[Go To Contents]
This appendix provides a conceptual overview of the major areas of research to be addressed by the National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts, and the role of the five data collection methods that will be used in the study. The goal of the study is to describe the overall status of child protective services systems nationally, and any reform efforts underway. Given the state of change that currently exists within the field of CPS, and the dynamic nature of the relationship between policy and practice, the study will investigate CPS systems from the perspective of three main areas. The three main areas are the State policies that define CPS functions and specify how these functions are carried out; local CPS agency organization and the practices that implement CPS functions; and innovative reform efforts that seek to restructure, redefine, or reformulate the purposes and functions of CPS. These areas are discussed in more detail in the next section.
Three research areas will be pursued in this study. These are:
Each of these areas involves addressing a number of more specific questions.
Mandates and Policies
The overarching responsibility of the CPS agency (most commonly a division or unit within a child welfare department) is to provide the first response to the needs of children who may have been abused or neglected. As terminology in some states indicates, the primary role of the CPS agency is to conduct "an emergency response." This mandate is also described as ensuring the safety of children from abuse or neglect, because it undertakes to investigate whether children are safe or not. However, other activities of child welfare agencies that serve to ensure safety, such as placing children in foster care or terminating the rights of abusive parents, are not usually considered to be part of the CPS function.
Given the mandate to conduct the first response to potential critical emergencies, much of CPS policy focuses on what conditions require a response and what types of response are required. Thus, the following key questions related to CPS mandates and policies will be addressed:
While philosophical and service orientations have their roots in early turn-of-the-century settlement-house programs, State mandates and policies were developed in response to the first Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) in the 1960's, which recognized the prerogatives of States and localities to establish policies within the broad framework established by CAPTA. As a result, State policies, and to a certain degree county policies where they exist separately, have variations on each of the above question areas.
In order to address these variations in State policies, State documentation is being reviewed on the main areas of inquiry and will be confirmed by State administrators. County policies will also need to be reviewed in county-administered localities. These procedures are discussed in the section on methods.
Functions and Practices
The second research area examines the functions and operational practices, which are conducted in order to meet the mandates and policy requirements of the agencies. Primary functions of CPS agencies include screening, investigation and, in many places, providing an alternative response to investigation that assesses the needs of the family or child without making a specific determination related to child abuse or neglect. CPS agencies also provide short term services and make referrals to community service agencies. In addition, a multiplicity of activities underlies the main functions of the agency. Each of these activities can be further broken down into such components as who, what, where, and how. For example, in terms of screening, the following questions are some of the relevant topics.
Innovative Reform Efforts
The third research area will examine innovative approaches being implemented in local agencies to address the mandates and policies of CPS and the degree to which policy is changing to include these new reform efforts.
One of the basic research quandaries is to identify what is innovative. Many of the tensions within the CPS system have been evident for the last 100 years, e.g., the tension between social support, social rehabilitation, and punishment; the opposing themes of child needs verses family needs; the concerns for privacy versus accountability, etc. As State and local CPS systems have evolved, they have tended to tilt in one direction or another. They have not all, however, tilted in the same direction at the same time.
In identifying innovative reform efforts, local definitions of innovation will be examined. Once a range of innovative programs and approaches has been identified, criteria by which programs can be assessed more objectively as being innovative will be determined. Some of the criteria that may be considered are: scope of the innovation, length of time that it has been in place, whether policy and practice have both changed, and extent to which impact of the innovation has been measured or evaluated. A number of programs that meet these criteria will be researched in more depth through the site visits component of the study.
The site visit staff will use a site-visit subject protocol guide, rather than a survey instrument, in order to take into consideration the uniqueness of each program. Some questions under consideration for the site-visit subject protocol include:
The site visits will allow for the most in-depth exploration of the functional features of the innovative practices being implemented.
In this section the major study methods that will be used to address the three research areas are described.
Literature Review
The purpose of the literature review is to provide a summary of existing information on reform proposals or initiatives that alter integral components of the mission, functions, and operational practices of CPS agencies across the nation. The first section of the paper describes the critiques of CPS practices that are being discussed in the literature. These critiques are reviewed in terms of their implications for the description of critical CPS functions. The second section of the paper identifies innovative programs and practices that are being implemented by States or local communities.
Policy Analysis
The purpose of the policy analysis is to systematically characterize the written State mandates and policies that dictate the organization, functions, and procedures for the CPS agency and its partners. The results of the policy analysis will be (1) the development of State policy profiles and (2) a report that provides an analysis of commonalties and differences in State mandates and policy. The State profiles will lay the groundwork for the State confirmation interviews described in the next section.
