Community Partnerships for Protecting Children (CPPC)

1. Community Partnerships for Protecting Children (CPPC) Andy Kogerma Family Connection Partnership

2. CPPC: Philosophy • Based on the idea that people and places in neighborhoods are primary resources for families in crisis • Formal and informal resources need to work together • Protecting children is everyone’s business

3. CPPC: Background • Sponsored by the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation • Four initial sites (1995): Cedar Rapids, Jacksonville, Louisville, S. Louis • Each site is working to achieve three broad goals . . .

4. CPPC: Broad Goals • Change the CPS response to families, moving away from a “one size fits all”response • Develop and expand neighborhood-based resources to help families keep children safe and ensure support before problems become crises • Involve broad spectrum of community services

5. CPPC: Core Beliefs • Child Focused: every child is valued • Family focused: respect for families’ capacity/skill in caring for their children • Results Accountability (define results, design/implement results-based strategies for implementation, evaluate results) • Outcomes based: “What difference are we making?”

6. Core Beliefs (cont) • Strengths Based: “What is right with this family?” • Shared Leadership:Promotes the involvement of all parties • Cultural Differences Valued/Respected

7. Taking Stock: Assessing Strengths/Needs • Each community,like each family, has unique strengths and needs • CPPC must build on these • Community assessments must occur--for example, Cedar Rapids used “geomapping” to analyze geography of CAN/DV reports, then identified overlap areas • Assets/Needs of area must be assessed

8. Community Assets • Existing social structures in community: churches, neighborhood associations, interagency councils, natural leaders, etc. • Accurate inventory of formal resources involved in community

9. Community Needs • Limitations on residents ability/willingness to access available resources (inadequate public transportation, isolation, cultural barriers, lack of information, etc.) • Circumstances/conditions which hamper families (DV, CAN, substance abuse, income issues, lack of education, mental illness, etc.)

10. CPPC in Georgia • DFCS Sponsored initiative • Family Connection Partnership a primary partner • Other Partners include:Prevent Child Abuse Georgia, UGA-CVIOG, Casey • Operates through the leadership of local FC Collaboratives with local DFCS assuming key leadership role

11. CPPC in Georgia • Nine counties selected for participation: Brantley, Catoosa, Clarke, Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, Jenkins, Muscogee and Peach • Each county receives seed money and one assigned DFCS CPPC position

12. CPPC: Four Key Strategies • #1: CPS Policy/Practice Change • #2: Use of Family Team Meetings/Individualized Courses of Action (“FTM’s”, “ICA’s”) to facilitate change • #3: Develop Network of Community Supports and Resources for families in need • #4: Shared decision making between all parties

13. Strategy #1: Individualized Courses of Action • Develop family centered, Individualized Courses of Action (“ICA’s”) for vulnerable families/children • Use strengths-based Family Team Meetings (FTMs”) to generate plan for change • Values Informal support (neighborhood, family) • Involves DFCS/Community agencies

14. Family Team Meetings • Core Strategy of CPPC • Involves meeting of family members, facilitators, family support, service providers . . . • Purpose: to help family identify strengths/needs and generate a plan for change

15. Family Team Meeting • Based on core conditions of respect, empathy, genuineness • Uses active listening skills • Strengths based: “What is right with this family?” • Is solution focused

16. Family Team Meeting: Steps • Welcome and Introductions • Purpose • Outcomes • Non-negotiables/confidentiality • Ground Rules • Family Story • Strengths to Achieve Outcomes

17. FTM: Steps (cont) • Identification of Individual and Family Needs • Brainstorm How to Meet Needs • Develop Agreement for Plan (who will do what, when, where, etc) • Assessing what can go wrong • Next Steps and Closing

18. Community Prevention based Low-risk/self-identified families “Hub” conducts FTM/facilitators may be community members Generates Family Support Plan DFCS Intervention Based Moderate-high risk families identified through DFCS Uses intensive family assessment and FTM Conducted by DFCS Generates 6 month case plan “Dual Track Response”

19. Strategy #2: Community Network of Services/supports • Reflects belief that the community is best able to protect children, support families through change • Uses service/resource “hubs” • Prevention is focus of involvement • Depends on informal helpers • Parents/residents work together

20. Strategy #3: CPS Policy/Practice Change • This includes . . . • outstationed or geographically assigned staff • individualized responses to maltreatment reports (“differential response”) • promoting staff connections to community resources • emphasis on workload, not caseload

21. CPS and CPPC in Georgia • Implementing CPPC means changes to CPS policy/practice in nine counties • In-depth Family Assessment replaces Strengths/Needs Assessment • Family Team Meeting basis for case planning • Case Plan written during FTM: “with, not for, families” • 6 Month time frame for case plan

22. CPS and CPPC: Lessons Learned from Other States • All sites use “dual track” system: “investigations” for DFCS cases, “assessment” for community • Outbasing/geographic assignment of workers led to CPS culture change,both internally and externally. • Internal CPS change: workers cited “improved relationships with service providers,greater accessibility to services, more informed referral decisions.”

23. CPS and CPPC: Lessons Learned /Other States (cont) • Some CPS staff stated that “outbasing was the reform mechanism that has affected the greatest change in their practice”. • External perception change: “provided direct benefits in the relationship between CPS and community residents/clients. Community residents recognize CPS workers on sight, voluntarily providing more information on safety concerns.”

24. Quotes from CPS Workers • “ICA is a helpful framework for involving the family more in what they want, not in what we think they want.” • “I’ve seen it [use of FTMs] change the opinion of a lot of workers who did not come from that perspective.” • “The view of the agency by others is more positive. I am hopeful now that CPS image will improve. Families can be shown that CPS can help in positive ways.”

25. CPS Quotes (cont) • “Now, it’s a little different. CPS is not there just to take their kids. We also come to try and help you.” • “I think families are starting to feel better about workers and workers are feeling more positive about families.” • “Word is getting around. People are seeing us as more helpful, hopefully, and calling us before things really get out of hand.”

26. Strategy #4: Shared Decision Making • A commitment to shared decision making between families, community members and service providers, in which • resident voices are prominent • decisions are data driven/outcomes focused • emphasizes outreach to broad spectrum of partners

27. Shared Decision Making (cont) • Two Primary Issues: • What decisions will be shared? • How will we share them?

28. Fulton County CPPC • Located in East Washington (East Point) • DFCS partnered with East Point Community Action Team • Created Alpha Center • Alpha Center now houses outstationed DFCS staff, alternative school suspension program, prevention resource library, GED classes, computer lab, after school sports, Boy Scouts