Legal Issues Affecting Child Protection Systems– A Challenge to Citizen Review Panels

1. Legal Issues Affecting Child Protection Systems– A Challenge to Citizen Review Panels • Congress has set forth in Sec. 106 of CAPTA two distinct ways of CRPs examining CPS practices… • 1) Areas Congress views as important uses of CAPTA State Grant Funds (elements of State CAPTA Plans) • 2) CAPTA State Grant Eligibility Requirements for States (elements of State Child Protection Standards)

2. Permissible Uses of Grant Funds (CAPTA State Plan Elements) • Here are some examples of the 14 areas of CPS reform highlighted by Congress as potential State Plan elements… • Improving risk & safety assessment tools • Allowing for better CPS interstate and intrastate information exchange • Training workers on their legal duties towards families & on worker safety • Educating mandated reporters

3. Doing better public education on the legal basis for reporting abuse or neglect • Enhancing collaboration and continuity between the CPS and juvenile justice systems • Improving CPS linkages with schools and health and mental health programs for prompt, comprehensive health and developmental evaluations for child victims of abuse/neglect

4. CAPTA Eligibility Requirements (“Child Protection Standards”) • Hospital “referral” mechanisms, and “safe care plan” development, for all infants born drug-exposed • “Triage procedures” for referrals out of CPS of children who are not at risk of imminent harm (fits in well with dual track) • Disclosure of CPS records to others with a “need” for them to carry out their “responsibilities under law to protect children” (this includes CRPs)

5. Prompt, clear, and useful “public disclosure” of CPS information when a child is a fatality or “near-fatality” • GAL/Child Attorney training “appropriate to the role” for all appointed by the courts • Advisement of parents at initial CPS contact of allegations against them • Steps to improve retention of CPS caseworkers

6. Mechanism for the referral by CPS to the Early Childhood Intervention (Part C, IDEA) Program for all substantiated children under age 3 • Assurance that all adult relatives & non-relatives in a prospective foster, kinship, and adoptive home have criminal history checks • Fair “appellate process” for parents who disagree with a CPS substantiation

7. How is Your State Doing in Terms of Reporting NCANDS Data? • Challenges in CAPTA data reporting requirements -- States are supposed, “to the maximum extent practicable,” to report on… • Number of substantiated/unsubstantiated children who got or didn’t get services • CPS response times to reports • Number of reunified children (or those receiving family preservation services) who are re-maltreated within 5 years

8. Number of children in state who had court-appointed lawyers, GAL, or CASA • Average number of out-of-court contacts between them and their child clients • Number of children in CPS system who are transferred to custody of the Juvenile Justice system • Summary of activities of the state’s CRPs

9. Reactions While Perusing Your State CRP Reports • Almost no one divides their CRP panels by phases of the CPS process (e.g., reporting/intake/screening, investigation, services), or studies phase-by-phase • Found no report describing CRPs public “outreach” or soliciting public “comment” • Several reports mention problems caused by changes in CPS administrators (Need CRPs to have plan for continuity in reforms that survive changes in administrations)

10. Frequent problems raised in your reports: Lack of $ to support the CRP through staff work; Need for clearer CRP legislative authority for the work of the CRP • Only know of one HHS Regional Office training for multiple state CRPs (Region VII, Kansas City, MO)– we addressed impact of domestic violence on children (important to bring multiple state CPRs together)

11. Reviewing “near fatalities”: Only found one state indicating they specifically did so • Having a “feedback loop” with CPS agency for addressing CRP recommendations and their implementation by CPS (important, ideally to do so several times a year) • What about “institutional abuse” responses? Are CRPs looking for reforms in this? • Critical for CRP to be involved in 2nd round CFSR and PIP implementation process

12. How are CRPs influencing the use by CPS of the state’s CAPTA grant money? • Expanding CRP membership: adult survivors of child maltreatment, former foster children, past parental recipients of CPS, link to Governor’s office & legislature • Dealing with some “tougher” problems: making “dual track” work; addressing racial disparities in child placement; reducing the volume of unnecessary removals of children

13. Getting CPS to meaningfully RESPOND to CRP recommendations-- • Don’t just accept CPS saying: “we already have a policy on that” or “we already do that” • Print CPS’s formal response to CRP recommendations in your published report • Remember: Congress wants CPS to show “measurable” progress in implementing your recommendations

14. Finally, a few words about collaboration in CPS oversight • In many states -- in addition to CRPs -- there are also separate Children’s Justice Task Forces, state child welfare Court Improvement Projects (and related State Supreme Court committees), Children’s Ombudsman or State Child Advocate Offices, Legislative Oversight Committees, and private statewide Child Advocacy Organizations (affiliated with Voices for America’s Children)

15. Imagine how powerful your CRP recommendations might be if your work was carefully coordinated with those other committees, offices, or programs that have similar missions!