Using the Strengthening Families Approach and … the Strengthening Families Approach and Protective ... Center for the Study of Social Policy’s ... health care, mental health, and

Using the Strengthening Families Approach and Protective Factors Framework

to Optimize Family Supports and Engagement in Sonoma County

Sonoma County Human Services Department

Office of the Director - Planning, Research, Evaluation, and Engagement Unit

October 28, 2015

OPTIMIZING FAMILY SUPPORTS & ENGAGEMENT USING STRENGTHENING FAMILIES 2

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this report is to examine the literature related to the Center for

the Study of Social Policy’s Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors

Framework, and to review best practices and resources aligned with this initiative in

order to increase family and children’s health and well-being. Strengthening Families

supports a common framework across multiple sectors for a national, state, regional,

and local response to enhance family supports through an assets-based approach. The

Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors Framework is a viable

family engagement model that is currently being implemented in Sonoma County,

California. The intention of this report is to offer recommendations to inspire a

community-wide Strengthening Families effort across programs to increase family

resiliency, build parent leadership opportunities, and promote wrap-around supports.

Sonoma County is a part of a collective movement to ensure that all families and

children lead healthy and prosperous lives, and the Strengthening Families Approach

and Protective Factors Framework can guide the work to achieve this vision.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. Review of Literature

Introduction.....................................................................................................5

Background of the Strengthening Families Approach & the Protective Factors Framework..........................................................................................6 Research Informing Strengthening Families.......................................8

Conceptualizing the Strengthening Families Approach & the Protective Factors Framework.........................................................................................10 Foundational Ideas of Strengthening Families...................................10

Social Ecology Theory..........................................................................11

Protective Factors Framework............................................................12

Implementing Strengthening Families............................................................15

Family Engagement Best Practices Using the Framework..................17

Conclusion........................................................................................................20

II. Sonoma County Alignment with the Strengthening Families Approach

Introduction.....................................................................................................21

Purpose of Integrating Strengthening Families in Sonoma County.................21

Local Strengthening Families Family Engagement and Resiliency Efforts.......22

Recommendations for Collaboration and Alignment......................................24

Conclusion........................................................................................................28

III. Appendices and References

Appendix A: Early Childhood Education Strategies Related to the

Protective Factors…………………………….............................................................29

Appendix B: Glossary……………………………………………........................................30

Appendix C: Center for the Study of Social Policy’s Theory of Change...........37

Appendix D: 2014 Strengthening Families National Network States..............38

Appendix E: Strengthening Families Protective Factors Logic Model…..........39

Appendix F: Social Ecology and the Protective and Risk Factors…………....……40


Appendix G: Core Meanings of the Strengthening Families Protective Factors……………………………………………..............................................................41 Appendix H: Youth Thrive Theory of Change......................………………...........43

Appendix I: ACYF Factors by Level of Influence and Population Served........44

Appendix J: The Strengthening Families Approach: Applying the Protective Factors Resource List …………………………………………………………..…...45

Appendix K: Principles of Family Support Practice………………………………..…….46

Appendix L: Sonoma County’s Upstream Investments Initiative….................47

Appendix M: Understanding First 5 Sonoma County……………………….............50

Appendix N: Child Parent Institute Annual Report (Excerpt).........................51

Appendix O: Logic Model for Sonoma Child Abuse Prevention Services Initiative………………………………………………………………………………………..52

Appendix P: Portrait of Sonoma County……………………………………………………...53

Appendix Q: Overview of the Protective Factors Survey……………………………..54

Appendix R: Sonoma County Protective Factors Training……………………………55

References: ……………………………………………………………………............................56


REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

In 2003, the Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors Framework

was developed by the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) in an effort to prevent child

abuse and neglect using a scalable, systemic, social ecological approach that positively impacts

all families and children (Browne, 2014a; Horton, 2003; CSSP, n.d.a.; CSSP, n.d.b). Today,

Strengthening Families is applied nationwide across sectors including early childhood,

education, child welfare, corrections, health care, mental health, and other social services that

are utilizing an assets-based approach to encouraging family resiliency and well-being using the

five protective factors (CSSP n.d.a; CSSP n.d.b). This review explores the foundational research,

implementation resources, and family engagement best practices relevant to the Strengthening

Families Approach and the Protective Factors Framework.

There are some identified limitations of this literature review’s analysis of the subject

matter. There is a lack of research and application materials pertinent to the relevancy of the

protective factors with a multicultural lens (Bailey, Brazil, Conrad-Hiebner, & Counts, 2015;

Horton, 2003; Segura, n.d.). Additionally, more research is needed to understand the complex

linkages between risk and protective factors with a child’s family, community, and society that

affect their health and well-being (DHHSCYF, 2015). There are multiple associations and

programs using concepts of “protective factors” and “strengthening families”; this review will

focus solely on the Center for the Study of Social Policy’s initiative related to this terminology.

Although CSSP provides significant sector specific information and resources (i.e. early


childhood, child welfare, health care, etc.), this report maintains a general focus on

Strengthening Families to allow for relevancy across disciplines.

First, this review of literature will present the background of the Strengthening Families

Approach and the Protective Factors Framework by citing the principle research. The glossary

in the appendices defines the terminology utilized in this report. The theoretical foundation

and protective factors model will then be discussed. Finally, the review will outline

implementation strategies and resources at all levels to integrate Strengthening Families into

systems, policies, and practices.

Background of the Strengthening Families Approach

The Strengthening Families Approach is an evidence-informed initiative that grew out of

a two year study examining quality early childhood education programs’ effectiveness, and

review of existing developmental research addressing child abuse and neglect prevention

(Browne, 2014a; Carroll, Frohock, & Banta, 2012; Horton, 2003; CSSP, n.d.a.; & Olson, Astor,

Booth-Miner, & Miner 2007). In 2003, the results of this research included the CSSP’s

Strengthening Families literature review, “Protective Factors Literature Review: Early Care and

Education Programs and the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect” (Horton, 2003; CSSP, n.d.b;

& Browne, 2014a). The research demonstrates that the five protective factors identified in this

pivotal report correlate with lowering child abuse and neglect in early childhood settings. (See

Appendix A for the strategies used by quality early childhood programs as they relate to

protective factors.) The five protective factors to safeguard families and children against risk

include: 1) parental resilience, 2) social connections, 3) knowledge of parenting and child


development, 4) concrete support in times of need, and 5) social emotional competence of

children (Horton, 2003; Browne, 2014a). (See Appendix B for the glossary and definitions of

each of the protective factors.) Horton’s literature review does not include consideration of

how the protective factors may differ by culture, nor how community norms influence children

and family outcomes (Horton, 2003; Bailey et al., 2015). Since this original CSSP literature

review, Strengthening Families broadened its scope and practicum as a strategy for working

with children and families across systems, and outlined foundational ideologies that include

cultural considerations.

A more recent report commissioned by CSSP, “The Strengthening Families Approach and

Protective Factors Framework: Branching Out and Reaching Deeper,” describes the expanded

application across sectors. The Strengthening Families is now being implemented in multiple

key areas including: early care and education, child abuse and neglect prevention, home

visiting, public education, corrections, and child welfare (Browne, 2014a). The approach that

was originally named “Strengthening Families through Early Care and Education” was renamed

to reflect the adoption of this initiative by a variety of organizations to the “Strengthening

Families Approach and Protective Factors Framework” (Browne, 2014a). The CSSP 2014 report

also synthesizes current, relevant research; reflects CSSP’s theory of change (see Appendix C);

further defines each of the protective factors and strategies to guide the implementation of

Strengthening Families; and describes the varied implementation of the Strengthening Families

Approach and Protective Factors Framework beyond early childhood systems (Browne, 2014a;

CSSP n.d.b). “Branching Out and Reaching Deeper” is a milestone in the research and growth of

Strengthening Families.


