Family Assessment Response

1. Family Assessment Response

2. Welcome & Introduction Introduce yourself to the group: • Name • Work location • Work title • What is it about FAR that brought you to this work? • What is your biggest worry about moving forward?

3. THIS WEEK • Session I: Overview of FAR • Session II: Casework Practice Model • Session III: Implementing the Change Process • Session IV: Skill Building

4. Session I OVERVIEW OF FAR

5. COMPETENCIES SW107-01 Knows and understands the procedural differences between family investigations and voluntary services

6. LEARNING OBJECTIVES • Understand the definition and procedures of FAR • Know the similarities and differences between FAR and Investigations • Gain knowledge on the assumptions, goals, and values of FAR • Understand how FAR will benefit families

7. What is it?

8. FAR is a CPS Response CPS FAR PATHWAY INVESTIGATIVE PATHWAY Pathway

9. What is FAR? FAR is an alternative to the traditional Child Protective Services investigation A perpetrator is not identified and a finding of child abuse and neglect is not made Risk and safety assessments are completed and assessing child safety is the focus Services are voluntary and of a short duration – 45 days unless the family agrees to extend the time – 90 days max

10. What is FAR? Focuses less on investigative fact finding and more on assessing and ensuring child safety, Seeks safety through family engagement and collaborative partnerships, and Allows us to provide services without formal determination of abuse or neglect.

11. CA’s Goals for FAR • More children stay safely at home • Provide early intervention • Child safety through partnering and assessing • Increase scope of service delivery • Improve family-centered practice and integration of SBC • Increase resource identification

12. CPS Responses

13. Commonalities of Investigations & FAR • Both are needed responses to Child Abuse and Neglect Reports • Both aim to achieve the three major child welfare outcomes: child safety, promotion of permanency and attunement of child well-being • Both maintain CA’s authority to make decisions about child removal • Both utilize SBC as the case management model to improve outcomes

14. Why ImplementFAR?

15. Implementation Hopes • Serving the right families at the right time • More community involvement • Getting everyone on board to move practice forward • Organizing information through SBC/Reinforcing the Practice Model • Comprehensive assessment begins at referral • Learning opportunities for new workers and all staff across the Child Welfare spectrum

16. CA History to FAR • In early 2011, discussions began on how a differential response model might help Washington families • Title IV-E Waiver was approved on 9/28/12 • In March 2012, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6555 was signed into law

17. RCW 26.44.260 & 26.44.270: Family Assessment Response Signed into law after the 2012 legislative session – ESSB 6555 (included amendments to RCW 26.44.030) Requires Children’s Administration to implement a differential response model Screened-in reports of abuse and neglect that do not allege a child is in danger will be assigned to an alternative CPS pathway: the Family Assessment Response (FAR) Serious physical abuse and sexual abuse intakes will continue to be assigned for CPS investigation

18. Why Implement FAR? Increasingly, concerned citizens and organizations are realizing that the best way to prevent child abuse is to help parents develop the skills and identify the resources they need to understand and meet their children's needs and protect them from harm

19. Differential Response in the U.S.

20. Why ImplementFAR? According to National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts (2003), 20 states identified one of 3 purposes as reason for DR system: • child safety (55%) • family preservation or strengthening (45%) • prevention of CA/N (20%)

21. Ohio Study SACWIS Family surveys Follow-up telephone calls with families and workers Caseworker surveys General agency surveys Community surveys Document review Cost data Site visits

22. Family Characteristics* * All findings presented come from the Ohio Alternative Response Evaluation: Final Report, prepared by the Institute of Applied Research, released in May 2010. www.iarstl.org • High rates of unemployment, female-headed families, lower educational achievement were each associated with low income. • Instability in housing was also found. • Low-income families with these characteristics typically experience problems with: • unaffordable and unstable housing • utility payments, lack of furniture and appliances • unreliable transportation • occasionally lack of sufficient food and clothing • About half of AR appropriate families had previous accepted reports of child maltreatment and one in every ten had a child placed in the past. A substantial portion were chronic CPS families. • Reports of neglect most common

23. First Visit: POSITVE Emotions Reported by Families

24. First Visit: NEGATIVE Emotions Reported by Families

25. Other Important Findings • Safety did NOT reduce • Families reported more involvement in decision-making • More use of concrete services • Families reported services “really helped” • Higher family satisfaction with worker • More worker visits and contact with families and providers • LESS subsequent reports • LESS out of home placements and removals • Cost- slightly more expensive, but potential to reduce long-term costs • Higher job satisfaction for workers

26. Impact on Traditional Response in Missouri Findings include: More cooperation and engagement between law enforcement and Children Services staff Charges were made sooner against sexual abuse perpetrators indicating that the intensive investigative work up front by workers was helpful to law enforcement

27. ….Missouri More findings: • Implementing a pathway for the low to moderate risk cases (alternative response), allowed more time to be spent on the severe cases in a traditional response • More successful prosecutions were made against perpetrators for sexual crimes against children, indicating more thorough investigations • According to a study by Loman (2005) Differential Response Improves Traditional Investigations: Criminal Arrests for Severe Physical and Sexual Abuse. Institute of Applied Research.

