Prevention Connections
Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Introduction
In 2020, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Great Start, received a federal Preschool Development Grant
Birth through Five (PDG B-5). Using these funds, MDE contracted with the American Institutes for Research® (AIR®) to
complete a statewide early childhood mixed delivery system needs assessment. The MI PDG needs assessment included a
review of prevention service partnerships within Michigan’s child welfare system.
Across the state of Michigan, in 2020, 205,631 children were in families that were investigated for alleged child abuse or
neglect. Of those investigations, 14% (27,894) were confirmed; as of 2020, 10,027 children were in out-of-home care.
1
To
prevent entry of children into foster care, the state of Michigan funds a robust collection of prevention services for families.
These services are designed to address risk factors associated with entry of children into the foster care system (e.g., substance
use disorders, domestic violence, mental health crisis), while simultaneously strengthening protective elements for family
well-being.
Partnerships are a critical tool for the effective provision of prevention services. Child welfare prevention service partnerships
are agreements and collaborations between state, regional, and local organizations (both private and public) designed to
address the risk factors that can result in foster care entry and strengthen the overall health and resilience of families and
communities. Specifically, service partnerships ensure that families have access to needed services, such as parenting
classes, in-home family preservation services, mental health services, and substance use disorder treatment. These
partnerships vary widely in their formality, magnitude, and scope across Michigan, both within and across localities.
The needs assessment study, launched in 2021, answered four research questions:
1. What prevention service partnerships are already in place in Michigan, and who is part of them?
2. What are the supports for effective prevention service partnerships?
3. What are the barriers to effective prevention service partnerships?
4. What prevention service partnerships are currently missing from the prevention services landscape?
This brief describes the methods used to answer the questions and shares initial findings.
1
Perdue, K. (2021). Kids count in Michigan data book: A better future is possible. Michigan League for Public Policy. https://mlpp.org/2021-kids-count-michigan-data-book/
2Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Conducting the Child Welfare Partnership Needs Assessment: Methods and Data
Collection Details
In fall 2021, AIR collected survey, interview, and focus group data to address the research questions.
• AIR conducted an online collaboration survey with all state employees involved in Michigan’s early childhood mixed
delivery system as part of the MI PDG B-5 Social Network Analysis. Within this study, AIR collected responses from
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) Children’s Services Agency county directors. This
survey asked county directors about the organizations they partner with and the quality of these partnerships. Thirty-
two of 68 county directors completed the survey (47% response rate), and respondents were from all five BSC
regions. The majority of county directors who responded to the survey had worked in the field for more than 21 years
but for fewer than eight years in their current positions, identified as White (69%), and identified as female (67%).
• AIR conducted eight key informant interviews with
nine child welfare and prevention service
administrators representing state and private
organizations. Participants included representatives
from the Children’s Trust Fund; Wellspring Lutheran
Services; and multiple agencies within MDHHS,
including the Children’s Services Agency and its
family preservation services division, the Home
Visiting Unit, the Office of Recovery Oriented Systems
of Care, and the Behavioral Health and Developmental
Disabilities Administration. Interview questions asked
key informants about the child welfare prevention
services available in Michigan and about prevention
service partnerships.
• AIR conducted seven focus groups—three focus
groups with MDHHS county child welfare directors,
two focus groups with Children’s Trust Fund Child
Abuse and Neglect (CAN) Council members, one
focus group with Prepaid Inpatient Health Plan (PIHP)
prevention coordinators, and one focus group with
prevention service providers from private nonprofit
service organizations. Focus group participants
represented 35 of 83 counties across the state (see
Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2). Focus group participants
were asked about their understanding of child welfare
prevention services at the local level, including the
key organizations that provide prevention services,
partnerships that exist between those organizations,
and existing supports for establishing and maintaining
partnerships, as well as the supports for success
and barriers to partnerships.
Exhibit 2. MDHHS BSC Areas
Exhibit 1. Data Collection Source, by County
3Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
What Is the Landscape of Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships in Michigan?
There are many prevention service partnerships between state
organizations, local and regional service providers, and collaborative
councils across Michigan. This brief includes a description of the
partnerships highlighted through our data collection. We do not include a
comprehensive list of all possible partners; rather, we describe patterns
in partnership in Michigan. The data collected in this needs assessment
suggest that child welfare prevention service partnerships occur at the
state, regional, and local levels (see Exhibit 3). In addition, prevention
service partnerships focus on a wide array of family needs and strengths,
such as mental health, housing and homelessness, and domestic violence
(see Exhibit 3).
2
The service delivery model for prevention services in
Michigan begins with funding from the state.