Research Informing Strengthening Families. CSSP describes five phases in the research

of Strengthening Families that give insight into the background and evolution of the strategy

since the initial inception of Strengthening Families. The five phases of research include (CSSP

n.d.a; CSSP n.d.b):

Phase 1: Developing the Protective Factors Framework – This phase included the

formation of a national advisory committee, extensive research identifying the

five protective factors associated with lower rates of child abuse and neglect in

the literature, and dialogue sessions with over 300 practitioners who work with

children and families.

Phase 2: Understanding the Changes in Program Practice to Support the

Implementation of the Protective Factors – Phase two embarked on a year-long

national study of exemplary programs with demonstrated ability to increase

protective factors. Phase 2 examined how the exemplary programs garnered

results. The process included accepting nominations from experts in the field,

administering surveys, two-day site visits that included focus groups with over

300 parents, and the development of program implementation tools.

Phase 3: Learning from State Pilots – Over a two year period, seven states (New

Hampshire, Missouri, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Illinois, Alaska, and Rhode Island)

partnered to learn about policies and infrastructure that would support the

adoption of Strengthening Families in early childhood education and child

welfare systems. The “hallmarks for state implementation” created by the states


are key components of the approach today. For example, parent leadership is

demonstrated at all levels of the initiative.

Phase 4: Continuous Learning with a National Network – This marks the launch

of the Strengthening Families National Network, which is being implemented in

over 30 states today (see Appendix D for the states participating in the National

Network). The network is comprised of member states and national partner

organizations that collaboratively plan, create new tools, test strategies, and

share information in a learning network with CSSP’s coordination. The

Strengthening Families approach expanded across sectors (schools, child

welfare, corrections, mental health, health care, etc.) with leadership at all

levels, and increased family partnerships. (See Appendix E for the Strengthening

Families Protective Factors Logic Model.)

Phase 5: Continued Knowledge Building – This stage includes additional research

to inform the effort, geographic and multi-disciplinary expansion of the

approach, and structures to capture learnings from nation-wide implementation

like the online database. The research included studies on home-based child

care, protective factors for youth and the development of Youth Thrive, a report

of practices from several states addressing sustainability, and an updated

foundational report and literature review.

CSSP adapts to meet the needs of families and children to prevent child abuse and neglect

through the Strengthening Families initiative. This is demonstrated from the five phases of


growth, and in their efforts to provide updated resources and a knowledge base for

implementation.

Conceptualizing the Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors Framework

Foundational Ideas of Strengthening Families. Seven key concepts provide the

foundation of the Strengthening Families approach. They include the following ideas:

1. A two-generational approach is essential, underscoring that “each of the five protective

factors is inextricably linked to healthy development and well-being for both parents

and their children” (Browne, 2014, p. 6).

2. Cultural considerations need to be accounted for that influence parenting behaviors,

belief systems, values, expectations, and relationships with children (Brown, 2014a, p. 9;

Cardona, Nicholson, & Fox, 2000; Greenfield, Suzuki, & Rothstein-Fisch, 2006; Lubell,

Lofton, & Singer, 2008; Van Campen & Russell, 2010).

3. A strengths-based approach holds the understanding that all families have assets and

competencies (Browne, 2014a; Horton, 2003; Moore et al., 2002).

4. Informing parents about the biology of stress “is critically important in forging

relationships and creating environments that support the development of resilience in

children and parents” (Browne, 2014a).

5. The resilience theory points to the capacity for families to cope, adapt, overcome, and

grow to meet life’s challenges despite adversity. Developing resilience ultimately makes

families stronger and more resourceful to surmount future challenges (Luthar, 2003;

Walsh, 2006; Browne, 2014a).


6. A focus on well-being, especially those with life situations with cumulative risk factors, is

important for the healthy development of children and families (Browne, 2014a).

7. The nature of risk and protective factors includes recognizing that families are impacted

not only on an individual level, but also on relational, community, and societal levels

that influence their health and outcomes (Browne, 2014a; Pell, 2006).

These seven principles are integrated in the Strengthening Families and Protective Factors

Framework in addition to acknowledging the interwoven relational and societal complexities

that influence child and family well-being and health.

Social Ecological Theory. Strengthening Families is guided by a social ecological

understanding of the complex causes of child abuse and neglect (Horton, 2003; Browne 2014).

Protective and risk factors are present in individual, relational, community, and societal

domains of the social ecology (Browne, 2014a). (See Appendix F for specific protective and risk

factors related to each social ecological domain.) “Family systems do not function in a vacuum;

families are always embedded within other systems. These extra-familial interactions have a

profound impact on the strength of family networks” (Pell, 2006). Focusing solely on individual-

level factors will not ensure the health of children and families (Browne, 2014a.) A holistic view

of the context that creates resiliency or negative outcomes beyond the individual is key to

understanding the “structural deficiencies in our society” that impact families (Browne, 2014a).

The Strengthening Families approach considers the social ecological association with risk factors

alongside the social determinants of health, the conditions or circumstances in society that

have a greater chance to produce poor outcomes (i.e. systemic racism, lack of educational


attainment, no or sub-standard health care options, few opportunities to gain economic

resources, unsafe neighborhoods) (Browne, 2014a). Applying the Strengthening Families

Approach and the Protective Factors Framework helps mitigate the multifaceted,

interconnected, systemic challenges that many families face.

Protective Factors Framework. Strengthening Families is structured around the

protective factors. Programs can use the protective factors to support healthy outcomes for

children and families through a positive approach, rather than solely focusing on risk factors.

Research indicates that both a reduction in risk factors and the promotion of protective factors

are necessary for successful interventions to ensure family and child well-being (Browne,

2014a; Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth, and

Families (DHHSCYF), 2015). A growing area of study is in comprehending the complexities of

how risk and protective factors interplay with a child’s family, community, and society to affect

the frequency and outcomes of child abuse and neglect (DHHSCYF, 2015). A recently published

article examined the literature related to the role of protective factors in preventing child abuse

and neglect in Latino families; the study confirmed the cultural relevance of the protective

factors framework, especially in the areas of family functioning and social support (Bailey et al.,

2015). The most effective protective factors that impact a family’s life could differ by culture,

and continued studies and multi-cultural resources are needed in this area (Bailey et al., 2015;

Horton, 2003; Segura, n.d.).

There are many definitions of protective factors relating to child and youth

development, and family well-being. This report defines the protective factors through the


Strengthening Families lens as “conditions or attributes of individuals, families, communities, or

the larger society that reduce or eliminate risk and promote healthy development and well-

being of children and families” (DHHSCYF, 2015). CSSP’s research identified five Strengthening

Families protective factors including: 1) parental resilience, 2) social connections, 3) knowledge

of parenting and child development, 4) concrete support in times of need, and 5) social

emotional competence of children (Horton, 2003; Browne, 2014a; CSSP, n.d.e; CSSP, n.d.f;

CSSP, n.d.g; DHHSCYF, 2015). (See Appendix G for the core meanings of the protective factors.)

These protective factors can simply be described as courage, community, parenting,

compassion, and health and well-being (Strengthening Families West Virgina, n.d.). Recently,

CSSP developed action sheets that articulate the rationale and specific examples of how to

work with families for each of the five protective factors (CSSP, n.d.g). There is an abundance

of research that defines and explains the protective factors from the perspective of CSSP’s

Strengthening Families; Strengthening Families is the “most well-established and broadly used

protective factors approach in the field of child abuse and neglect prevention” (Child Welfare

Information Society, 2014).

