A NEW APPROACH TO CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

1. A NEW APPROACH TO CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE SYSTEMS DIFFERENTIALRESPONSE SYSTEMS

2. ARS – WHAT IS IT? Some reports with obvious serious safety concerns are appropriate for traditional investigations with a determination of findings and clearly identified roles of perpetrator and victim. Other reports might be more appropriately addressed by a less adversarial assessment of needs and offer of services.

3. ARS – WHAT IS IT? The new approach is predicated on the theory that by engaging families in a less threatening way via an assessment and service provision track, they will be more likely to acknowledge family problems and agree to receive recommended services. The emphases of ARS are family engagement, family participation in decision-making, and voluntary participation in services.

4. MANDATE FOR CHANGE In 2003, Chapter 2003-127, Laws of Florida (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1442) required that the Secretary of the department appoint a Protective Investigator Retention Workgroup (PIRW) to consider seven specific legislative requests and develop recommendations. These included: • Examine the feasibility of an Alternative Response System for responding to low-risk child abuse and neglect reports. • Examine and develop a plan for an investigative process that provides for different levels of investigative activities based on the level of severity of risk and probability of continued or increased abuse and neglect.

5. PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATORS RETENTION WORKGROUP (PIRW) • The PIRW was comprised of 45 community stakeholders, including representatives from DJJ, DOH, Sheriff Offices, Domestic Violence Coalition, Community-Based Care Lead Agencies, etc. • Workgroup participants were assigned to one of three sub-committees: Alternative Response System, Investigations of DJJ Facilities and Recruitment and Training • Workgroup recommendations were submitted to the Governor and the 2003 legislature through the PIRW Report to the Governor and Florida Legislature, dated January 7, 2004

6. MANDATE FOR CHANGE - The ARS Workgroup From December 2005 through September 2006, the Florida Department of Children and Families, with support from the Child Welfare Institute (CWI), convened a statewide Workgroup to re-examine the Report’s recommendations and to complete design requirements for an Alternative Response System demonstration in several jurisdictions, supported by enhanced decision support protocols.

7. ARS WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS 30 participants representing Sheriffs Offices, Community Based Care Lead Agencies, DCF, the Florida Department of Health, and other community stakeholders met with representatives from the Child Welfare Institute for a period of two days each on 10 separate occasions.

8. EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICEOther States Experience Minnesota – Missouri – North Carolina – Virginia • An average of 60% of reports were handled through the Assessment Track • Approximately 40% of reports were handled under through the Investigative Track • Track re-assignment occurred mostly from the Investigative Track to the Assessment Track • Child Safety was not compromised • Families were less likely to have new child maltreatments

9. EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICEOther States Experience Minnesota – Missouri – North Carolina – Virginia • Cooperation of Families improved • Families more likely to receive services under the Assessment Track • Up front costs were greater but were more cost effective in the longer term • Workers judged the Family Assessment Track more effective

10. WHAT ABOUT FLORIDA?

11. CURRENT STATUS • Very little difference between “on-site” and “enhanced” investigations • Florida’s HSn/CSA did not differentiate between safety and risk factors • Florida’s new FSFN Child Safety Assessment provides a more focused approach to safety assessment vs. risk assessment • Case plans are not identifying and addressing the underlying conditions and contributing factors responsible for CAN.

12. 27.2% of recurrence takes place within 61 days (CSA Recurrence of Maltreatment after Initial Report of Maltreatment, Quarter ending 12/31/05). 44.6% of CSAs closed with Some findings had a subsequent report closed with Verified findings – any maltreatment (Recurrence of Maltreatment within Six Months, Quarterly Listing sample ending 12/31/05). Of the 44.6% subsequent reports closed with Verified findings, 60% of these involved recurrence of the same maltreatment. RECENT DATA ANALYSIS

13. FLORIDA’S PROPOSED MODEL • Two response tracks: • 1.Traditional Investigation Track • When the allegations are of a criminal or serious nature, or the allegations suggest a need for dependency proceedings. • Forensic approach • The identification of a victim and perpetrator will be established and maltreatment findings will be determined.