In Michigan, the state does not provide direct services but rather
disburses funds and coordinates services provided at the regional or
local level. Key partners in the child welfare prevention field (from the state to local partners) include the following:
• State partners such as MDHHS, the Children’s Services Agency, and the Children’s Trust Fund
• Managing entities that fund and coordinate prevention services, such as PIHPs and BSCs
• Regional partnerships, such as the Great Start Collaboratives and Parent Coalitions, CAN Councils, and Intermediate
School Districts (ISDs)
• Private nonprofit organizations, including large statewide or regional partners such as Catholic Charities or Samaritas,
as well as hundreds of smaller local nonprofit organizations
• Native nations partnering with child welfare prevention service partners in unique ways (partnerships vary by tribe)
Source. Authors’ coding of open-ended survey responses about collaborative partnerships from 28 county-level directors.
Note. Survey items identifying partnerships were open ended; thus, some responses overlap or discrepancies in how partners are categorized may
occur. Partnerships reported in the survey include a mix of state-level, local-level, and regional partners. For more detailed information about all the
partners identified in this project, please see Appendix A. Data are from 28 county directors’ survey responses.
² Of note, many of the service providers and partners in Michigan (including those described in this brief) focus generally on promoting family well-being. Although preventing entry of children into foster care
may not be their primary focus, the services provided to families meet this need.
Exhibit 3. Prevention Service Partners Across the State of Michigan, by Reported Type of Service Provision
4Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
State-level partners in Michigan do not provide direct service to families. Instead, specific state
agencies and programs fund and coordinate local prevention services.
The key partners at the state level include MDHHS programs
and agencies, such as the Children’s Services Agency, as well
as the Children’s Trust Fund. MDHHS programs and agencies
do not provide direct service to families. Rather, the state acts
as a funder for a wide web of providers to deliver prevention
services locally. A key exception is the Children’s Services
Agency staff, who work at the local level and work directly with
families. These staff play a major part in developing and
maintaining partnerships with local prevention service providers.
In focus groups, participants reported that the professional
relationships forged between Children’s Services Agency local
and/or county office directors and local service providers are
critical for service providers to fully understand what families
need and for district office staff to learn which services are
currently available for families.
The MDHHS Children’s Services Agency also houses the Children’s Trust Fund, which is a charitable and education
endowment fund established by the state of Michigan through Public Act 249/250 in 1982. The Children’s Trust Fund
maintains a large network of prevention service partners, serves on committees, and leads initiatives to strengthen and
inform prevention work across the state. As such, the Children’s Trust fund provides prevention services as multiple levels
across the state. At the state level, the Children’s Trust Fund provides funding for family prevention service programming.
At the regional level, the Children’s Trust Fund awards competitive direct service grants to prevention service providers who
target families and children through secondary prevention services. Like other managing entities (this term is described
in greater detail below), the Children’s Trust Fund monitors use of these funds to increase efficiency. At the local level, the
Children’s Trust Fund manages local CAN Councils, which operate through a web of partnerships that reach into every
county in the state and improve access to both primary and secondary prevention services.
In Michigan, managing entities funnel state or federal funds to regional and local partners.
Managing entities in Michigan are organizations that receive state or federal funding and disburse those funds to local
partners. Managing entities also oversee how the funds are spent and sometimes monitor the quality of services
provided. Examples of managing entities in Michigan include the Children’s Trust Fund, the state’s BSCs, and PIHPs.
• BSCs, which are part of the Children’s Services Agency within MDHHS, are examples of managing entities. BSCs
support county-level Children’s Services Agency offices and connect with local service providers in a myriad of ways.
Michigan has five BSC regions across the state, each of which oversee the county-level Children’s Services Agency
district offices within their region. BSCs are responsible for overseeing quality management, training, and data
collection; completing needs assessments; and using state funds to contract with local service providers. Each BSC
also employs a community resource coordinator who connects with local service providers, identifies and mobilizes
community resources, and promotes volunteer opportunities. Community resource coordinators are important links
between BSCs, Children’s Services Agency district offices, and local service providers. In addition, community resource
coordinators often represent the local and/or county offices on various community collaboratives and committees.
5Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
According to MDHHS county child welfare directors, community
resource coordinators “do a lot of community work and go
out and make a lot of personal connections, getting to know
people and seeing what’s available in thecommunity.”
• Other key examples of managing entities are the PIHPs,
which are state organizations responsible for regionally
managing Medicaid funds, including funds for behavioral
health, development disabilities, and substance use
treatment service. The PIHPs then distribute those funds to
the service providers, such as community mental health
agencies and private service providers. However, PIHPs do
more than simply fund services. Each PIHP plays a critical
role as a service partner that assists with the quality and
accessibility of prevention services within its community. Employed within each PIHP is a coordinator who partners
with, for example, regional service provider agencies, ISDs, and county health departments. Through those partnerships,
coordinators work with other organizations to implement local needs assessments, develop coalitions, champion and
support local initiatives, connect with their local Children’s Services Agency district office, and inform local professionals
of available services and new policy developments.
Regional partners connect with child welfare offices and the community to provide primary
prevention services and advocate for families.
Some of the most important prevention service partnerships in child welfare are those between county-
level Children’s Services Agency directors, local service providers, and prevention-focused coalitions.