There are other noteworthy research-based protective factors frameworks in use that

correspond with the Strengthening Families approach to promote child, family, and community

well-being. They include Strengthening Families’ Youth Thrive, the Center for Disease Control

and Prevention’s (CDC) Essentials for Childhood, and the Administration on Children, Youth,

and Families’ (ACYF) protective factors conceptual model. Some approaches take a population

focus, and others utilize the domains of the social ecology theory (DHHSCYF, 2015). The

following is an abbreviated summary of each approach:


Youth Thrive is a complementary CSSP framework. While Strengthening Families

focuses on families of young children between the ages of 0-5 , Youth Thrive builds on

this foundation that focusses on youth ages 11-26 (ACYF, 2015; Child Welfare

Information Gateway, 2014; CSSP, n.d.f). “Youth Thrive: Advancing Healthy Adolescent

Development and Well-Being” outlines research supporting use of the framework for

this population (Browne, 2014b). (See Appendix H for the Youth Thrive Theory of

Change.)

The “Essentials for Childhood”, developed by CDC, highlights the importance of safe,

stable, and nurturing relationships and environments to prevent child abuse and neglect

with strategies for communities to promote these qualities (Child Welfare Information

Gateway, 2014; CDC, 2014).

In 2013, ACYF commissioned a report to increase their understanding of the evidence

supporting protective factors as they relate to the well-being of the populations they

serve: foster youth, young people exposed to domestic violence, survivors of child abuse

and neglect, pregnant or parenting youth, and runaway and unsheltered youth (CSSP,

n.d.e; Development Services Group (DSG), 2013; DSG, n.d.). “Protective Factors for

Populations Served by the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families: A Literature

Review and Theoretical Framework,” provides insight particularly for “in-risk

populations” through a social ecology framing of ten defined protective factors within

individual, relationship, and community levels (CSSP, n.d.e; DSG, 2013; DSG, n.d.). (See

Appendix I for ACYF protective factors by population and social ecological levels.)


The alignment of research finding between Strengthening Families, Youth Thrive, and

ACYF is summarized and crosswalked by multiple sources (Child Welfare Information Gateway,

2014; CSSP, n.d.e; ACYF, 2015). Furthermore, some protective factors models include a sixth

protective factor: nurturing and attachment, which the Strengthening Families approach finds

as “an implicit and valued component to the entire framework” (Child Welfare Information

Gateway, 2014). The ultimate goal of all of the protective factors frameworks is to employ

comprehensive, cross-sector, prevention-oriented methodologies to ensure the health and

well-being of all individuals, families, and communities.

Implementing Strengthening Families

CSSP outlines the infrastructure necessary to apply Strengthening Families at national,

state, system/agency, and programmatic levels to shift policy and practice to support children

and families’ health and well-being. There are five core functions of implementation across all

of the settings: 1) building a foundation to advance and sustain the efforts; 2) building

partnerships with parents; 3) deepening knowledge and comprehension of the protective

factors; 4) changing systems, policies, and practices to reflect a protective factors approach;

and 5) ensuring accountability (CSSP, n.d.h). Leadership teams integrate Strengthening Families

through a cross-sector, collaborative approach at a regional level (CSSP, n.d.h). CSSP and

partners offer a series of online tools especially for partnership engagement by sector, and

leadership team roles and functions for coordinating Strengthening Families efforts (Olson,

Astor, Booth-Miner, & Miner, 2007; CSSP, n.d.k). Child Welfare Information Gateway also

offers tips on involving with specific groups (faith-based communities, parents, courts, schools,


businesses, military, law enforcement, health care providers, etc.) (2014). At regional and

organizational levels, CSSP acknowledges the “three levers for change” as parent partnerships,

professional development, and policies and systems(CSSP, n.d.i; CSSP, n.d.j). The organization

outlines the strategies associated with developing and sustaining each key area.

CSSP and partners have resources for implementation by system and program. (See

Appendix J for a list of the canon Strengthening Families resources by agency.) They provide

tools to influence program-level systems like staff leadership and coaching to promote family

and child health and wellness with highlighted case studies (CSSP, n.d.m), and an online data

system that includes parent and staff surveys (CSSP, n.d.k). The evidence-based Protective

Factors Survey, developed by FRIENDS National Center for Community Based Child Abuse

Prevention, is the most widely used program assessment tool for family support and child

abuse prevention measuring the protective factors (CSSP, n.d.k; DHHSACF, 2015). There are a

number of online and in-person training opportunities offered for the Protective Factors

Survey; the most broadly utilized are presented by FRIENDS and the National Alliance of

Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds (DHHSACF, 2015; FRIENDS, n.d.; National Alliance of

Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds, 2014). Additionally, CSSP’s comprehensive program

self-assessments are designed specifically for early childhood education, child welfare, and

home visiting to help identify practical changes that will improve their impact in building

protective factors (CSSP, n.d.k; DHHSACF, 2015). The California Network of Family

Strengthening Networks (CNFSN) also provides a program self-assessment tool, staff self-

reflection checklist, participant survey, and trainings for implementation (CNFSN, n.d.; Marcus

& Sherman, 2012). In California, Strengthening Families Protective Factors trainings are


available by numerous state and community-based agencies to aid practitioners with optimal

family engagement and supports.

Family Engagement Best Practices Using the Framework

Building parent and caregiver partnerships is essential in the Strengthening Families

approach (CSSP n.d.j; CSSP n.d.i; National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention, n.d.). There

are a plethora of tools available for practitioners to integrate the framework into their

programs and interactions with families. Key family engagement resources utilizing the

Strengthening Families Approach and Protective Factors Framework include:

The Child Welfare Information Gateway’s “Making Meaningful Connections: 2015

Prevention Resource Guide” offers specific suggestions for programs and staff working

with families and the community using the protective factors; it also includes tip sheets

for parents and caregivers in English and Spanish (Child Welfare Information Gateway,

2014).

“Growing and Sustaining Parent Engagement: A Toolkit for Parents and Community

Partners” provides the rationale behind and implementation details for integrating

three family engagement strategies (develop a roadmap, create a checklist, and

establish a support network) (First 5 LA & CSSP, 2010). This toolkit is general enough to

be applicable across multiple sectors, and features a list of important resources for

community decision-making and leadership development.

The National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention published a series entitled

“Building and Sustaining Effective Parent Partnerships: Stages of Relationship


Development” (n.d.). The series includes tangible examples of how organizations can

create an inclusive culture of family engagement through policies, communications,

funding opportunities, recognition and incentives, evaluation, and personal and

professional development.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children’s “Strengthening Families:

Community Strategies that Work” includes practical, family-focused action plans to

build relationships with parents, teachers, and in the community that is focused on

early childhood education (Olson et al., 2007).

“The Standards of Quality for Family Strengthening & Support,” produced by the

California Network of Family Strengthening Networks, provide a format for agencies

across sectors to integrate and operationalize the Strengthening Families approach with

the “Principles of Family Support and Practice” (2012). (See Appendix K for the

principles.) This document features 17 family engagement best practice standards with

indicators and examples in these areas: family centeredness, family strengthening,

embracing diversity, community building, and evaluation (CNFSN, 2012; Marcus &

Sherman, 2012).

