These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

105 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 20945805)

  • 1. Comparing differential responses within child protective services: a longitudinal examination.
    Marshall SK; Charles G; Kendrick K; Pakalniskiene V
    Child Welfare; 2010; 89(3):57-77. PubMed ID: 20945805
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Re-referral to child protective services: the influence of child, family, and case characteristics on risk status.
    Connell CM; Bergeron N; Katz KH; Saunders L; Tebes JK
    Child Abuse Negl; 2007 May; 31(5):573-88. PubMed ID: 17537504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effect of child protective services system factors on child maltreatment rereporting.
    Bae HO; Solomon PL; Gelles RJ; White T
    Child Welfare; 2010; 89(3):33-55. PubMed ID: 20945804
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Developmental needs and individualized family service plans among infants and toddlers in the child welfare system.
    Casanueva CE; Cross TP; Ringeisen H
    Child Maltreat; 2008 Aug; 13(3):245-58. PubMed ID: 18495948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Impact of on-site social work services on the documentation of client and family-centered information: the experience of Ryan White CARE Act (Title IV) pediatric program sites in Maryland.
    Palenicek JG; Hidalgo J; Hutton N; Weiss B; Vink PE; Palcnicek JG
    Pediatr AIDS HIV Infect; 1996 Oct; 7(5):337-45. PubMed ID: 11361492
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Family group decision making: protecting children and women.
    Pennell J; Burford G
    Child Welfare; 2000; 79(2):131-58. PubMed ID: 10732256
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. The effect of Alaska's home visitation program for high-risk families on trends in abuse and neglect.
    Gessner BD
    Child Abuse Negl; 2008 Mar; 32(3):317-33. PubMed ID: 18377990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. A preventive services program model for preserving and supporting families over time.
    Hess PM; McGowan BG; Botsko M
    Child Welfare; 2000; 79(3):227-65. PubMed ID: 10813083
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Evaluating intensive family preservation programs: a methodological review.
    Heneghan AM; Horwitz SM; Leventhal JM
    Pediatrics; 1996 Apr; 97(4):535-42. PubMed ID: 8632942
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Differential Response family assessments: listening to what parents say about service helpfulness.
    Fuller TL; Paceley MS; Schreiber JC
    Child Abuse Negl; 2015 Jan; 39():7-17. PubMed ID: 24909622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. A week in the country: a model respite program.
    Miller SL; Bortner M
    AIDS Educ Prev; 1996 Apr; 8(2):176-86. PubMed ID: 8727657
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Longitudinal analysis of repeated child abuse reporting and victimization: multistate analysis of associated factors.
    Fluke JD; Shusterman GR; Hollinshead DM; Yuan YY
    Child Maltreat; 2008 Feb; 13(1):76-88. PubMed ID: 18174350
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The value of coordinated services with court-referred clients and their families: an outcome study.
    Coll KM; Stewart RA; Morse R; Moe A
    Child Welfare; 2010; 89(1):61-79. PubMed ID: 20565013
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Assessing the safety of children at risk of maltreatment: decision-making models.
    DePanfilis D; Scannapieco M
    Child Welfare; 1994; 73(3):229-45. PubMed ID: 8005017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Service outcomes in physical and sexual abuse cases: a comparison of child advocacy center-based and standard services.
    Smith DW; Witte TH; Fricker-Elhai AE
    Child Maltreat; 2006 Nov; 11(4):354-60. PubMed ID: 17043320
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Child protective services has outlived its usefulness.
    Bergman AB
    Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med; 2010 Oct; 164(10):978-9. PubMed ID: 20921359
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. An evaluation of a volunteer-support program for families at risk.
    Kelleher L; Johnson M
    Public Health Nurs; 2004; 21(4):297-305. PubMed ID: 15260834
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Enhancing the safety of children in foster care and family support programs: automated critical incident reporting.
    Brenner E; Freundlich M
    Child Welfare; 2006; 85(3):611-32. PubMed ID: 16999387
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Victoria's Child FIRST and IFS differential response system: progress and issues.
    Lonne B; Brown G; Wagner I; Gillespie K
    Child Abuse Negl; 2015 Jan; 39():41-9. PubMed ID: 25192958
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Reforming child protective services.
    Waldfogel J
    Child Welfare; 2000; 79(1):43-57. PubMed ID: 10659391
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.