As part of the collaboration study, AIR surveyed all 68 county directors to understand the ways in which they work
together to support families and prevent entry into care. Of the 68 county directors, 32 responded to the collaboration
survey. Using these data, AIR conducted a social network analysis to understand how much collaboration exists across
counties (see Exhibit 4). However, we found little collaboration across county directors. Exhibit 4 below shows how many
times a county director was nominated as someone with whom other county directors collaborate (i.e., in degree). Two
times is the maximum number of times someone was nominated—the director of St. Clair and Sanilac Counties and the
director of Allegan and Barry Counties were each nominated by two other directors. Most county directors were not
nominated by other directors as someone with whom they collaborate and are represented as single nodes at the bottom
of the map. Other directors were nominated only once, all by the director in Jackson county (the node in the middle of the
map). However, if the director of Jackson county is hidden on the map, few connections remain among the other county
directors (see Exhibit 5). This finding suggests that very little
collaboration occurs across Children’s Services Agency
county directors. Instead, county directors appear to
collaborate more closely with other local groups within their
counties (e.g., school districts, direct mental and behavioral
health, larger multi-service human service organizations;
see Exhibit 3 above).
I will say, for our community, there are not a lot of
resources, and, because of that, community partnerships
become strong. Together, we try to maximize outcomes
with a few resources. ”
– MDHHS Children’s Services Agency County Director
6Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Exhibit 4. County directors reported few collaborations with other county directors.
Note. Although surveys were sent to 68 county directors, this exhibit only represents collaborations from those 32 county directors who completed the
survey and thus may be an underestimation of collaboration among county directors.
Exhibit 5. Few collaborations remain among county directors when Jackson County is removed.
7Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) Councils partner with each other and local organizations to expand
prevention services in their communities.
Other key regional partners include the local CAN Councils.
According to focus group data, CAN Councils partner to
create a more coordinated system of services and provide
direct services to families. Examples of the ways CAN
Councils partner include meeting with local MDHHS staff
to distribute information about new parenting classes,
attending regular Great Start Collaborative meetings, and
communicating with school districts to identify which
services families need and use. CAN Councils are funded
by the Children’s Trust Fund; however, each CAN Council
must match half of funding through financial support or
in-kind services (Michigan State Code 722.610). For
example, the CAN Councils of Arenac, Bay, Huron, and Saginaw are funded through a variety of federal, state, and local
grants, as well as through private contributions; allocations from the United Way; and regular fundraising events, such as
Family Fun Fests. Therefore, each of the 72 different CAN Councils across Michigan has its own set of local partners that
generally include a mix of nonprofit organizations, school districts, and private service providers.
Intermediate school districts (ISDs) are also key
regional prevention service partners.
ISDs can have a number of local and regional partners, such
as CAN Councils, neighboring school districts, and prevention
coalitions focused on the provision of prevention services to
their communities. County directors, in survey responses,
identified ISDs as the most common partner organizations;
however, the level of ISD involvement in prevention services
varies widely across Michigan. ISDs are typically part of local
coalitions focused on prevention, even if they do not play a
major role in coordinating or supporting prevention services. In
some locales, ISDs provide early childhood education
programming, such as Head Start and the Great Start
Readiness Program; early intervention programs, such as
Early On® or other home visiting models; and/or parenting
classes to families with young children. Some ISDs can provide
their own funding for prevention services through Every Student
Succeeds Act Title I funding rather than relying on state or
federal grants.
CAN Councils often forge partnerships with ISDs, either because they are housed within the ISD themselves or through
targeted outreach and personal relationships between staff. Prevention specialists within ISDs also rely on relationships
across school districts—in focus groups, two different ISDs mentioned curating their own email listservs of all school
district staff they connect with personally, regardless of their roles, to increase the success of their outreach efforts. One
ISD described using CAN Council meetings to position itself as the go-to contact for all parenting resources, which helped
the ISD stay connected with other partners and the community.
EXAMPLE OF ISD PREVENTION SERVICES
Some ISDs are involved with the Pathways to Potential program,
which leverages local prevention service partnerships to help
address students’ chronic absenteeism, education, health,
safety, and self-sufficiency. Through Pathways to Potential,
prevention service providers work with individual children or
families as needed. Some schools include Pathways to
Potential within their School Improvement Plans, which allows
them to leverage Title I federal funding to support services and
strengthen connections with parents.
8Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Michigan’s Great Start Collaboratives are another example of
regional partnerships that support family well-being and may
prevent entry of children into foster care.
The Great Start Collaboratives act as hubs to help connect families with
organizations providing prevention services. The 54 Great Start
Collaboratives are all supported directly through state funds. Great Start
Collaboratives include a wide range of partners—CAN Councils, school
systems, local business owners, parents, courts, and philanthropists.