Nationwide, there are examples of family engagement toolkits, guides, activities, and

presentations offered as models for the practitioner that link with Strengthening Families

(Schramm, Warzinik, Allen, Reese, Schreiber, Malzner, & Cunningham, n.d.; Strengthening

Families West Virginia, n.d.; University of Dayton, 2013). The most popular strategy for family

engagement utilizing this approach is parent/family and community cafes.


Parent and Community Cafés. Parent1 and community cafés, adapted from the

World Café model, use a guided conversation structure in an intimate setting as a method for

supporting parents in understanding and building their own protective factors (CSSP, n.d.k; Be

Strong Families, n.d.; DHHSACF, 2015). The cafés are also designed to develop and promote

parent leadership and relationships (CSSP, n.d.k). In 2007, Be Strong Families/Strengthening

Families Illinois originated the parent café concept. They offer trainings, toolkits, posters,

evaluation tools, and workbooks to help communities in more than 13 states integrate the

model to fidelity. Additionally, checklists with indicators outlining the core elements of cafes to

ensure quality and impact are offered (Be Strong Families, n.d.; CSSP, n.d.l; DHHSACF, 2015).

The Parent Café model has proven positive impacts on family well-being in the five protective

factors (Be Strong Families, n.d.; Shenk & Seaters, n.d.). Community cafés were developed in

Washington by parent volunteers to address community needs and concerns using the

Strengthening Families Protective Factors Framework as a foundation (CSSP, n.d.l; Community

Café, n.d.). Community café has online resources including an orientation kit in English and

Spanish. Nationwide, cafés are being implemented to increase family engagement in

community centers, schools, early childhood education programs, and other settings where

parents and caregivers convene (DHHSACF, 2015).

Conclusion

One method of achieving optimal health and well-being for all families and children is

through the actualization of the Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors

1

Although parent café is the most widely used term for this strategy, some organizations use “family café” instead

with the thought that it is more inclusive.


Framework. It has been proven that there are many benefits of integrating an asset-based,

social ecology model to increase family resiliency, engagement, and supports. Further research

and resources needed include: evaluating the impact of risk and protective factors relevant to

the contextual environment families live in; examining the protective factors through a

multicultural lens to determine the relevancy and meaning of each factor by population; and

focusing on resources and tools that are developed to support healthy families reflecting the

cultural diversity found in today’s society. Additionally, promotion of proven best practice

strategies for authentically engaging parents in supportive leadership development roles, in

addition to the Parent Café model, is needed. These areas of study will help further the impact

of Strengthening Families to reach the vision of the initiative. Collectively building upon a

common framework, that is applicable at all levels across sectors, is necessary in order to

ensure the all children and families are healthy.


SONOMA COUNTY ALIGNMENT WITH STRENGTHENING FAMILIES

Introduction

The Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors Framework is a family

resiliency and engagement model that is currently being implemented in Sonoma County. The

Strengthening Families effort in Sonoma County is a part of a collective movement to ensure

that all families and children lead healthy and prosperous lives. Although there are many family

engagement strategies, especially at public schools and early childhood education sites, they

are not all affiliated with Strengthening Families. The Sonoma County Human Services

Department’s Upstream Investments initiative and First 5 Sonoma County is working in

partnership with local organizations to enhance a community approach to broadly integrating

Strengthening Families into organizations serving families and children. (See Appendices L and

M for more information about Upstream Investments and First 5 Sonoma County.) As a

community, Sonoma County can strengthen systems of care for families and children through

further coordination and collaboration.

Purpose of Integrating Strengthening Families in Sonoma County

The Strengthening Families Approach focuses on mobilizing partners, communities and

families to build family strengths, promote optimal development, and reduce child abuse and

neglect. Strengthening Families creates an opportunity to use a common framework to support

and align these efforts across organizations and programs to increase family resiliency, build

parent leadership opportunities, and promote wrap-around supports. First 5 Sonoma County

and Upstream Investments aim to increase community-wide knowledge and application of the


Strengthening Families principles to better serve of all children and families. Specifically, First 5

Sonoma County and Upstream Investments’ interests in broadly incorporating Strengthening

Families include: listening to and addressing organizational capacity building needs of

community partners; creating an accessible data sharing culture committed to collective action;

and understanding the types and combinations of services that lead to improved outcomes for

families’ health and well-being. Simultaneously, there are a number of Sonoma County

government, business, and non-profit agencies operationalizing the Strengthening Families

Approach and the Protective Factors Framework with differing levels of integration. The

momentum and timing is right for a concerted local effort with a network of support.

Local Strengthening Families Family Engagement and Resiliency Efforts

In Sonoma County, the Strengthening Families initiative is currently applied in a variety

of disciplines, organizations, and programs. Strengthening Families is known to guide the work

of these organizations:

Early childhood education programs and non-profit organizations (Community Child

Care Council – 4Cs, Community Action Partnership, Early Learning Institute)

Parent and child education and support programs (Child Parent Institute, North Bay

Regional Center, Community Action Partnership, various elementary schools and family

resource centers, La Luz, Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce)

Maternal Child Adolescent Health Field Nursing program (Sonoma County Department

of Health Services – Public Health)

Professional development opportunities (Sonoma County Office of Education, Child Care

Planning Council, Upstream Investments, First 5 Sonoma County)


Health care (community health clinics, Sonoma County Department of Health Services –

Behavioral Health, Kaiser Permanente, Drug Abuse Alternatives Center)

Child welfare programs and interventions (Sonoma County Human Services Department

– Family, Youth, & Children’s Services)

Some organizations have deeply engrained Strengthening Families philosophies and

practices, while others are using a single strategy in their practice related to the framework.

Child Parent Institute (CPI) adopted the Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective

Factors Framework at its inception to support their mission to “end child abuse and strengthen

the health of children, parents, and families” (G. Harris, personal communication, October 5,

2015). Their communications, planning, reporting, professional development, evaluations, and

programmatic services all reflect Strengthening Families (G. Harris, personal communication,

October 5, 2015). (See Appendix N for an excerpt from the CPI annual report highlighting their

programs and accomplishments through the lens of the protective factors.) CPI is a

Strengthening Families champion for the community. Another organization that embraces the

Strengthening Families as a lens to inform their work is Community Child Care Council (4Cs),

whose mission aligns with the goals of the initiative (L. Siebler, personal communication,

October 2, 2015). Over the last five years, 4Cs staff attended and facilitated Strengthening

Families and Protective Factor trainings, including train the trainer seminars (L. Siebler, personal

communication, October 15, 2015). Additionally, they use the protective factors for

departmental strategic program planning and administer the Protective Factors Survey.


To monitor the impact of Strengthening Families efforts in building family resiliency in

Sonoma County, First 5 encourages the use of the Protective Factors Survey (PFS) by agencies.

Currently, over 40 states are using the PFS with participants in home visiting, parent education,

child maltreatment prevention, and family support programs. Locally, Family, Youth and

Children’s Services programs, the Home Visiting Collaborative, Triple P providers, and several

First 5 grantee programs have been early adopters of the tool. First 5 developed a training

video to support use of the tool. The first community-wide results from the use of the survey

will be shared early in 2016.

Another noteworthy group using the Strengthening Families and Protective Factors

Framework is the Sonoma Child Abuse Prevention Services (CAPS) collective impact initiative

led by Sonoma County Human Services Department’s Family, Youth, & Children’s Services

Division. CAPS designed a robust evaluation of their interventions including a logic model with

the protective factors as intermediate outcomes; they use the Protective Factors Survey as a

measurement tool (R. de Melo, personal communication, October 5, 2015). (See Appendix O

for the CAPS logic model.) There is a great deal of potential to engage other partners in utilizing

the Strengthening Families and Protective Factors Framework to realize the common goal of

improving family resiliency and engagement.

