[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The National Study also conducted site visits to eight local CPS agencies. The purpose of the site visits was to discuss in greater detail the types of reforms that had been implemented in the local agencies. This chapter summarizes the thethe practice innovations and reform efforts that had been undertaken in the sites.
The site visit reports are not representative of all changes being undertaken throughout the country. They describe how change has been undertaken by a select number of local CPS agencies. In some locations the changes and reforms were more systemic than in others, but in all sites, many types of change have been undertaken with the intent of improving the management and provision of CPS. The site visits were not evaluative; however, many of the changes have been found to be beneficial by the local agency staff and the community.
[Go To Contents]
Sites were identified for visits based on their response to the Local Agency Survey (LAS) in which they indicated whether they had implemented significant changes within the prior months. Of those responding, 81 percent said they had implemented one or more changes. The number of changes ranged from 1 to 15 per site. Sites were assigned a "change weight score" by computing the product of the total number of changes and the number of functional areas with a change. This score represented both the number of changes in an agency and the breadth of the changes. The sites with the largest change scores were considered eligible for visits. Since a further selection criterion was that only one site would be visited in each State, the site with the highest score from a State was selected, and the others were dropped from the list. Of the 11 sites selected by this method, 3 could not participate due to scheduling or other types of conflicts.
Eight site visits were made to localities ranging from suburban communities to rural communities. Three of the sites were in county-administered child welfare systems; five of the sites were in State-administered child welfare systems. The sites were:
The objective of the site visits was to gain a deeper understanding of the changes in CPS practice being undertaken. Activities included interviewing key stakeholders in the CPS system and obtaining documentation of the reform efforts underway. Sites were asked specifically to discuss the changes that had been indicated in their LAS response and to identify any other changes that were related to conducting CPS. Interviews were held with individuals and focus groups. The interviews were focused on CPS rather than on the broader sphere of child welfare responsibilities. The following areas of change were discussed:
[Go To Contents]
Several of the site visits provided detailed information on changes related to philosophy of service, organizational and functional structuring of work, training, and staffing. Some of these changes have affected the operations of the entire agency, while others have had more limited impact.
Many agencies reported having undertaken broad-based changes in their philosophy of service. For example, agencies in Fairfax County, Utah County, and Ventura County implemented changes in the overall philosophy of their programs to emphasize the provision of family-focused and family-friendly approaches to services.
Specific changes in the screening function were noted by the agency in Ventura County, which had contracted with a private agency to conduct screening. In La Crosse County, paraprofessional screeners received primary referral information; casework supervisors reviewed the information and made the decision to investigate or not. Staff in Butler County also addressed screening by implementing a specialized unit in order to improve the consistency of screening decisions rather than having this function performed by the staff who also conducted investigations.
Additional specialization of functions was reported by agencies in Butler County and Union County. In Butler County, a single, dedicated investigator handled all sexual abuse cases, which was thought to be critical because of the special expertise needed for these types of cases. The dedicated investigator also became part of a joint police and CPS investigative team. Similarly, the agency in Union County recently separated its generic CPS units into investigative and ongoing services units.
Other types of specialized staffing changes included those undertaken by the agencies in Catawba County, Ventura County, and Fairfax County. The agency in Catawba County created a half-time position for a family group conferencing coordinator; the agency in Ventura County reformulated its use of public health nurses who were part of the investigation units to re-emphasize their role as nurses rather than acting as if they were CPS investigators. Fairfax County planned to create a child custody intervention team to reduce the amount of time spent on allegations that were actually part of child custody cases.
In some sites, there was a different direction for change. The agency in Fairfax County integrated investigation and ongoing support functions. Staff members served on a team to improve continuity between intake and ongoing services. Further, these combined services units were moved out into satellite offices in order to be in a better position to meet community and family needs. Similarly, the agency in La Crosse County decided to make all CPS workers generic workers, and workers would share responsibility for intake, investigation, and case management.
Many agencies commented on the need for new training for workers as change has been implemented.
[Go To Contents]
The response to an allegation of abuse and neglect has always been the responsibility of CPS. Two major directions of change were noted in the site visits, as well as a number of additional changes. These involved the role of law enforcement in investigations and the creation of an alternative response to investigation.
Law enforcement, whether police departments, sheriff offices, or the District Attorney's office, has long had a role in collecting evidence to prosecute perpetrators and, in some jurisdictions, in reaching decisions about removal of children from the home. As the evidentiary requirements have grown, CPS practitioners have found the need to clarify roles and reduce duplication of responsibilities in order that the roles of the social services agencies and the law enforcement agencies can be complementary rather than competitive. Some jurisdictions have moved to joint CPS and law enforcement investigations to allow social workers to spend less time on investigation and more time on establishing a relationship with the nonoffending caretaker and the rest of the family.
