2010 Conference on Differential Response

1. 2010 Conference on Differential Response American Humane Association • The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals

2. It Takes a Community:Visioning a Future for the Child Welfare SystemCaren Kaplan Patricia Schene Patricia Ploehn Carol Redding Ben Tanzer American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children and animals

3. Welcome and Session Overview

4. More than a Decade of Differential Response, there are: • 13 states implementing DR statewide • 11 implementing DR or similar system in selected counties • Tribal groups in 4 states implementing DR • 4 states and the District of Columbia are planning or considering implementation

5. Evaluation Results from Field Experiments • Child Safety not Diminished • Safety of children did not decline while families received new approach. • Children were made safer sooner • Family Engagement under AR • Cooperation of families improved • Families were more satisfied and felt more involved in decision making • CPS Staff Reacted Positively • Workers overall reacted positively and believed approach to be more effective. • Services to Families and Children Increased and Changed • Needed services were delivered more quickly. • Services delivering basic necessities (food, clothing, shelter, and medical care) increased. • Greater utilization of community resources • New CA/N Reports and Later Placements of Children Reduced • Recurrence of CA/N reports decreased for families where new approach was provided. • Short-Term Costs Greater, Long-Term Costs Reduced • While initial cost of AR in services provided and worker time was greater than in traditional CPS interventions, it was less costly and more cost effective in longer term. American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals

6. Like a Lifting Fog… • DR Evaluation results make it difficult to deny that system change is essential – practice, strategies, structure, stakeholders, roles and responsibilities… • This reality creates our need to respond differently.

7. So why is the default response to CA/N allegations… an INVESTIGATION?

8. Mismatch between System’s Offerings and Families’ Needs • Imminent danger and/or serious harm was absent in > 70% accepted reports (USDHHS, 2010) • 19.7 % of victims were subject of court proceedings &20.9% were placed in foster care in response to investigation (USDHHS, 2010) • CPS investigation response is ill-suited to provide improvements in social support, family functioning, poverty, maternal education, and child behavior problems associated with CA/N. Source: Campbell, K.A., et al. Household, family, and child Risk Factors after an investigation for suspected child maltreatment. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. [Vol. 164, No.10] October 2010.The Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine This isnot the face of child protective services.

9. Time for a Reality Check • # of neglect allegations has remained level; = ¾ cases reported to CPS • Poverty is source of conditions that make CA/N, & most particularly, neglect of children’s basic needs more likely. - Tony Loman (April 2010) • > ½ of families in OH AR pilot were subjects of previous accepted CA/N reports • CPS, in its historical framework, has outlived its usefulness - Abraham B. Bergman, MD (2010, amended) American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals

10. Where are we NOW? What does this mean for children and their families who come to the attention of the CPS system?

11. The Essence & Requisite of Our Work • Services/supports responsive to specific family needs if benefits are to be realized • Engagement of and Leadership by Families • Engagement of and Involvement of ALL Stakeholders • System and practitioner agility • Parallel Processes permeate all that we do. American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals

12. Growing the Differential Response SystemVisioning a Future for the Child Welfare System PREVENTION/EARLY INTERVENTION RESPONSE Formal referral of family to appropriate community services Participation exclusively on voluntary basis SCREENED OUT REPORTS • ASSESSMENT RESPONSE • No Abuse or neglect has or is likely to occur • Lack of identified present danger threat • Court intervention not apparently necessary • Lack of necessary care due to poverty • Lack of supervision DUAL SCREENING Meet state statutory criteria of abuse and/or neglect? Yes or No If Yes, using response specific criteria, assign to one of three response pathways. Report of Alleged Maltreatment INVESTIGATION RESPONSE Present Danger threats Sexual abuse cases Egregious incidents Substantial bodily harm RECURRENCE/CHRONIC RESPONSE Frequently Encountered Families Pervasive, long-term challenges Multiple, profound impairments Entrenched poverty/destitute Social isolation/sans social supports American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals

13. Commonalities Across Responses • All focus on ensuring child safety and promoting permanency within family. • All recognize child welfare agency’s authority to make decisions about placement and court involvement. • All contribute to creating system flexibilityso CPS can respond to a family’s changing circumstances, needs and desires. Source: Kaplan, C., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2008). Another look at the national study on differential response in child welfare. Protecting Children, 23(1 & 2), 5-21. American Humane Association The nation’s voice for the protection of children & animals