State Confirmation Interviews
The purpose of the State confirmation interviews is to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information on each State's CPS policy. The respondents will be asked to correct or clarify the information in a State Policy Summary Profile, that will be sent to them in advance, and to provide further elaboration when appropriate. They will be asked about current waivers from State or Federal policy that are being implemented in the State and any policy changes that are pending or in draft form. The results of the State interviews will be entered into the database on State policy and presented in updated State Policy Summary Profiles. These profiles will be made available to the field. In addition, the State interviews will provide an opportunity for State agencies to identify any reform efforts or innovative approaches that are underway in the State or in local CPS agencies.
Local Agency Survey
The purpose of the Local Agency Survey is to identify the operational procedures employed in carrying out CPS functions by local CPS agencies across the Nation. While the State policy analysis and State confirmation interviews components of the study will focus on policies that provide definitions and dictate specific procedures and classifications, the agency survey will focus on actual practices at the local level. The targeted sample size is all local CPS agencies that serve 150 county PSUs. The sample will be stratified by urbanicity and by type of CPS administration (state or county administered). In addition, a limited number of counties with particularly innovative CPS strategies will be selected with certainty.
The results of the local agency survey will be (1) a database consisting of quantitative data elements summarizing the operational practices for carrying out key CPS functions at the local level and (2) a Findings Report that will discuss commonalties and differences in how CPS work is carried out and national estimates of the number of local agencies that employ different operational approaches, thereby providing a comprehensive picture of the CPS system nationwide.
Local Agency Site Visits
The objective of the site visits is to observe, first-hand and in-depth, the innovative practices being integrated into CPS agencies on a local level. The site visits will provide the opportunity to ask more qualitative questions about new programs and the relationship of such programs and practices to former policy and practice than the other data collection efforts. The site visits will target 9 to 12 programs with innovative approaches to carrying out the CPS functions. The sites will be selected using a set of criteria that will ensure that a wide range of reform efforts and jurisdictions are included. The on-site data collection will include both key informant interviews and focus groups. The key informant interviews will be conducted with several primary respondents in each site, including the CPS agency director, program manager for the reform effort, and any other agency personnel who play a key role in the reform effort.
The products of the local agency visits will be a series of case studies, prepared in a standard format to facilitate across site comparisons. The format will include such items as the purpose of the site visit, identification of interviewees and roles, CPS reform efforts and factors driving efforts, results to date, a list of persons interviewed, and a list of documents reviewed. The case studies will delineate the operation of CPS functions, especially as related to innovative practices and programs from a systems perspective. The unique elements of each program will be highlighted, with an observations as to the strengths and weaknesses of the strategies being employed to carry out the agency functions.
Study results will be available in 2002.
[Go To Contents]
American Humane Association. (1996). International survey of innovative programs with CPS linkages. Englewood, CO: Author.
American Humane Association. (1997). Innovations for children's services for the 21st century: Family group decision making and PATCH. Englewood, CO: Author.
American Public Human Services Association. (1999). Guidelines for a model system of protective services for abused and neglected children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
Apple, K., Berstein, S., Fogg, K., Fogg, L., Haapala, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, R., Kinney, J., Natoli, J., Price, D., Robert, K., Robinson, K., Steele, T., Trent, E., Trent, M., Trent, V., Smith, R., & Vignec, R. (1997). Walking the talk in the neighborhoods: Building professional/natural helper partnerships. Social Policy, 27 (4), 54-61.
Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic violence: The experiences of five communities. Available: <http://www.urban.org/welfare/aron3.htm>.
Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child protection and battered women's services from conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4 (2), 116-126.
Besharov, D. J. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect (Commentary 1). The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.
Bollenbacher, V. (2000, September). The effect of the state child protection model on securing children's rights: Debunking the myth models and constructing legal rights. Paper presented at the meeting of the 13th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Durbin, South Africa.
Burrell, K. (1995). Missouri's child protective services system and current differential response demonstration project. Paper prepared for the Executive Session on New Paradigms for Child Protective Services, Cambridge, MA.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.) Report to the governor and the general assembly on the child abuse assessment pilot projects: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). A review of the impact of Iowa's assessment legislation. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). The central registry in Iowa: Issues and future directions. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1997). Strategies to keep children safe: Why community partnerships will make a difference. Washington, DC: Author.
Christian, S. M. (1997). New directions for child protective services: Supporting children, families, and communities through legislative reform. Denver, Colorado: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Colorado Department of Human Services. (1995). Crossing the bridge: A cross-training curriculum for domestic violence/child protection workers. Denver, CO: Author.