In Brooks County, the District Attorney's office, three law enforcement agencies, CPS, and numerous other agencies worked together to revise the interagency child abuse protocol, which clarified the role of CPS workers and law enforcement and established a multidisciplinary team for case review. Some of the results, according to those interviewed, included better decisionmaking by caseworkers about how to proceed on a case and reduced revictimization of children. The agency in Butler County also established protocols for joint police and CPS investigations, which clarified roles and responsibilities. The agency in Catawba County went further and co-located law enforcement and CPS staff in an effort to ensure ongoing cooperation in cases of child sexual abuse and extreme physical abuse.
Whenever serious physical abuse, sexual abuse, or a child fatality was alleged in Union County, law enforcement personnel from the sheriff's office accompanied caseworkers from the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to investigate. Even when law enforcement and DCF were not conducting joint investigations, information was shared. For example, if the county sheriff determined that a child was not in "serious" danger, the DCF investigator would conduct the investigation and submit a report to the sheriff's office. The sheriff's office would rely on the DCF worker's judgment. DCF workers stated that joint investigations ensured the protection of endangered children and the safety of the worker.
The diversification of responses to an allegation of maltreatment is a trend that is gaining attention throughout the country. In one site, this practice was a recent innovation. The agency in Fairfax County recently implemented a Differential Response System (DRS). In this system, when a child was found not to be in immediate danger, a family assessment would be used to identify family needs and provide immediate services built on family strengths. Under the DRS, reports alleging child abuse or neglect were assessed to determine whether they deserved an investigation or family assessment response. Family assessment responses differed from investigations in that they did not require a determination of maltreatment or the same level of due process procedures, and were not recorded on the State Central Registry.
Several sites reported that they had implemented the use of safety or risk assessment tools to assist workers in assessing immediate danger to the child. Staff in La Crosse County specifically described the implementation of new safety and risk assessment procedures. The use of multidisciplinary teams — often an outgrowth of joint police and CPS investigations — was also observed in Brooks County.
[Go To Contents]
Some agencies have chosen to implement family-centered service philosophies. Such approaches result in practice that seeks to empower families and help them recognize and build on their strengths. Caseworkers make efforts to meet extended family members and make families partners in permanency planning. Several sites had implemented some form of family conferencing or family group decisionmaking.
Staff in Catawba County used two family group conferencing models to facilitate planning and decisions about a range of family needs to address child safety. Staff in Fairfax County used family assessments to engage families in cooperative efforts to find solutions to the problems for which they were reported. The family decisionmaking process in Ventura County brought families, friends, and service providers to work together to make decisions that will ensure the safety and well-being of the children. Staff in Utah County worked to engage families and build on their strengths through many family-oriented practices.
Community partnerships to serve families in which the child has been or is at risk of being abused or neglected have resulted from the development of a range of cooperative service arrangements. Many efforts are underway to include a wide range of service providers in meeting the needs of children and families.
One-half of the sites had established some type of community partnership to serve children and families. In Butler County the Community Service Review Team included approximately 25 people who reviewed difficult cases on a monthly basis and helped to provide a continuum of services. A Family and Children's Collaborative was developed in La Crosse County, which was exploring the development of a group to deal with case management and coordination among all service providers.
Two sites discussed improved relationships with the courts as a result of the involvement of a Guardian Ad Litum (GAL) for each child. GALs were hired in Butler County as staff to advocate for the best interests of the child before meeting the child in court. In Union County, the court appointed a volunteer GAL when the dependency case came to court. While not part of the agency, the GAL had contact with the child once each month and would attend all agency staffing meetings, court events, and mediation sessions.
The agency in Union County has been significantly affected by statewide initiatives to privatize services. Many service providers have become involved. The Nurturing Program, which provided parenting education and intensive home visits, was for low-risk families. In addition, other programs provided targeted mental health services and behavioral health care, including substance abuse programs and psychological assessments.
In Ventura County, extensive collaboration was also underway. One contractual organization was providing screening services and other services to children and families, such as child abuse intervention and prevention, family life education, family support, and court appointed special advocates. The human services agency was also implementing a support group program to provide direct feedback regarding agency programs and operations from current and former clients.
The Fairfax County agency made extensive efforts to involve community residents in solving problems of children and families. After relocating regionally throughout the county, multi-agency teams discussed community outreach and began to develop connections with other agencies, community groups, and residents.
[Go To Contents]
One-half of the sites worked with domestic violence programs, reflecting widespread interest in improving the coordination of CPS in domestic violence situations.
In Brooks County, workers from DFCS would accompany police on domestic violence investigations since Georgia has defined witnessing violence as a form of child abuse. By increasing the coordination with the local victims assistance program in serving children, it was reported that more CPS staff time would be available to work on other cases.