14. 2. Assessment Track: Reports that appear to involve a low risk of serious harm. Focuses on the assessment of a family’s strengths, unique needs and the identification of underlying conditions and contributing factors that lead to child maltreatment or risk thereof. No traditional determination of findings. FLORIDA’S PROPOSED MODEL

15. TRACK SELECTION CRITERIA • Track selection decision guided by the safety assessment, unless the following investigation only criteria exist: • Nature of the allegations • Subject of the report is responsible for a prior child death • Court ordered dependency history • Active ongoing services status • Institutional report or non-familial setting • Lack of cooperation in prior assessment track responses • Criminal history record

16. Three implementation design options identified for pilot implementation: Option #1. CPIs do both Safety Assessment and Family Assessment Option #2. CPIs do Safety Assessment and immediately pass on to CBCs for Family Assessment Option #3. CPIs and CBC “Family Assessors” go out together and make a determination of needed action IMPLEMENTATION DESIGN OPTIONS

17. PILOT SITE PARTICIPATION • Five Circuits have expressed an interest in participating in the ARS pilots • Four proposals were received: • Circuit 2 – Options #2 and #3 • Circuit 4 – Option #2, possibly Option #1 • Circuit 7 – Option # 3 Orlando • Circuit 7 – Option #3 Seminole County • Three Circuits were selected • Circuit 2 - Bay County • Circuit 4 - Duval County • Circuit 8 - Seminole County

18. NEXT STEPS • Refinement of 11 decision support tools 10-11/07 • Completion of procedural guidelines, pilot evaluation plan, pilot readiness assessment, training curriculum development, pilot training delivery, etc. 10/07-01/08 • Begin implementation 01/08 • Six months pilot and evaluation • Final Florida ARS Pilot Program Report 10/08

19. FORMATIVE EVALUATION PLAN • 400 cases each – treatment & control • Process and Outputs • Client Outcomes • Worker Satisfaction and Input • Family Satisfaction

20. THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS • Better child & family outcomes? • Increased work effectiveness? • Impact on CPI retention? • Strengths and challenges of each design

21. SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT RE-DESIGN KEY CONSTRUCTS Differentiates between safety and risk Risk is defined the likelihood that re-maltreatment may occur Child Safety is defined by the extent to which a caregiver’s actions or inactions present imminent threats of serious harm to a vulnerable child and the family’s accessible protective capacities are insufficient to preventthe actions or inactions

22. SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT RE-DESIGN KEY CONSTRUCTS Three contexts of child safety • Present Danger • Emerging Danger • Prospective Safety

23. Present Danger – the likelihood of immediate and serious harm to a vulnerable child precipitated by one or more safety threats and/or missing or insufficient protective capacities. Emerging Danger – the likelihood of serious harm that is not immediate, but threats are starting to surface or escalate in intensity, pervasiveness, duration and/or frequency and/or protective capacities are weakening rapidly. Prospective Safety – the extent to which safety threat have been resolved or diminished to a level that accessible and actionable family protective capacities assure the future safety of a child. SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT RE-DESIGN KEY CONSTRUCTS

24. SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT RE-DESIGN KEY CONSTRUCTS • Child Vulnerability – The degree to which a child cannot avoid, negate or modify the impact of safety threats or missing or insufficient protective capacities. • Protective Capacity – Family strengths or resources that reduce, control and/or prevent threats of serious harm from arising or having an unsafe impact on a child and enable a caregiver to meet the child’s basic needs.

25. SAFETY AND RISK ASSESSMENT RE-DESIGN KEY CONSTRUCTS • Underlying Conditions – The needs of individual family members, perceptions, beliefs, values, feelings, cultural practices and or previous life experiences (including learned behavior) that influence the maltreatment dynamic within a family system. • Contributing Factors – Include social problems such as substance abuse, domestic violence, mental illness and unemployment, which may in turn have their own underlying conditions. Contributing factors may also exist within the community and include inadequate housing, poor access to resources, crime and other factors

26. THE SAFETY ASSESSMENTKEY CONSTRUCTS

27. QUESTIONS Contact Maria B. Leon, MSW ARS Project Coordinator Office of Family Safety (850) 921-2765 suncom 291-2765 maria_leon@dcf.state.fl.us