Recommendations for Collaboration and Alignment

Sonoma County is known for its highly collaborative partnerships and coordinated

planning efforts to make a difference in the lives of families and children. CSSP identifies the

“three levers for change” for Strengthening Families implementation as parent partnerships,


professional development, and policies and systems at the local and organizational levels (CSSP,

n.d.i; CSSP, n.d.j). Recommendations for a locally coordinated Strengthening Families Approach

using the Protective Factors Framework with consideration of the “three levers for change”

include:

Recommendation: Assess all of the current family engagement programs and parent

groups by organization to gain a complete, countywide picture of the opportunities for

alignment by system and by protective factor. A community scan could capture

programs not overtly utilizing Strengthening Families (Padres Unidos, Abriendo Puertas,

Parent University, school-based parent groups, etc.). One option to further develop

relationships with the assessment could entail an asset mapping component. Create a

resource inventory of family engagement programs (by geographic area, organization,

protective factor), and a GIS map of the identified assets. Train and compensate parent

groups to lead this community-based project, and identify specific needs for policy

changes and additional resource allocations based on the findings. Mapping by priority

areas highlighted in the Portrait of Sonoma County or Supervisorial District may guide

policy change. (See Appendix P for more information about the Portrait of Sonoma

County.)

Recommendation: Identify and connect with key partners that are not currently utilizing

the Strengthening Families Approach and Protective Factors Framework. Determine

their interests and needs in incorporating the framework into their agencies’ policies

and practices. This can be done through informational interviews or surveys. Gage the


level of involvement expressed and then choose a course of action with consideration of

other initiatives to optimize collaboration and leverage resources.

Recommendation: Build upon existing efforts, like the ACES Connection group, to avoid

adding another initiative to support Sonoma County’s family and child strengthening

efforts. At the same time, distinguish the goals and objectives of integrating the

Strengthening Families and Protective Factors.

Recommendation: Provide ongoing professional development opportunities around the

Strengthening Families Approach and the Protective Factors that reach a broad

audience across systems. The 2015 “Strengthening Families: Community Training Needs

Survey,” distributed by First 5 Sonoma County and Upstream Investments, surveyed 41

different organizations. Based on the results, develop a one day “train-the-trainer”

Strengthening Families and Protective Factors curriculum and professional development

opportunity. Include parent participation in the planning and implementation of the

trainings in addition to being attendees. Develop a cohort of local Strengthening

Families trainers to provide a sustainable infrastructure for this work in Sonoma County,

and serve other regions as a model. This fall, La Luz is offering a 12-hour Strengthening

Families Protective Factor training for organizations in Sonoma Valley with 6 follow-up

sessions to specifically address the implementation needs of the participatory

organizations (personal communication, V. Vences, October 14, 2015).

Recommendation: Organize a Sonoma County contingent to participate in the quarterly

California Strengthening Families Roundtable hosted by Strategies, or national

Strengthening Families conferences.


Recommendation: Create and invest in new, innovative parent leadership and

engagement practices in addition to expanding the Parent Café family engagement

strategy. For example, the Children’s Network of Solano County has adopted the

“Parent Leadership Training Institute” based off of the National Parent Leadership

Institute’s model. This program “enables parents to become leading advocates for

children. Parents' opinions are often unheard. The PLTI teaches parents, who wish to

improve the lifelong health, safety and learning of children, how to become practiced

change agents for the next generation” (Children’s Network, 2012). First 5 Solano is

now funding two cohorts of parents, one in English and one in Spanish, to implement

the Parent Leadership Institute (V. Jones Boyd, personal communication, October 21,

2015).

Recommendation: Develop a communications plan that clearly articulates tangible

examples of how Strengthening Families can be practically engrained into organizational

culture, policies, and practices across systems. This will require messaging for diverse

audiences.

Recommendation: Develop an evaluation plan to create a shared measurement system

examining the effectiveness of Strengthening Families efforts at all levels. CSSP provides

tools that support this recommendation, including the Protective Factors Survey (PFS).

(See Appendix Q for an overview of the Protective Factors Survey.) Since First 5 Sonoma

County requires grantees to use the PFS, they have offered a number of supports to aid

the community in administering and using the data. (See Appendix R for information

about the PFS training video.) Offer organizations quarterly reports with the PFS results,


and discuss areas of strength and opportunities for growth in program practices and

policies. Upstream Investments can help build organizational capacity in this area by

creating an accessible, community-driven process of sharing data in a safe environment.

Recommendation: Seek alternative funding to sustain Strengthening Families work in

Sonoma County, especially for direct services supporting family engagement programs

and parental participation in unsalaried leadership roles.

Conclusion

Strengthening Families provides organizations an evidence-informed approach to

collectively increase family and children’s health and well-being Sonoma County. As a

community network, the Strengthening Families and Protective Factors Framework can create a

local web of support for families and children, and ensure organizations are using data to

inform their practice. Prioritizing and applying recommendations for the implementation of

Strengthening Families and the Protective Factors will require organizational leadership and

voice from the community of providers, advocates, and parents. Across sectors, agencies can

align their efforts to create a significant community impact with the ultimate goal of building

resilient, prosperous, safe, and healthy families throughout Sonoma County.


APPENDICES

Appendix A.

Early Childhood Education Strategies Related to the Protective Factors


Appendix B.

STRENGTHENING FAMILIES GLOSSARY

Key Terms: Definitions:

Assessment The systematic collection, review, and use of information about programs undertaken for the purpose of improving program outcomes and development (University of Connecticut, n.d.).

Capacity Building “The process of improving an organization’s ability to achieve its mission. It includes increasing skills and knowledge; increasing the ability to plan and implement programs, practices, and policies; increasing the quality, quantity, or cost-effectiveness of programs, practices, and policies; and increasing sustainability of infrastructure or systems that support programs, practices, and policies” (United States Department of Health and Human Services & Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.).

Collective Impact “The commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a complex social problem” (Foundation Strategy Group, 2013).

Community “Individuals in the defined geographic scope who are directly affected by the quality of [systems, programs, and services] (e.g. students, parents, business and civic leaders), and therefore must be clearly understood, actively involved, and eventually satisfied by the impact of the partnership[s]” (Strive, 2013a). “A comprehensive network of individual relationships that express common interests and act to meet the general needs of the locality” (Brennan, 2008).

Concrete Supports in Times of Need

“Identifying, seeking, accessing, advocating for, and receiving needed adult, child, and family services; receiving a quality of service designed to preserve parents’ dignity and promote healthy development” (Browne, 2014, p.5). “Financial security to cover day-to-day expenses and unexpected costs that come up from time to time---access to formal and informal supports” (Strategies, 2015).


Culture “Beliefs, values, behaviors, customs, language, rituals, and practices characteristic of a particular group of people that provides them with patterns for living and interpreting reality” (Browne, 2014, p.7). “The vast structure of behaviors, ideas, attitudes, values, habits, beliefs, customs, language, rituals, ceremonies, and practices peculiar to a particular group of people which provides them with a general design for living and patterns for interpreting reality” (Nobles, 1990, p.5).