In Catawba County, if domestic violence appeared to be a factor, the CPS worker would develop safety plans for both the victim and the child. This included referring them to "First Step," which provided shelter and treatment. If, however, the risk to the child was high and the parent could not or would not cooperate, or if the situation was not improved after 6 months of services, the Department would file a petition requesting custody of the child.
The agency in Union County had an interagency agreement with a local domestic violence program, through which there was a mutual commitment to share information and clients, as necessary, to protect children and the nonoffending parent.
The agency in La Crosse County initiated a process to improve cooperation between CPS and domestic violence programs. A workgroup developed a document recommending the creation of training for domestic violence staff on the CPS system; development of a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies; and revisionsand revisions to CPS investigation standards.
[Go To Contents]
The impact upon children of substance abusing parents has been documented. (1) Because of this concern, some sites discussed changes that they were undertaking, particularly in working with Drug Courts...
In Ventura County, the Drug Court provided mothers and infants identified with positive toxicology prenatally or at birth with an average of 6 months inpatient treatment and supervision to help them maintain their families without the need for placement. The residential settings were facilities that supported both the mother and her infant. This process has been monitored intensively by the court, and the child would be placed if the mother was unable to complete the program successfully. In addition, an interagency case management council met weekly to assure that children and families received services to prevent removal or to speed reunification.
A Drug Dependency Court program was being used in Union County when a dependency petition had been filed when the caregiver was a substance abuser. The initial, intensive stage of the program took 90 to 120 days and required participation of a minimum of 4 times per day, 4 times per week in treatment groups, and drug testing. In addition to the substance abuse treatment, parents could attend parenting classes, anger management, and other services. The court maintained vigilant supervision of the caregiver's progress towards sobriety. Thus if the caregiver was not compliant or did not make progress, it was likely that parental rights would be terminated more quickly.
In concert with the trend towards improving family relations with the CPS agency and extending CPS into the community, there was some evidence of increased attention to accountability. The increased attention to performance by local, State, and Federal agencies contributed to this trend.
Florida has instituted numerous reporting and practice requirements which were designed to increase accountability. In addition, the Department of Children and Families instituted tested a computerized case record system, which included case-level information for all reports of maltreatment. In Union County, caseworkers and supervisors could review the status of any case in the system. The system also allowed documentation of actions taken by other service providers who would be held accountable if they did not provide needed services in a timely way.
California implemented its Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System within the past 3 years. The Ventura County agency — through its collaboration with the county's information technology department — prepared monthly management performance reports and responded to the needs of management for other data. These reports have become a part of the monitoring process the County uses to monitor specific performance goals such as reducing the numbers of reports that are screened out.
[Go To Contents]
Site visits to local jurisdictions that were reforming their CPS systems identified several trends. Table 8-1 provides a graphic summary of the main areas of change.
| County | Organizational and Administrative | Joint CPS and Law Enforcement Investigations | Alternative Response and Other Approaches | Changes in Working with Families | Community Collaborations | Attention to Domestic Violence | Addressing Substance Abuse |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brooks, GA | ü | ü | ü | ||||
| Butler, PA | ü | ü | ü | ü | |||
| Catawba, NC | ü | ü | ü | ||||
| Fairfax, VA | ü | ü | ü | ü | |||
| La Crosse, WI | ü | ü | ü | ü | |||
| Ventura, CA | ü | ü | ü | ü | |||
| Union, FL | ü | ü | ü | ü | ü | ||
| Utah, UT | ü | ü |
Understanding the impact of such changes on outcomes will require further evaluation. Many of the innovations are too new to be evaluated; some have not been evaluated for other reasons. In instances where changes are in different directions, it would be useful to have more systemic analysis of the impact of such reforms. For example, the relative merits of specialized versus generic staff providing CPS functions have been debated among CPS practitioners and managers since the inception of CPS, but have not been seriously evaluated.
It is possible, however, to identify some impacts on the child welfare organization. The agency in Ventura County reduced turnover of line staff from 20 percent to 4 percent over a 2-year period. Those interviewed attributed this to better pay, ongoing training, support for workers in providing input to management, alternative work schedules, opportunities for advancement, and other factors.
Training and cross-training, when collaborations are involved, were reported to help sustain reform efforts because training helped staff to understand their roles and responsibilities, as well as the goals of the reform efforts. Better pay was also cited as an assist in sustaining change — although it is not clear that it is sufficient without additional training. Ongoing support for workers was also reported to boost staff morale and commitment.
States and localities are motivated by several issues to reform CPS. States and localities are also being held more accountable for the interests of the community and for achieving desired outcomes for children. At the same time, the number of referrals alleging child maltreatment requiring a response by the local agency continues at a high level. Thus agencies are looking for ways in which to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of their responses to the needs of children and their families.
1. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (April 1999). Blending Perspectives and Building Common Ground: A Report to Congress on Substance Abuse and Child Protection. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)