Depending on their local contexts, Great Start Collaborative partners may
work together closely on shared initiatives or may collaborate more
generally by attending similar meetings and events focused on child
welfare. For example, some Great Start Collaboratives have initiatives to
support fathers or grandparents in the community, some collaboratives
work directly with foster families, and other collaboratives provide general support for parenting through efforts such as
Trusted Advisor grants and the Talking is Teaching campaign.
Great Start Collaboratives also house the state’s Great Start Parent Coalitions—coalitions of local parent volunteers
who represent the diversity of their local communities. Great Start Parent Coalitions advocate for the issues of early
childhood in their communities by educating organizations and professionals on key developmental stages and policies
and practices that make local businesses and workplaces “family friendly.” Some Great Start Parent Coalitions also
advocate for more sustainable funding for prevention services in their communities.
Private nonprofit organizations are the largest
providers of prevention services and partner
with the state, ISDs, and other community-level
service providers to ensure widespread awareness
of their services.
In Michigan, most prevention services are delivered
directly to families via private nonprofit human service
organizations. The availability and capacity of these
organizations vary across the state, from large nonprofit
organizations with multiple locations regionally or across
the state to small nonprofit organizations operating in
specific communities.
In Michigan, large nonprofit organizations provide a variety
of prevention services, such as counseling, parenting
classes, and substance abuse services. By serving as
“one-stop shops” for services, these nonprofit organizations can help families more easily access prevention services.
In addition, some nonprofit organizations provide support with state assistance programs, such as SNAP (Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program) or WIC (Women, Infants, & Children), which allows families to access a full range of
prevention services no matter which service they initially sought out (i.e., the “no wrong door” approach to accessing
services). Nonprofit organizations in Michigan vary in their reach—some organizations are part of a nationwide network
(e.g., Bethany Christian Services), some organizations serve several regions across Michigan (e.g., Samaritas, Wellspring
PREVENTION SERVICE PARTNERSHIPS IN ACTION:
HOME VISITING
Home visiting is a key example of a critical prevention service
that is widely available across the state of Michigan. Home
visiting services are funded through several federal and state
funding streams and are available to families via multiple
service providers across the state. Through interviews and
focus groups, we heard that the entities that fund home visiting
programs recognize that service partnerships are an important
aspect in making home visiting known to families. As such,
expectations regarding local service providers and collaborative
partnerships are included in funding contracts. Interview and
focus group participants also reported that, for home visiting
services, developing partnerships with child welfare services
has had varied success across the many home visiting models
in the state.
9Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Lutheran Services, Judson Center, Catholic Charities West Michigan), and
some organizations serve only specific regions within the state (e.g.,
Spectrum Human Services, Orchards Children’s Services, Highfields).
Nonprofit organizations often partner with ISDs and other local and
regional service providers to spread awareness of the services that are
available to families. Additionally, many nonprofit organizations partner
directly with each other and with the state via networks, such as the
Michigan Federation for Children and Families, to improve prevention and
child welfare services for families statewide.
Hundreds of smaller nonprofit service organizations also provide
prevention services across Michigan. These organizations can include
small faith-based communities (e.g., churches, temples, mosques),
domestic violence shelters, or counseling centers. These agencies,
because of their size, commonly serve only smaller areas or singular
communities, serve only a specific population (e.g., only families under the federal poverty threshold), or provide only one
or a few service categories (e.g., counseling agencies). Many smaller nonprofit service organizations have very limited
resources despite providing critical services to their communities; in response, smaller community-level organizations
sometimes partner with larger human services organizations in grant applications. In focus groups, providers noted that
multi-service organizations cannot provide all the services families might need, despite having more resources, which
leads multi-service organizations to partner with smaller agencies to fill the gap in local prevention services available.
Native nations or tribes have their own child welfare and prevention services.
Within Michigan, there are 12 federally recognized tribes. As
sovereign governments, each Native nation that shares
geography with the state of Michigan maintains and oversees
its own child welfare system, with its own distinct policies,
practices, and philosophies for prevention.
The state of Michigan is federally mandated to collaborate
and consult with Native American child welfare programs
through the Indian Child Welfare Act and the Michigan Indian
Family Preservation Act, MCL 712B.5. However, the child welfare programs of each Native nation, themselves, have the
right to determine how and the degree to which they collaborate with partners at the state level and with service providers
at the local level.
One example of prevention services partnership between
Michigan and Native nations can be seen in collaborations
between MDHHS Child Protective Services caseworkers and
caseworkers from Native nations’ child protective services.
In some situations, a professional from a Native nation’s
child protective services may reach out to a state child
welfare professional, and vice versa, to collaborate on
services for an Indigenous family or child. Tribal social services also partner with local smaller agencies. These
partnerships occur when services do not have capacity to meet family needs within the community, for example, substance
use disorder services, which have been and continue to be difficult for Michigan families to access.
