is.obvious that the
advocate's intervention may have averted another potential
school drop-out.
Hence, despite the simplicity of the inter-
vention, this example suggests some provokirig questions:
Was
his youngster trying to drop-rout or wasp he being
pushed,out?. If the advocate had not intervened, would this
incident have been recorded as still another child failure
or a school failure?. HOw many youngsters are being pushed
out of school under
similar circumstances im-iother locales
where there may not be any child advocates available to-act
.in the manner described above?
It is estimated that betwen 1.5 and 2 Million school-
.
age children are not enrolled in school currently.
Similar
deficiencies exist
other importapt areas of child develop-
,
ment.
For example, only five percent of all children
.
00005
V
r j
)
-who 7'quire mental health Services, are receiving them
Infant mortality rates in this country are higher
eurrehtly.
Over 400,000 children
j
thdn those in twelve other nations,.
v'ome 9 million \
s4fer from lead-poisoning annually.
American children.artistill living below tge'official
poverty
line4.1
Y
Despite the myth that the United States is a child-
,
centered'society and the proliferatton of child-serving
ft
Tie condept
agencies and programs; these problems persist.
Children in
of child advocacy as intervention on behalf of
relation to the services and institutions impinging on their
lives was introduced as one means of attacking these problems.
°
The limitations of the child advocacy moyemept have been,
2
However, it is
described elsewhere - and they are acute.
,
the writer's belief that child advocacy is still-viable
services
concept and that ants practfa-e may help to enhance
While engaged in anational'bapeline study
for children.
of,child advocacy, the author was exposed to a number
1Statistics have been drawn from "An Introduction to
the Children's Defense Fund," Washington Research Project,
Washington,'D.C., 1973.
2
See, for example, Alfred J. Kahn, Sheila W. Kamerman,
and Brenda G. McGowan, Child Advocacy: Report of a National
(Washington, D.C.: U.S., Department of Health,
Baseline Study
Education and Welfare, 1973); and Sheila B. Kamerman,
"Community Based-`Child Advocacy PrOjectsk A Study, in
o
Evaluation"' (unpublished D.S.W. dissertation, oolumbia-
University, 1973).
C 0 6
0
0
4
I
of incidents of the type ited above; and this experience
suggested not only that there is real need for such inter-
ventions, but also that effective advocacy is rated in
a specific methodology and knowledge base which should be
analyzed and conceptualized.
The practice of child advocacy, noactatter how
effective, can never substitute for the development' of
t
\\I
responsible "social policy or the_allocation Of adequate
It can, however, help to ensure
resoufces for'children.
that the services which now exist for children
ovide
maximum benefit to those they are intended to sery
It
was this conviction which Motivated the study of the process
of case advocacy on .behalf of children reported-here.
Acknowledgments
''Like-many research efforts, this study reflects the
contributions of a number of individuals and organizations.-
It is with real V2,sure that I acknowledge these debts.
The Office of Child Development/U.S. Depart;ent of Health,'
ft
Education and Welfare provided the generous financial
.4*
support which made this study possible; and the project
officer, Jane Rea, administed the grant in an unusually
gracious, flexible arid responsive manner.
A number of people at Columbia University School of
'
Social. Work offered continued suppbrt during
is study.
I am especially grateful to Professor David Fanshel, who
00007
vii
I
of advice, direction,_jand consultation;
was a frequent source
to Professor Alfred Kahn, who provided such stimulating
leadership during the baseline study ofrchild advocacy
supplied, extensive support and guidance ,during the'
current study; and to my colleague, Dri Sheila Kainerman,
who offered many incisive comments and observations,
encouraged frequeqtly, and listened patiently.
'T would
4
also like to express my appreciation.to Karen Blumenthal,
who carried out the tedious codiSg process with care and
and to Enid Cox and Barbara Lounds-Joseph, who K
shared their extensive experience and interest in advocacy
and made many,helpful and perceptive suggestions in regard
John Dacey, John Grundy, Kerineth Mellenthin,
to d&ta analysis.
and William Meezan provided invaluable technical assistance
And Essie Bailey, Mary Conlon, Dian Scott
on computer use.
and Ellen Spitzer all )performed the innumerable secretarial
tasks with sk4.114-Akind patience.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the
administrators of the agences included in the sample, all
I
of whom cooperated fully with the study and allowed` me
unusually free access to their staffs; and to the adiocates
themselves who displayed such enthusiasm about-their work
and shared their experiences so openly. :Any value which
the study may have for other practitioners opf child advocacy
results directly frbth their interest and cooperation.
r
`00008
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE
iii
,
LIST :0-F TABLES
xi
CHAPTER
\
,
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE-OF THE SPAY
I
1
s
Introduction'
1
Recent Developments-An Child
Advocacy
2
'
,Problem
18
tg
Objectives
20
4
Relevance to the Field of Social
Work
20
ADVOCACY AND SOCIAL INTERVENTION: A'REVIEW
II
OF THE LITERATURE, .....
.'.
-26
a
Advocacy Practice in Social Work
Environmental Manipulation in
. ....
work Practice
.,.
34
StrategiQs of,Community Organization
36
Bureaucratic-Community Group Linkages
41/
Advocacy by Legal Para-
professionals
4
Summary
45
,--
THE RESEARCH'IAIGN
III
47
..
'
4'
d
ii.
Critical IncideAt Technique
'49
r
Use in Social Work Research
51
Assumptions and Limitation of the
Study Devign
55
Development of the Research Vstrument
59
'Selection of Sa'mple
60
Collection of "Data
67
.
.
Methods' of Jhta Analysis
74
IV
DESCRIPTION .OF SAMPLE'
78
Agencies
78
Respondents
l
90
Distribution of Incidents
96
/
\-
c
00009.
AL
0
f
CHAPTER'
Page
V,
Y.
V
OVERVIEW OF INCIDENTS
101
-4..._
.... .
Description of Clients
101,
,
.
Reasons for Advocacy Intervention
103
".
Goals'
103
"1,-
Source and Extent of Advocate
Involvement
103
Target System
107
Results of Advocacy Intervention
109
.
.
Summary of` Findings
110
VI
DEVELOPMENT AND
USE OF THE CLASSIFICATION
SCHEME
113
.
.
Devising the, Classification Scheme
114
.
.
Figure 1.: Major Variables in
41111,
CasfYAdvotacy-
116
.Charlge Agent!'
119
Client
119
Problem
120
6
Target System
123
16
Objective
%
-..,.
Sanction
,
131
i
'''\
'
Resources or Change Agent
---*\ 135
Receptivity of Target System
'142
Ojbect of Intervention
145
Level of Intervention
150
Method of Intervention
153
Outcome
15
e
,
VII
THE ADVOCACY PROCESS
.... ..,),
..
161
.
Change Agent
163
Tprget System
,166
- Problem, Objective and Sanction
173
Mode of Intervention
lE
Outcome
''
.
.
i.
Dynamics of the Advocacy
1
Process
183'
re 2: Schematic Relationship Among
Fi
major Variables in. Case Advocacy
184
Critical Decisions in the Advocacy
Procese
185
VIII
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
190
s
.
.
.
Reflections on Study Design
190
Highlights of Findings
192,
.
.
.
. . .
Theoretical Implications
199
Areas for Further Research
200
Implications for Practice
201
0 0 0 1 0