Cultural Competence “Understanding and respecting culturally based values, beliefs, and behaviors” (Browne, 2014, p.7). “A set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency, or among professionals and enables that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations” (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989). “Operationally defined, cultural competence is the integration and transformation of knowledge about individuals and groups of people into specific standards, policies, practices, and attitudes used in appropriate cultural settings to increase the quality of services; thereby producing better outcomes” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004). “Cultural competence is defined as a set of values, behaviors, attitudes, and practices within a system, organization, program or among individuals and which enables them to work effectively cross culturally. Further, it refers to the ability to honor and respect the beliefs, language, interpersonal styles and behaviors of individuals and families receiving services, as well as staff who are providing such services. Striving to achieve cultural competence is a dynamic, ongoing, developmental process that requires a long-term commitment” (Denboba, 1993). “One that acknowledges and incorporates—at all levels—the importance of culture, assessment of cross-cultural relations, vigilance toward the dynamics that result from cultural differences, expansion of cultural knowledge, and adaption of services to meet culturally unique needs” (Betancourt, Green, Carrillo, and Ananeh-Firempong, 2003).

Evaluation “Evaluations assess performance, measure impacts, and document


successes. With evaluation information, organizations are able to direct limited resources to where they are most needed and most effective for their clients and communities. An evaluation should suggest positive outcomes and reflect the design of the program being submitted. A credible evaluation will result in a report that includes the purpose, audience, questions to be answered, literature review, methods, analysis, and recommendations” (Upstream Investments, personal communication, October 22, 2015).

Evidence-Based Practice/Program

“...the integration of the best research evidence with clinical expertise in the context of patient values, characteristics, culture, and preferences” (Howard, 2012; American Psychological Association, 2005; Institute of Medicine, 2001). “A decision making process that integrates the best available research evidence with family and professional wisdom to choose a course of action” (National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention Funds, 2009).

Evidence-Informed “Programs or approaches that are clearly linked to research, but not proven by rigorous research using an experimental design. Evidence- informed programs are often guided by established theory, qualitative studies and findings from basic research” (Upstream Investments, personal communication, October 22, 2015).

Family Strengths “The set of relationships and processes that support and protect families and family members, especially during times of adversity and change. Family strengths help to maintain family cohesion while also supporting the development and well-being of individual family members” (Moore, Chalk, Scarpa, & Vandivere, 2002, p.1).

Framework

“A basic conceptual structure (as of ideas); a set of ideas or facts that provide support for something; a supporting structure; a structural frame” (“Framework,” n.d.a). “A set of principles, ideas, etc. that you use when you are forming your decisions and judgments” (“Framework,” n.d.b). “Broad overview, outline, or skeleton of interlinked items which supports a particular approach to a specific objective, and serves as a guide that can be modified as required by adding or deleting items” (“Framework,” n.d.c).


Indicator

“A gauge to measure progress towards long-term community-wide outcomes. An indicator may describe current performance, illustrate trends over time and/or identify disparities” (Upstream Investments, personal communication, October 22, 2015).

Knowledge of Parenting and Child Development

“Understanding the unique aspects of child development; implementing developmentally and contextually appropriate best parenting practices” (Browne, 2014, p.5). “Accurate information about raising young children and appropriate expectations for their behavior” (Strategies, 2015).

Nurturing and Attachment

“The relationship that develops as a result of a caregiver’s sensitive attention to a child and the child’s responses to the caregiver” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014).

Parent “…an adult or adolescent who has responsibility for rearing a child, including the biological parents, grandparents, other relatives, or non-biological caregivers” (Browne, 2014, p.6).

Parent/Family Engagement

“...an overarching principle and approach for involving families in decisions about themselves, their children, services, and their communities” (First 5 LA & CSSP, 2010). “Parents are effectively engaged when they act as their child’s first and most important teacher and primary advocate throughout their child’s development and when they add their voice to participate in a community that supports them in their parenting role” (L. Benz, personal communication, October 19, 2015).

Parental/Family Resilience

“Managing both general life and parenting stress and functioning well when faced with stressors, challenges, or adversity; the outcome is positive change and growth” (Browne, 2014, p.5). “…the process of managing stress and functioning well in a particular context when faced with adversity. Resilience is learned through exposure to challenging life events facilitated by supportive relationships and environments (e.g., people, culture, institutions, conditions, policies). The outcome of resilience is positive change and growth” (Browne, 2014, p.21). “The ability to overcome life’s challenges” (Walsh, 1998).


“The ability to cope and bounce back from all kinds of challenges” (Strategies, 2015). “The manifestation of positive adaptation despite significant life adversity. Resilience is not an attribute that can be directly measured; rather it is a process or phenomenon that is inferred from the dual coexisting conditions of adversity and relatively positive adaptation in spite of this” (Luthar, 2003).

Promotive Factors “Conditions or attributes of individuals, families, communities, or the larger society that actively enhances well-being” (CSSP, n.d.f).

Protective Factors “…attributes and conditions that help to keep all families strong and on a pathway of healthy development and well-being” (Browne, 2014, p.2). “Conditions or attributes of individuals, families, communities, or the larger society that mitigate or eliminate risk and promote healthy development and well-being” (Browne, 2014; Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014). “Strengths that help to buffer and support families at risk” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014). “…conditions or attributes of individuals, families, communities, or the larger society that, when present, promote well-being and reduce the risk for negative outcomes” (Development Services Group, n.d.; Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, 2015). “…a characteristic at the biological, psychological, family, or community (including peers and culture) level that is associated with a lower likelihood of problem outcomes or that reduces the negative impact of a risk factor on problem outcomes” (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009, p. xxvii). “…interrelated attributes or conditions that simultaneously (a) prevent or mitigate the effect of exposure to risk factors and stressful life events, and (b) build family strengths and a family environment that promotes optimal child development” (Browne, 2014, p.21).

Risk Factors “Conditions or attributes of individuals, families, communities, or the larger society that increase the probability of poor outcomes” (Browne, 2014, p.18).


“A characteristic at the biological, psychological, family, community, or cultural level that proceeds and is associated with a higher likelihood of problem outcomes” (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2009). “Risk factors refer to the stressful conditions, events, or circumstances…that increase a family’s chance of poor outcomes, including child abuse and neglect” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2014).

Social Ecology Theory/Model

“The interplay among individual, family and relational, community, and societal factors” (Browne, 2014, p.18). “The examination of how individuals exist within and are shaped by their individual characteristics, families, other relationships, their communities, and society as a whole (Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, 2015).

Social and Emotional Competence of Children

“Providing an environment and experience that enable the child to form close and secure adult and peer relationships, and to experience, regulate, and express emotions” (Browne, 2014, p.5). “The developing capacity of the child from birth through 5 years of age to form close and secure adult and peer relationships; experience, regulate, and express e3motions in socially and culturally appropriate ways; and explore the environment and learn---all in the context of family, community, and culture” (Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations, n.d.). “A child’s ability to interact positively with others and communicate his or her emotions effectively” (Strategies, 2015).

Social Connections “Having healthy, sustained relationships with people, institutions, the community, or a force greater than oneself that promote a sense of trust, belonging, and that one matters” (Browne, 2014). “Friends, family members, neighbors, and other members of a community who provide emotional support and concrete assistance to families” (Strategies, 2015).

Social Determinants of Health

“The integrated social structures and economic systems that contribute to health disparities” (Browne, 2014, p.18).


“Key determinants of health and well-being: social and economic opportunities and resources (economic development, job opportunities, educational attainment, reducing poverty, child and youth development, civic and community engagement); living and working conditions in homes and communities (built and natural environment, healthy schools, healthy worksites, healthy homes and neighborhoods, healthy systems: food, transportation, housing); medical and social services/personal behavior (access to prevention-focused medical and social services, health literacy, healthy lifestyles)” (Sonoma County Department of Health Services, 2013).