I think the tribes, philosophically, have always been
leaders in prevention. That’s kind of what their role is
culturally and traditionally, it’s really to prevent problems
and work with families to make sure things don’t escalate
to the point where a child would ever need to be removed. ”
– Expert Interviewee
The Sioux Tribe of Chippewa Indians, they have a lot
of different prevention programs. We’ve really been looking
at their success with some of their programming. ”
– Focus Group Participant
10Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
The supports for prevention service partnerships are communication, opportunities
to connect, and trust.
Across survey responses, interviews, and focus groups,
child welfare professionals shared that partnerships are
important to the success of their work. According to
participants, partnerships help caseworkers and other
prevention service providers ensure that families are getting
the services they need to succeed. Based on survey
responses, all county directors (regardless of tenure or
region) agree that their organization and work benefited
from partnerships; likewise, most directors agree that there
is trust (86%) and respect (100%) among organizations that serve children ages 0–5. In focus groups, providers shared
that partnering with larger organizations helped smaller organizations access grant funding and increase their capacity.
Partnerships can also help improve family access to prevention services.
In focus groups, child welfare professionals generally agreed that
partnerships help service providers and MDHHS better serve families’
needs. In instances where families already have a trusted relationship with
a prevention service provider, partnerships allow professionals to prioritize
that connection and work with the trusted provider to ensure families are
getting the services they need. In particular, MDHHS caseworkers shared
that partnerships have helped improve family participation in prevention
services because families tend to view the partner organizations (e.g.,
providers) as more neutral than caseworkers connected to MDHHS.
The following subsections describe the supports for successful
partnerships and what those partnerships are doing well.
Strong communication, opportunities to connect, and trusting relationships support partnerships.
Across the data sources, child welfare professionals emphasized the importance of relationships, networking, and
consistent communication in their work (see Exhibits 6 and 7). Child welfare professionals described using multiple
communication types, including regular meetings, emails, and phone calls, to sustain partnerships. MDHHS county
directors noted that attending local coalition meetings
focused on specific topics (e.g., homelessness, health,
substance abuse) is an especially effective strategy for
partnering across organizations. These meetings allow for
more organic communication and sharing of ideas than
email or phone calls. Focus group participants further
reported that their increased virtual communication and
collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic helped them
stay more connected in cross-county partnerships. One
service provider shared, “One good thing to come out of
COVID is the ability to do these sort of collaborations
virtually. We’ve been doing more virtual meetings with our
When we’re collaborating, it is in the best aspects.
We’re simply thinking of the needs of our community and
coming up with ways to ensure that we’re eliminating any
service gaps and helping families, who are our neighbors,
to be successful. ”
– Private Prevention Service Provider
I try not to be the only person that attends
collaboration meetings . . . if I have a direct service staff
who is interested or a supervisor who is interested in
attending a certain meeting, I love it. I have a foster care
worker who attends my United Way housing coalition
meetings, because she is just absolutely passionate about
housing needs in our community. So I think if you have the
staffing ability to allow others to develop some of these
partnerships, it’s just really huge. ”
– MDHHS Children’s Services Agency County Director
11Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
regional work, knowing that our neighboring counties have the same needs. So we’re having more of these meetings
to try to collaborate and make sure that we’re meeting the needs for our families, but we’re also just working
together better.”
Diversity of participants involved in meetings can help to improve communication across partnerships by building trust and
promoting cross-organization learning. According to one focus group participant, having trust is important “so that if a
mistake has been made or there’s ignorance about a topic, you can reach out and just ask about those things without
judgment and [with the understanding] that it’s all for the good of the families.” Likewise, diversifying staff investment in
partnerships within organizations and allowing staff to do work they are passionate about can make partnerships feel
more meaningful and reduce staff burnout. MDHHS county directors reported that, although they attend many meetings
themselves, they also designate a staff member to attend other meetings in their stead to expand individual connections,
increase staff awareness of new services, and empower staff by tasking them with sharing data and updates from MDHHS.
Exhibit 6. Most county directors agree they know the right individual or organization with whom to collaborate.
Exhibit 7. Most county directors agree that child welfare professionals communicate well both within their offices and across partner organizations.
12Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
The barriers to prevention service partnerships are funding, staffing, confidentiality
policies, and a decentralized system of prevention services.
The major barriers to effective service partnerships are funding, staffing, confidentiality policies across services, and a
decentralized system of prevention services. Some of these barriers are systemic, other barriers are specific to their
locale; however, none of these barriers are unsolvable. The following subsections describe the identified barriers to
partnerships in greater detail.
Inconsistent funding is a common barrier.
Inconsistent funding can create barriers to effective service partnerships at the local level. Although organizations leverage
multiple funding sources to support prevention services, inconsistent funding is still a concern. In survey responses, only
about half of county directors reported having adequate funds to collaborate with other organizations (see Exhibit 8).
As mentioned previously, most state and federal funding
comes from competitive grants, which increases competition
between local providers for funding; according to one
interviewee, “Everybody’s scrambling for their piece of the
pie. It puts nonprofits in a competitive place. It would be
nice if everybody didn’t have to have their own bake sale to
raise the money that they need to do the work.” Inconsistent
funding can also negatively impact the sustainability of
partnerships. According to one focus group participant,
providers often collaborate as a means of spreading the word on available services. When organizations are forced to
drop services because of lost funding, the need to collaborate is also diminished.