Combs-Orme, T., & Thomas, K. H. (1997). Assessment of troubled families. Social Work Research, 21 (4), 261-269.
Conroy, K., &. Magen, R.H. (1997). Training child welfare workers on domestic violence: Trainer's manual. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.
Day, P., Robinson, S., & Sheikh, L. (1998). Ours to keep: A guide for building a community assessment strategy for child protection. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
Edleson, J. (Ed.) (1999). Interventions and issues in the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence. Child Maltreatment 4(3).
English, D. J., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., &. Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24 (3), 375-388.
Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard University.
Findlater, J. E., & Kelly, S. (1999). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 167-174.
Ganley, A. & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for children's protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Gardner, S., & Young, N. K. (1997). The implications of alcohol and other drug-related problems for community partnerships for child protection. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Geen, R., & Tumlin, K. C. (1999). State efforts to remake child welfare: Responses to new challenges and increased scrutiny. Assessing the New Federalism, Occasional Paper 29, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B. (1996). Evaluation of Florida's family services response system. Tampa, FL: Florida Mental Health Institute.
Kadushin, A. (1974). Child welfare services. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
Kolbo, J. R. & B, E. (1997). Multidisciplinary team approaches to the investigation and resolution of child abuse and neglect: a national survey. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 61-72.
Kot, V., Bruner, C., & Scott, S. (1998). Citizen review panels for the child protective services system: Guidelines and protocols. Chicago: The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
Larner, M.B., Stevenson, C.S., & Behrman, R.E. (1998). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Analysis and recommendations. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 4-22.
Lecklitner, G.L., Malik, N.M., Aaron, S.M., & Lederman, C.S. (1999). Promoting safety for abused children and battered mothers: Miami-Dade county's model dependency court intervention program. Child Maltreatment, 4 (2),175-182.
McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54-71.
Mulroy, E. A. (1997). Building neighborhood networks: Interorganizational collaboration to prevent child abuse and neglect. Social Work, 42(3), 255-265.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.(CASA). (1999). No safe haven: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: Author.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000a). Can we put clothes on this emperor? Best Practice Next Practice, 1(1), 7-11.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000b). Community collaborations: A growing promise in child welfare. Best Practice Next Practice, 1 (2), 1-3.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998). Family Violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their children. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.(1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence & child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author.
Orr, S. (1999). Child protection at the crossroads: Child abuse, child protection, and recommendations for reform. Policy Study No. 262. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.
Pelton, L.H. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect (Commentary 3). The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.
Schechter, S., & Edleson., J. L. (2000). Domestic violence & children: Creating a public response. New York: Open Society Institute.
Scott, S. & Bruner, C. (1996). Supporting effective citizen involvement in child protective services: A guide for state and local officials. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.
Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (1998). Child protection services family assessment and response demonstration impact evaluation: Digest of findings and conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
Shirk, M. (1998). We are in this together: Community child protection in America. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1997). Child protective services: Complex challenges require new strategies. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Virginia State Department of Social Services. (1999). Final report on the multiple response system for child protective services in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.
Wakeling, S. (1995). Child protective services reform in Florida. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Wakeling, S. (1996). Child protection services reform in Florida: A brief update. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Waldfogel, J. (1998a). The future of child protection: How to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waldfogel, J. (1998b). Rethinking the paradigm for child protection. Future of Children, 8 (1), 104-119.
Waldfogel, J. (2000, Jan/Feb). Reforming child protective services. Child Welfare, 79 (1), 43-58.
Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence: Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child Maltreatment, 4(2),158-166.
Young, N.K. & Gardner, S. (2000). Navigating the networks: Lessons and promising practices in linking alcohol and other drug treatment with child welfare services. Unpublished manuscript.
Young, N.K., Gardner, S., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
[Go To Contents]
American Public Human Services Association. (1999). Guidelines for a model system of protective services for abused and neglected children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
Child Welfare League of America. (1997). Standards of excellence. Washington, DC: Author.
Council on Accreditation. (1996). Council on Accreditation 1997 standards for behavioral health care services and community support and education services. New York: Author.
Briar-Lawson, K., & Drews, J. (2000). Child and family welfare policies and services: Current issues and historical antecedents. In J. Midgley, M. B. Tracy, & M. Livermore (Eds.), The handbook of social policy (pp.157-174). Thousand Acres, CA: Sage Press.