28. Principles and Assumptions of FAR

29. National Perspectiveof FAR • The circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the response • The majority of reports do not need an investigatory approach or court-ordered interventions • Absent an investigation: • child safety will not be jeopardized • services can be in place more quickly • families will be more motivated to use services

30. Nationally Adopted Principles of DR • The primary goal of FAR is child safety • Most families want to address threats to child safety • Most families can be partners in achieving child safety • Families are more than the presenting concerns • Family protective factors can assist in keeping children safe • Families are helped through connections with community services and resources

31. CA’s Guiding Principles of FAR • Low to moderate risk neglect cases are best served through planning that includes parents as partners. • Families want safety for their children. • Families can meet their children's needs with supports and resources. • Families are better able to care for their children when connections to communities are developed and strengthened.

32. …Guiding Principles • Communities want children to be safe and cared for. • Supports and enhances the agency's vision of: - Child safety - CA’s Practice Model: SBC - Family Engagement - Assessment of needs and strengths - Delivery of concrete/supportive services - Closely connected and aligned with the implementation of evidence based practices to provide families and children with services that have shown to be successful.

33. PROCEDURES HOW FAR OPERATES

34. Current Flow from Intake to CPS Intake Does allegation meet legal definition of abuse and neglect? Meets legal definition – Screens In YES NO Doesn’t meet legal definition- Screens Out CPS Investigation

35. The Two Pathways(Investigative and FAR) Intake Does allegation meet legal definition of abuse and neglect? Meets legal definition – Screens In Pathway determined by the Screening Assessment Tool used by Intake YES NO CPS Investigative Pathway FAR Pathway Doesn’t meet legal definition- Screens Out

36. Intakes to the Family Assessment Response Pathway Low to moderate allegations of physical abuse and neglect

37. Intakes to the CPS Investigative Pathway The following allegations will be assigned to the Investigative pathway: • Serious physical abuse • Sexual abuse or exploitation • Serious, high risk neglect when the child’s living situation is immediately dangerous or unhealthy or the child’s condition indicates a need for an immediate response

38. Can a FAR Case Move to Investigations? • If the family refuses the initial family assessment, the case will be transferred to the investigative pathway • If child safety concerns are identified while receiving FAR services, the caseworker will: • First try to develop a safety plan with the family to keep the child safe at home • Transfer the case to the investigative pathway if a safety plan cannot keep the child safe at home.

39. Community engagement

40. Community Engagement The success of FAR depends on community involvement Communities want their families and children to be safe Families are better able to care for their children when they have strong connections to their community Offices will work to develop Community Resource Teams

41. Community Resource Team Non-traditional community members Tribes School staff Medical providers Private, non-profit agencies County and business leaders Veteran parents

42. Six Principles of Partnership Everyone desires respect Everyone needs to be heard (and understood) Everyone has strengths Judgments can wait Partners share power Partnership is a process

43. Disproportionality Families of color are disproportionately reported to child welfare systems FAR will reduce disproportionality through screening decisions, engagement, asessment, and increased services to all families SDM Intake Addressing disproportionality is part of the Quality Assurance plan

44. Involvement of Washington State Tribes CA consulted with Tribes as we developed the FAR pathway CA will continue to partner with Tribes on FAR cases involving tribal children CA will collaborate with each Tribe to determine who takes the lead in FAR cases, when a child belongs to more than one Tribe

45. “Any change, even a change for the better, is always accompanied by drawbacks and discomforts” Arnold Bennett

46. Short-Term Benefits of FAR Improved relationships between family and CA social worker Family and community engagement in services Families take immediate steps to address child safety

47. Intermediate Benefits of FAR Parents have improved understanding of issues that contributed to safety and neglect concerns Family increases knowledge and use of community supports to begin long-term life skills and behavioral changes

48. Long-Term Benefits of FAR More children stay safely at home (reduce out-of-home placements) Safely prevent repeat maltreatment Safely reduce repeat referrals Improved child and family well-being Parent and community responsibility will be increased for child safety

49. Life of a FAR Case FAR policy and procedures

50. Intake and Initial Screening • Intake sufficiency screen • Intake meets the definition CA/N • CPS response pathway decision tree • Criteria met for CPS FAR pathway