Moreover, inconsistent funding can also lead to the development of more informal, individual relationships driving
partnerships as opposed to more formal, organizational partnerships. These more informal individual partnerships have
Exhibit 8. County directors varied in their reports on whether they have adequate funds for collaboration.
If your funding is drying up, and you go from offering
10 parenting classes a year to two parenting classes a
year, then you’re not out there promoting those classes
nearly as much, and you’re not making and maintaining
those connections with other organizations.”
– Focus Group Participant
13Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
a greater risk of ending when staff turnover occurs. One interviewee shared that MDHHS is encouraging “agreements
from organization to organization” rather than between specific staff to prevent partnerships from fading: “If staff are no
longer there, then what? We just don’t have that partnership anymore.” It should also be noted that even formal
partnerships can falter without adequate administrative funding that is needed to support time to communicate and
collaborate across partners.
Inadequate staffing negatively impacts the capacity of local partnerships.
Although some regions in Michigan have many prevention services and staff available, other regions are more limited.
For example, although 61% of all county directors believe they have enough “people power” across partnerships, survey
responses show significant regional differences: All BSC Region 2 county directors reported having adequate people power,
but more than half of county directors in BSC Region 3 reported they do not have adequate people power (Exhibit 9).
Exhibit 9. Although most county directors think they have adequate people power for collaboration, the same is not true for having sufficient time.
Limited people power or staff capacity due to funding challenges often
leaves staff underpaid and overworked, resulting in high turnover as staff
burn out and leave their jobs. This challenge was reported to be particularly
true for prevention service providers. This situation can then lead to
challenges in establishing new partnerships across inexperienced staff, as
well as in maintaining partnerships with critically limited staff. More stable
funding may be one way to create more staff stability and reduceturnover.
Diversity of the workforce is another staffing challenge. Many families
need access to bilingual and racially and
ethnically diverse providers, yet
few local providers can meet these needs. For example, Ingham County
has a large African American and Hispanic population; yet, Ingham County
has few providers who are African American or Hispanic. In focus groups,
child welfare professionals described the pressing need for bilingual staff
(especially bilingual therapists), along with providers of color in general.
Currently, child welfare professionals are generally not reflective of the families and children served within the system.
For example, the majority of county directors identified as White and female, but families served by the child welfare
14Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
system are disproportionately children of color. In addition, interviewees described how tokenism and limited community
input can create further divides and reduce trust between families of color and prevention service providers.
Confidentiality policies and a decentralized prevention services system hinder communication
and collaboration.
Despite best efforts, prevention services partnerships are hindered due to policy differences across agencies, particularly
confidentiality policies. Although multi-service organizations and providers who are contracted with each other can easily
share information, providers working across unconnected organizations cannot. In some cases, providers are unaware of
what services families need and have already received, resulting in ineffective services provision and missed opportunities
to suggest appropriate services.
Partnerships are further complicated by the decentralized
nature of prevention services in Michigan. According to
interviewees and focus group participants, because prevention
services are often not formally aligned, caseworkers and
county directors remain unaware of available services or
unknowingly refer families to services they have already
received. Moreover, uninformed service providers can miss
opportunities to bridge prevention services for families so
that those services remain prevention focused as opposed to
reactionary. Additionally, according to survey responses,
nearly half of county directors reported that they are not well
informed about what goes on in other organizations that serve
families; however, that knowledge appears to vary by the region in which the director works (see Exhibit 10). The social
network analysis (see Exhibits 4 and 5 above) further confirms that the county directors do not collaborate across counties,
suggesting a very decentralized system of prevention supports. Although county directors seem to be connected to their
local network of service providers, little collaboration occurs among the county directors, themselves.
If an agency’s not contracted with DHHS, what we can
share about a family is very limited. For example, if it’s a
CPS case that we’re closing, we can call, for example,
Parents as Teachers, and refer the family but we can’t say
anything about them. It’s kind of like, “okay, well good luck
with that.” It’s a problem. But when it’s internal, or with an
agency we’re contracted with, we just sit down all together
and share the relevant information. Everyone has what
they need to provide services.”
– Focus Group Participant
Exhibit 10. Survey responses show no consensus among county directors about whether they are well informed about what other organizations
are doing.
15Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Gaps: In some areas of the state, partnerships with service providers that focus on
parenting resources, domestic violence, and substance abuse services are missing
because the services are not available.
Participants in multiple focus groups reported that services focused on parenting resources, domestic violence, and
substance abuse are limited or altogether missing in many regions of the state. When these services are missing,
partnerships are not an option. Even when these services are available, in some counties, limitations in scope (e.g.,
limited to opioid intervention) mean that these services are unable to meet the needs of the community. Focus group
participants also reported that partnerships with community members and professionals outside of prevention services
(e.g., law enforcement) are difficult to develop or maintain because these partners have fewer incentives than service
providers have to partner.