Geen, R., & Tumlin, K. C. (1999). State efforts to remake child welfare: Responses to new challenges and increased scrutiny. Assessing the New Federalism, Occasional Paper 29, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
Kadushin, A. (1974). Child welfare services. NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth and Families. (2000). Child maltreatment 1998: Reports from the states to the national child abuse and neglect data system. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Weil, M. (2000). Services for families and children: The changing context and new challenges. In R. J. Patti (Ed.), The handbook of social welfare management (pp. 481-510). Thousand Acres, CA: Sage Press.
REFORM MODELS
Adams, P., & Nelson, K. (Eds.). (1995). Reinventing human services: Community-and family-centered practice. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
American Humane Association. (1996). International survey of innovative programs with CPS linkages. Englewood, CO: Author.
American Humane Association. (1997). Innovations for children's services for the 21st century: Family group decision making and PATCH. Englewood, CO: Author.
Beeman, S. K. (1997). Reconceputalizing social support and its relationship to child neglect. Social Service Review, 71 (3), 421-440.
Besharov, D. J., Robinson Lowry, M., Pelton, L. H., & Weber, M. W. (1998). Four commentaries: How we can better protect children from abuse and neglect. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 120-132.
Chadwick, D. L. (Ed.) (1999). Convening a national call to action: Working toward the elimination of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect [Special Issue], 23, 10.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1997). Strategies to keep children safe: Why community partnerships will make a difference. Washington, DC: Author.
Christian, S. M. (1997). New directions for child protective services: Supporting children, families, and communities through legislative reform. Denver, Colorado: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Costin, L. B., Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1996). The politics of child abuse in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farrow, F. (1996). Systems change at the neighborhood level: Creating better futures for children, youth, and families. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy.
Farrow, F. (1997). Child protection: Building community partnerships. Cambridge, MA: The President and Fellows of Harvard University.
Gelles, R. (1996). The book of David: How preserving families can cost children's lives. New York: Basic Books.
Joint Center for Poverty Research. (2000). JCPR congressional briefing on child maltreatment [on-line]. Available: <http://www.jcpr.org/conferences/childabuse_briefing.html>.
Jones, D. P. H. (2000). Editorial: Refocusing child protection services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24 (4), 373-374.
Larner, M.B., Stevenson, C.S., & Behrman, R.E. (1998). Protecting Children from Abuse and Neglect: Analysis and Recommendations. The Future of Children, 8 (1), 4-22.
Maluccio, A. (1997). Time for an ideological shift in child welfare? An essay review. Social Service Review, 71(1), 135-143.
Melton, G. B., & Barry, F. D. (1994). Neighbors helping neighbors: The vision of the U.S. advisory board on child abuse and neglect. In G. B. Melton and F. D. Barry (Eds.). Protecting children from abuse and neglect: Foundations for a new national strategy (pp. 1-13). New York: Guilford Press.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000). Can we put clothes on this emperor? Best Practice Next Practice, 1(1), 7-11.
Orr, S. (1999). Child protection at the crossroads: Child abuse, child protection, and recommendations for reform. Policy Study No. 262. Los Angeles: Reason Public Policy Institute.
Pascual, P. (Fall 1999/Winter 2000). More foster families, fewer children entering care, ADVOCASEY 1(3), 4-11.
Pearson, Y., & Wattenberg, E. (Eds.). (1997). Rethinking child welfare: Can the system be transformed through community partnerships? Minneapolis, MN: Center for Urban and Regional Affairs.
Ribich, K., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (1998). Family group decision making initiatives: results of AHA's survey. Protecting Children, 14(4), 23-30.
Schorr, L. B. (1997). Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Doubleday.
Shirk, M. (1998). We are in this together: Community child protection in America. New York: The Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.
Thompson, R. A. (1995). Preventing child maltreatment through social support: A critical analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
United States General Accounting Office. (1997). Child protective services: Complex challenges require new strategies. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). A nation's shame: Fatal child abuse and neglect in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1990). Child abuse and neglect: Critical first steps in response to a national emergency. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1991). Creating caring communities: Blueprint for an effective federal policy on child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1993). The continuing child protection emergency: A challenge to the nation. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect (1993). Neighbors helping neighbors: A new national strategy for the protection of children. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Waldfogel, J. (1998). The future of child protection: How to break the cycle of abuse and neglect. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waldfogel, J. (1998). Rethinking the paradigm for child protection. Future of Children, 8 (1), 104-119.
Waldfogel, J. (2000, Jan/Feb). Reforming child protective services. Child Welfare, 79(1), 43-58.