Strengths-Based Approach

“…focuses on what is working well to support the growth of individuals and communities. It…is based on the assumption that people have existing competencies and resources for their own empowerment. It assumes that people are capable of solving problems and learning new skills; they are a part of the process rather than just being guided by a professional” (Centre for Child Well-Being, 2011, p.2). “…acknowledges that parents are experts on their family and want to do right by their child…encourages and is complementary to shared decision making where…families can problem solve…to become more efficacious in their health decision-making” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2013, p.1).

Sustainability “...the capacity to keep an action or process going” (First 5 LA & CSSP, 2010).

Two-Generation Approach

“A strategy or approach to promote young children’s healthy development by developing the capabilities and the resources of parents or caregivers” (Browne, 2014, p.7).


Appendix C.

Center for the Study of Social Policy’s Theory of Change


Appendix D.

2014 Strengthening Families National Network States


Appendix E.


Appendix F.

The Social Ecology and the Protective and Risk Factors

(Browne, 2004; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury

Prevention and Control, 2013)


Appendix G. (Continued on the next page.)

Core Meanings of the Strengthening Families Protective Factors


Appendix G. (Continued from previous page.)

Core Meanings of the Strengthening Families Protective Factors


Appendix H.

Youth Thrive Theory of Change


Appendix I.

ACYF Protective Factors by Level of Influence and Population Served


Appendix J.


Appendix K.


Appendix L.

Sonoma County’s Upstream Investments Initiative: Prioritizing Prevention and Evidence-Based Practice




Appendix M.


Appendix N.

Child Parent Institute Annual Report 2014/2015 (Excerpt)


Appendix O.


Appendix P.


Appendix Q.


Appendix R.


References

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013). Strength based approach. Retrieved from:

www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/HALF-Implementation-

Guide/communicating-with-families/pages/Strengths-Based-Approach.aspx

American Psychological Association. (2005). Report of the 2005 Presidential Task Force on

evidence-based practice. American Psychological Association Council of Representatives.

Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/practice/resources/evidence/index.aspx

Bailey, A. M., Brazil, A. M., Conrad-Hiebner, A., & Counts, J. (2015). Protective Factors among

Latino Families involved with Child Welfare: A Review of Spanish Protective Factor

Research on Child Maltreatment Prevention in Seven Countries. Children and Youth

Services Review.

Be Strong Families. (n.d.). The history of parent cafes. Retrieved from:

http://www.bestrongfamilies.net/build-protective-factors/parent-cafes/parent-cafe-

background-history/

Betancourt, J. R., Green, A. R., Carrillo, J. E., & Ananeh-Firempong, O. (2003). Defining cultural

competence: a practical framework for addressing racial/ethnic disparities in health and

health care. Public health reports, 118(4), 293.

Brennan, M. A. (2008). Conceptualizing resiliency: An interactional perspective for community

and youth development. Child Care in Practice, 14(1), 55-64.

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/HALF-Implementation-

http://www.aap.org/en-us/advocacy-and-policy/aap-health-initiatives/HALF-Implementation-




Browne, C. H. (2014a). The strengthening families approach and protective factors framework:

Branching out and reaching deeper. Retrieved from

www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/branching-

out_and_reaching-deeper.pdf

Browne, C. H. (2014b). Youth Thrive: Advancing Healthy Adolescent Development and Well-

Being. Retrieved from: http://www.cssp.org/reform/child-welfare/youth-

thrive/2014/Youth-Thrive_Advancing-Healthy-Adolescent-Development-and-Well-

Being.pdf

California Network of Family Strengthening Networks. (2012). The standards of quality for

family strengthening and support. Retrieved from:

http://www.cnfsn.org/uploads/1/0/8/2/10824388/standards_overview_1-30-15.pdf

Cardona, P.G., Nicholson, B.C., & Fox, R.A. (2000). Parenting among Hispanic and Anglo-

American mothers with young children. The journal of Social Psychology, 140(3), 357-

365. Retrieved from

epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=edu_fac

Carroll, C., Frohock, S., & Banta O. (2012). Training from Strategies: Strengthening Families by

Building Protective Factors. Rohnert Park, CA.

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.a). The research behind strengthening families

[PowerPoint]. Retrieved from www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-

families/resources/body/the-research-behind-strengthening-families

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/branching-out_and_reaching-deeper.pdf

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/branching-out_and_reaching-deeper.pdf

http://www.cssp.org/reform/child-welfare/youth-

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/the-research-behind-strengthening-families



Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.b). The research behind strengthening families

[PDF document]. Retrieved from www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-

families/resources/body/the-research-behind-strengthening-families

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.c). Levers for change: Implementing and sustaining

strengthening families in states and counties. Retrieved from

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/basic-one-pagers/Levers-for-

Change_Implementing-andSustaining-Strengthening-Families-in-States-and-

Counties.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.d). Strengthening families through early care and

education. Retrieved from

www.cssp.org/resources/body/strengthening_families_through_early_care_and_educa

tion

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.e). Connecting the dots: CSSP’s strengthening families

and youth thrive frameworks & ACYF’s literature review on protective factors for in-risk

children. Retrieved from: www.cssp.org/.../connecting-the-dots_sf-and-yt-and-the-acyf-

literature-review.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.f). CSSP’s protective and promotive factors. Retrieved

fromhttp://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/about/body/ProtectiveFactors

ActionSheets.pdf



http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/basic-one-pagers/Levers-for-Change_Implementing-andSustaining-Strengthening-Families-in-States-and-Counties.pdf




Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.g). Core meanings of the strengthening families

protective factors. Retrieved from

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/2015/Core-Meanings-of-the-SF-

Protective-Factors-2015.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.h). Core functions of strengthening families

implementation. Retrieved from:

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/systems

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.i). Levers for change: Implementing and sustaining

strengthening families in states and counties. Retrieved from:

http://www.partnershipforsafefamilies.org/section/main/documents/Levers-for-

Change_Implementing-and-Sustaining-Strengthening-Families-in-States-and-

Counties.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.i). Building parent partnerships to strengthening

families. Retrieved from:

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/practice/building-parent-

partnerships

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.k). Tools to support strengthening families

implementation. Retrieved from: http://first5association.org/wp-

content/uploads/2014/01/Tools-to-support-Strengthening-Families-Implementation.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.l). Using café conversations to build protective factors

and parent leadership. Retrieved from:





http://first5association.org/wp-

http://first5association.org/wp-


http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/2014/USING-CAF-CONVERSATIONS-

TO-BUILD-PROTECTIVE-FACTORS-AND-PARENT-LEADERSHIP.pdf

Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.m). Key program elements: Staff leadership to create

relationships that protect children. Retrieved from:

http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/projects-2/strengthening-families-

california/resources/center-for-the-study-of-social-policy-strengthening-families-

resources/

Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning. (n.d.). Module 1, Infant

toddler: social and emotional development within the context of relationships. Retrieved

from: www.csefel.vanderbilt.edu/resources/inftodd/mod1/1.7.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

(2013). Social-ecological model: A framework for prevention. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/overview/social-ecologicalmodel.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

(2014). Essentials for childhood steps to create safe, stable, nurturing relationships and

environments. Retrieved from:

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/essentials_for_childhood_framework.pdf

Centre for Child Well-Being. (2011, Fall). Strengths-based versus deficit-based approaches.