Summary
Michigan’s prevention services system is large and is meant
to serve all families. However, it is critical for these services
to be immediately accessible to families who need them the
most, for example, families at risk for child welfare
involvement. Partnerships strengthen and improve family
access to prevention services across Michigan. These
partnerships connect child welfare offices with service
providers; connect funders with communities; and create
prevention networks and collaboratives that connect
prevention services locally, regionally, and even statewide.
In Michigan, the state does not provide direct services but
rather funds and coordinates services. Nearly all direct
service provision to families occurs at the regional or local
level. Specifically, the state funds prevention programs
through MDHHS, the Children’s Services Agency, and the
Children’s Trust Fund. Managing entities, such as PIHPs and
the BSCs, then disburse these funds to regional or local partners. They also coordinate prevention services and monitor
the quality of services provided. In Michigan, regional partnerships, such as the Great Start Collaboratives and Parent
Coalitions, CAN Councils, and ISDs also support prevention services. Michigan also has a robust network of nonprofit
prevention service providers, which include both large statewide or regional partners, such as Catholic Charities or
Samaritas, as well as hundreds of smaller local nonprofit organizations. Finally, Native nations partner with child welfare
prevention service partners in unique ways, and partnerships vary by tribe.
Information collected through this study’s survey, focus groups, and interviews indicates that effective partnerships are
achieved when partners effectively communicate, meet regularly, are well funded, and exist in situations where trusting
professional relationships are forged. Alternately, prevention service partnerships are limited by inconsistent and
competitive funding streams, inadequate time and staff, and information silos. Additionally, when partnerships are
completely missing, the situation is usually due to communities not having the services they need. The critical nature of
partnerships for the provision of effective and far-reaching prevention services suggests the need for further research, in
addition to increased supportive funding and more centralized support for the occurrence of prevention service partnerships.
16Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Appendix A
The following is the coding scheme that was used to create Exhibit 3, showing the count of child welfare partners by
service provision. Online Collaboration Survey respondents were asked to list the names of the groups or organizations
with whom they collaborate to deliver prevention services or engage families in their community.
School Districts
1. Van Buren ISD
2. Clare ISD
3. Wexford-Missaukee ISD
4. Mecosta/Osceola ISD
5. Huron ISD
6. Tuscola ISD
7. Lapeer ISD
8. EUP ISD Early On
9. Gogebic/Ontonagon ISD
10. Jackson County ISD
11. CCISD
12. Newaygo County RESA
13. MLO RESA
14. Morley-Stanwood Schools
15. Reed City Schools
16. Evart Schools
17. Genesee Intermediate School District
18. Flint Community Schools
19. Ironwood Schools
20. Forest Park Crystal Falls Schools
21. Bessemer Schools
22. West Iron County Schools
23. Ewen Trout Creek School District
24. Northwest Community Schools, Jackson
25. East Jackson Schools
26. Jackson Public Schools
27. Cradle to career Lenawee
28. FIS Early Ed Success Coach
Libraries
1. Helena Township Library
2. Jackson Public Libraries
Health Departments
1. Van Buren/Cass District Health Dept.
2. Shiawassee Health Department
3. District Health Department #10
4. Benzie/Leelanau District Health Department
5. Chippewa County Health Department -
6. Jackson County Health Department
Medical and Health Providers
1. Hamilton Community Health Network
2. Center for Family Health, Jackson
3. Pediatrician in Huron County
4. Family Medical Doctor in Huron County
5. Aspirus Ironwood Hospital
6. Lighthouse Pregnancy Center - Manistee
7. Care Net Pregnancy Center
8. Hurley Medical Center
9. Mid Michigan Health
10. Henry Ford Allegiance Health, Jackson
11. McLaren Flint
12. Medilodge Grand Blanc/Montrose
13. Genesys PACE
14. Greater Flint Health Coalition
Foundation and Fundraising
1. Jackson Chamber of Commerce
2. Casey Families
3. Consumers Energy
4. CRIM Foundation
Child Support and Custody
1. Van Buren Friend of the Court
Municipalities
1. City of Jackson
17Prevention Connections | Child Welfare Prevention Service Partnerships Across Michigan
Counties
1. County of Jackson
2. Newaygo County Administration
Emergency Response
1. Emergency Operations Center
Workforce Development
1. Offender Success
2. Michigan Works/PATH Collaborative
3. Genesee Shiawassee MiWorks
4. College and Career Access Center of Jackson
