A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

While each group described what is known from its own perspective, a consensus from the Working Groups included these points:

• School-linked comprehensive services are not new. Their diversity and rapid growth are, however. While there is cumulative experience with such services, these services vary somewhat by age group. For example, comprehensive services for very young children have a long history of working with families and being mindful of the multiple developmental needs of young children. Including the family in decisionmaking is a precept from the early years through youth in transition, but often there is less experience and/or commitment to the family-centered approach the older children become. Also, priorities change as children age. While the personalization of services is most important in the elementary years, by adolescence confidentiality becomes an overriding concern.

• Reliable, validated information about school-linked comprehensive services is scanty, at best. The information we do have tends to be fragmented and incomplete, frequently because collaborative services require new approaches to evaluation. The target groups for evaluation are elusive, the components diverse. Research must be useful to a much broader audience than ever before, ranging from families to policymakers and the research community. Also, research has tended to focus on individual programs rather than the results of collaborative efforts extending over time. Those involved with programs want access to relevant research, but they also want assurance that the research is culturally sensitive, family centered, and conducted over sufficient time to measure results.

• What is known about school-linked collaborative services tends to be positive. The most successful collaborative services are cost effective over the long run; they bring children and families into systems where they can become empowered; they are culturally competent and committed to responding to the diverse contexts of children and families; and they communicate/connect well with communities.

• The school-linked collaborative services movement is about making existing services more flexible in their work together under a mutual vision about the well-being of children, youth, and families. Currently, services are fragmented and often divided over philosophy and strategies. The relationships between early childhood and school arenas, for example, sometimes are contentious because of differing philosophies and contexts. Similarly, interprofessional development must support enhanced expertise in separate professional disciplines and, at the same time, develop skills at collaboration across disciplines.

• Leadership for school-linked collaborative services is essential. Managing the diversity inherent in school-linked services requires leaders who are committed to collaborative leadership. However, few who are involved with such programs have the skills to carry out sound collaborative efforts, or the time, and access to professional development in order to acquire needed skills.

• School-linked collaborative services are built on fragile financial foundations that are both insufficient and inconsistent. Current funding patterns often do not allow for collaboration and sometimes inhibit it, frequently because there are multiple funding sources. However, they do frequently encourage "turf" problems. This dilemma affects the evaluation of efforts as well as attempts to provide interprofessional development. In the case of the latter area, pioneering initiatives must depend more on outside--and temporary funding--than on institutional commitments.

[Compelling Conference Themes]

[What We Need to Know From Research]