Retrieved from

www.mtroyal.ca/wcm/groups/public/documents/pdf/strengthsvsdeficitrb.pdf

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (February, 2014). Protective factors approaches in child

welfare. Retrieved from https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/protective_factors.pdf






Children’s Network. (2012). Parent leadership training institute. Retrieved from:

http://www.childnet.org/parents--families/plti/

Community Café. (n.d.) Community café: Changing the lives of children through conversations

that matter. Retrieved from: http://thecommunitycafe.com/tools-resources/resources/

Cross T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of

care, volume I. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Child Development Center,

CASSP Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved from

http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/definingcultcomp.aspx

Denboba, D., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Services and Resources

Administration (1993). MCHB/DSCSHCN Guidance for Competitive Applications,

Maternal and Child Health Improvement Projects for Children with Special Health Care

Needs. Retrieved from http://www.nccccurricula.info/culturalcompetence.html

Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth, and Families.

(2015). 2015 prevention resource guide: Making meaningful connections. Retrieved

from: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubpdfs/guide.pdf

Development Services Group, Inc. (2013). Protective factors for populations served by the

Administration on Children, youth, and Families: A literature review and theoretical

framework. Retrieved from: http://www.dsgonline.com/ACYF

Development Services Group, Inc. (n.d.) Promoting protective factors for in-risk families and

youth: A brief for researchers. Retrieved from:

http://www.dsgonline.com/acyf/PF_Research_Brief.pdf

http://www.dsgonline.com/ACYF

http://www.dsgonline.com/acyf/PF_Research_Brief.pdf


Dillon-Shore, A. (December, 2015). Sonoma county’s upstream investments initiative. Policy &

Practice, 72, 29-31.

First 5 LA & Center for the Study of Social Policy. (December, 2010). Growing and sustaining

parent engagement: A toolkit for parents and community partners. Retrieved from:

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536819.pdf

Framework. (n.d.a). Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/framework

Framework. (n.d.b). Macmillan Dictionary. Retrieved from

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/framework

Framework. (n.d.c). BusinessDictionary.com. Retrieved from

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/framework.html

FRIENDS National Center for Community Based Child Abuse Prevention. (n.d.) Protective factors

survey. Retrieved from: http://friendsnrc.org/protective-factors-survey-101

Foundation Strategy Group. (2013). What is collective impact. Retrieved from:

http://www.fsg.org/OurApproach/WhatIsCollectiveImpact.aspx

Greenfield, P.M., Suzuki, L.K., & Rothstein-Fisch, C. (2006). Cultural pathways through human

development. In K. A. Renniger & I.E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Volume

4: child psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Horton, C. (2003). Protective factors literature review: Early care and

Education programs and the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Retrieved from

www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/literaturereview.pdf

http://www.cssp.org/reform/strengthening-families/resources/body/literaturereview.pdf


Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality Health Care in America. (2001). Crossing the

quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National

Academy Press.

Lubell, K.M., Lofton, T., & Singer, H.H. (2008. Promoting healthy parenting practices across

cultural groups: A CDC research brief. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Retrieved from

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/images/dvp/healthy_parenting_rib_a.pdf

Luthar, S. S., (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood

adversities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Marcus, A., & Sherman, J. (2012). California standards for strengthening family support.

Working Strategies, 15, 12-13.

Moore, K.A., Chalk, R., Scarpa, J., & Vandivere, S. (2002, August). Family strengths: Often

overlooked, but real. Retrieved from Child trends: wwwchildtrends.org/wp-

content/uploads/2002/08/Overlooked-Family-strengths.pdf

National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention Funds. (n.d.). Building and sustaining

effective parent partnerships: Stages of relationship development. Retrieved from:

http://www.ctfalliance.org/images/about/Building%20and%20Sustaining.pdf

National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention Funds. (2009, August). Setting the context for

evidence based practice in strengthening families and preventing child maltreatment.

Retrieved from: http://www.ctfalliance.org/images/about/EBPPositionPaper.pdf


National Alliance of Children’s Trust & Prevention Funds. (2014). Bringing the protective factors

framework to life in your work: A resource for action. Retrieved from:

http://www.ctfalliance.org/images/resources/TOT%20Web%20Flyer.pdf

National Research Council and Institue of Medicine. (2009). Preventing mental, emotional, and

behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. Washington, DC:

The National Academies Press.

Nobles, W. (1990). The infusion of African American content: A question of content and intent.

In A. Hilliard, L. Payton-Stewart, & L.O. Williams (Eds.), Infusion of African and African

American content in school curriculum: Proceedings of the First National Conference,

October 1989 (pp. 5-24). Morristown, NJ: Aaron Press.

Olson, M., Astor, S., Booth-Miner, J., & Miner, S. (2007). Strengthening families: Community

strategies that work. YC Young Children, 62(2), 26.

Pell, E. (2006). Relationships matter: How agencies can support family and social network

development. Retrieved from The Annie E. Casey Foundation:

www.issuelab.org/resource/relationships_matter_how_agencies_can_support_family_a

nd_social_network_development

Schramm, D., Warzinik, K., Allen, J., Reese, C., Schreiber, K., Malzner, L., & Cunningham, P.

(n.d.). Strong parents, stable children: Building protective factors to strengthen families.

Retrieved from: http://ctf4kids.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/SPSC_FOR-Web.pdf

Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus Fourth Edition. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park

CA.


Segura, V. (n.d.). Parenting practice across cultural groups. Retrieved from

www.familyresourcecenters.net/tag/victor-segura/

Shenk, K., & Seaters, S. (n.d.). Empowering teens to build protective factors. Retrieved from:

http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Empowering-

Teens-to-Build-Protective-Factors.pdf

Sonoma County Department of Health Services. (2013). Health action a 2020 vision for Sonoma

County action plan 2013-2016. Retrieved from

http://www.sonomahealthaction.org/sites/default/files/images/u6/HealthActionPlan%

208_31_12_low%20res.pdf

Strategies. (June, 1, 2015). Preventing or mitigating the effects of perinatal mood and anxiety

disorders by building protective factors. Retrieved from:

http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/June-2015-

Attendee-Packet.pdf

Strengthening Families West Virginia. (n.d.) A guide to using the strengthening families

protective factors framework. Retrieved from:

http://www.strengtheningfamilieswv.org/pdfs/TEAM-

STRENGTHENING_PARENT_BOOKLET-2015.pdf

Strive. (2013a). Strive theory of action overview. Retrieved from:

http://www.strivenetwork.org/sites/default/files/images/Strive%20Theory%20of%20Ac

tion%20with%20Overview.pdf.








U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Health Resources and Services

Administration, Bureau of Health professionals. (2004). Cultural Competence. Retrieved

from http://www.nccccurricula.info/culturalcompetence.html

United States Department of Health and Human Services & Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention. (n.d.) 801 program guidance: Division of adolescent and school health

definitions. Retrieved from

http://www.cdc.gov/dash/program_mgt/docs_pdfs/dash_definitions.pdf

University of Connecticut. (n.d.). UCONN assessment: What is assessment? Retrieved from:

http://assessment.uconn.edu/what/index.html

University of Dayton. (2013, July 12). Proceedings from Catholic Education Summit: Ready

Families, Ready Children, Family Engagement Approaches that Matter. Dayton, OH.

Van Campen, K.S., & Russell, St. T. (2010). Cultural differences in parenting practices: What

Asian Americans families can teach us. (Frances McClelland institute for Children, youth,

and Families Research Link, Vol. 2, no. 1). Tucson, AZ: the University of Arizona.

Retrieved from

mcclellandinstitute.arizona.edu/sites/mclelland.arizona.edu/files/ResearchLink_2.1_Rus

sell_AsianFam.pdf

Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Documents

Using the Strengthening Families Approach and … the Strengthening Families Approach and Protective ... Center for the Study of Social Policy’s ... health care, mental health, and