Mental and Behavioral Health
1. Catholic Human Services-Cadillac
2. SAMSHA Board
3. Van Buren Community Mental Health Authority
4. Community Mental Health
5. Northern Lakes Community Mental Health
6. Newaygo County Community Mental Health
7. Gogebic County Community Mental Health
8. Tuscola Behavioral Health Systems
9. Huron Behavioral Health
10. Hiawatha Behavioral Health
11. Northpointe Behavioral Health
12. Thumb Area Psychological Services
13. List Psychological
14. Webers and Devers Psychological Services
15. Northern Lakes CMH
16. Ausable Valley CMH
17. Lapeer CMH
18. CMH -Ionia and Montcalm
19. Copper Country CMH
20. LifeWays CMH, Jackson
21. Genesee Health System
22. Centra Wellness
23. Eagle Village
Collaboratives and Coalitions
1. Health & Human Services Committee for the
County Commissioners
2. Truancy Collaborative
3. Antrim County Community Collaborative
4. SPOKE Collaborative
5. Charlevoix Emmet human services
collaborative body
6. Charlevoix Emmet Resilient and Trauma Informed
Community Team
7. Interagency Service Delivery Team
8. Communities that Care Chippewa and Mackinac Co
9. Non-Profit Network, Jackson
10. Lakeshore Housing Alliance Executive Committee
11. Antrim County CAN Council
12. CAN Council Great Lakes Bay Region
Substance Abuse
1. Great Lakes Recovery Center - Substance
Abuse Programing
2. Northern Michigan Substance
3. Wellsprings -SUD’s parenting program
4. CPS/Prevention Specialists
Faith-Based Services
1. Immanuel Lutheran Church, Jackson
2. Faith Based groups
3. Compassionate Ministries, Jackson
4. LOVE Inc, Jackson
Housing and Homelessness
1. Jackson Interfaith Shelter
2. TrueNorth Community Services
3. Jackson Housing Commission
Home Visiting
1. EUP ISD Early On
2. Early on Ionia and Montcalm
3. FTBS
4. Teaching Family Homes Juvenile Justice Diversion
and Reintegration Alternatives (JJDRA)
Parent Education and Family Support
1. Teaching Family Homes Parenting
Education programs
2. Moms & Tots Center
Tribes
1. Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians - Social Services
2. Bay Mills Indian Community Social Services
Great Start Collaboratives
1. Great Start Collaboratives
2. Clinton Great Start Collaborative
3. Mecosta Great Start Collaborative
4. Huron Great Start Collaborative
5. Lapeer Great Start Collaborative
6. Tuscola Great Start Collaborative
7. EUP Great Start collaborative
8. Shiawassee Great Start
9. Great Start Executive Committee
10. Great Start Monroe
11. Lake/Mason/Oceana Great Start
12. Newaygo County Great Start
13. Great Start Collaborative of Muskegon County
Multi-Service Human Services Organizations
1. Catholic Charities West Michigan
2. Catholic Charities Greater Flint
3. Samaritas, Mid-Michigan
4. Samaritas
5. Highfields, Jackson
6. Wedgewood
7. Bethany Christian Services
8. Wellspring Lutheran-Gaylord
9. Wellsprings Lutheran - Families First Program
and Parenting education program
10. Wellspring
11. Orchards
12. UP Kids
13. Family Service and Children’s Aid, Jackson
14. Northern Family Intervention Services
15. Arbor Circle
16. Family Supportive Services of Northern Michigan
Preschools
1. Great Start Readiness Program
National Programs
1. United Way of the Lakeshore
2. United Way of Jackson
3. United Way EUP
4. United Way Montcalm Ionia
5. United Way of Southwest Michigan
6. United Way Steering Committee
7. Jackson YMCA
8. Big Brothers Big Sisters, Jackson
Domestic Violence Services
1. LAADSV - Domestic & Sexual Violence Committee
2. D.O.V.E. Domestic Violence Services
3. Diana Peppler Women’s Resource Center
4. AWARE Shelter, Jackson
Food Insecurity
1. Grow Benzie
2. Grow Jackson
3. Community Hope-Missaukee
Child Advocacy Centers
1. Isabella Child Advocacy Center
2. Jackson County Child Advocacy Center
3. CAC of Tuscola
4. Lapeer CAC
5. CAC Board
6. Huron CAC
Community Action Agencies
1. EUP Community Action Agency
2. Gogebic Ontonagon Community Action Agency
3. Jackson Community Action Agency
4. MCOP Monroe County Opportunity Program
18373 v10_09/22
Copyright © 2022 American Institutes for Research®. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including photocopying, recording, website display, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the American Institutes for
Research. For permission requests, please use the Contact Us form on AIR.ORG.
This Inclusion Builders: 2021 Implementation Evaluation Findings brief was supported by the Preschool Development Grant Birth Through Five Initiative (PDGB-5), Grant
Number 90TP0055-01-00, fromthe Ofce of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Its contents are solely
theresponsibility of theauthors and do not necessarily represent the ofcial views of the Ofce of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, or U.S. Department
ofHealth and HumanServices.
1400 Crystal Drive, 10th Floor | Arlington, VA 22202-3289 | 202.403.5000
AIR.ORG