Walter R. McDonald & Associates. (1999). Trends in the growth and use of family group decision making: A ten-year perspective. Report to the Santa Clara County Department of Family and Children's Services under a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
Burrell, K. (1995). Missouri's child protective services system and current differential response demonstration project. Paper prepared for the Executive Session on New Paradigms for Child Protective Services, Cambridge, MA.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (n.d.) Report to the governor and the general assembly on the child abuse assessment pilot projects: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). A review of the impact of Iowa's assessment legislation. Washington, DC: Author.
Center for the Study of Social Policy. (1996). The central registry in Iowa: Issues and future directions. Washington, DC: Author.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J. E., & Su, M. (1999). Neighborhoods and child maltreatment: A multi-level study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(11), 1019-1040.
English, D. J., Wingard, T., Marshall, D., Orme, M., &. Orme, A. (2000). Alternative responses to child protective services: Emerging issues and concerns. Child Abuse & Neglect, 24(3), 375-388.
Gilbert, N., & VanVoorhis, R. A. (1998). The structure and performance of child abuse reporting systems, Child and Youth Services Review, 20 (3), 207-222.
Guterman, N. B. (1999). Enrollment strategies in early home visitation to prevent child abuse and neglect and the "universal v. targeted" debate: A meta-analysis of population-based and screening-based programs. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(9), 863-890.
Hernandez, M., & Barrett, B. (1996). Evaluation of Florida's family services response system. Tampa, FL: Florida Mental Health Institute.
McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1998). Family-centered services: Approaches and effectiveness. The Future of Children, 8(1), 54-71.
Siegel, G. L., & Loman, L. A. (1998). Child protection services family assessment and response demonstration impact evaluation: Digest of findings and conclusions. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Applied Research.
State Division of Youth and Family Services. (1998). The final report of the governor's blue ribbon panel on child protection services. Trenton, NJ: Author.
Virginia State Department of Social Services. (1999). Final report on the multiple response system for child protective services in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Author.
Wakeling, S. (1995). Child protective services reform in Florida. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Wakeling, S. (1996). Child protection services reform in Florida: A brief update. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
Baird, S. C. (1997, August). Child abuse and neglect: Improving consistency in decision-making. NCCD FOCUS. San Francisco: The National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability. Child Welfare, 78(6), 723-748.
Baumann, D., Kern, H., & Fluke, J. (1997). Foundations of the decision-making ecology and overview. In H. Kern (Ed.), Worker improvements to the structured decision and outcome model. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services.
Brisett-Chapman, S. (1997). Child protection risk assessment and African American children: Cultural ramifications for families and communities. Child Welfare, 76(1), 45-64.
Cicchinelli, L. F. (1995). Risk assessment: Expectations and realities. In D. DePanfilis, D. Daro, & S. Wells (Eds.), The APSAC Advisor: Vol. 8., No. 4. Special issue on risk assessment, 3-8.
Children's Research Center. (1999). A new approach to child protective services: Structured decision making. Madison, WI: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Combs-Orme, T., & Thomas, K. H. (1997). Assessment of troubled families. Social Work Research, 21(4), 261-269.
Day, P., Robinson, S., & Sheikh, L. (1998). Ours to keep: A guide for building a community assessment strategy for child protection. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
English, D.J., Marshall, D.B., Brummel, S.C., & Coghlan, L.K. (1998). Decision-making in child protective services: A study of effectiveness. Final report phase 1: Quantitative analysis. Olympia, WA: Department of Social and Health Services (Fed. Grant. # 90-CA-1563).
Hollinshead, D., & Fluke, J. (In Press). What works in safety and risk assessment for child protective services. In What Works in Child Welfare. Washington, DC: CWLA.
Karski, R. L. (1999). Key decisions in child protection services report investigation and court referral. Children & Youth Services Review, 21(8), 643-656.
Lyons, P., Doueck, H. J., & Wodarski, J. S. (1996). Risk assessment for child protective services: A review of the empirical literature on instrument performance. Social Work Research, 20(3), 143-155.
Morton, T. D., & Holder, W. (Eds.). (1998). Decision making in children's protective services: Advancing the state of the art. Atlanta, GA: Child Welfare Institute.
Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(8), 745-758.
Pecora, P., & English, D. (1993). Multi-cultural guidelines for assessing family strengths and risk factors in child protective services. Seattle, WA: Washington State Office of Children's Administration.
Reder, P., & Duncan, S. (2000). A required mind-set for child protection practice: Comments on Munro (1999). Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(4), 443-446.
Rossi, P., Schuerman, J., & Budde, S. (1996). Understanding child maltreatment decisions and those who make them. Chicago: University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Tumlin, K. C., & Geen, R. (2000). The decision to investigate: Understanding state child welfare screening policies and practices. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Walton, E. (1997). Enhancing investigative decisions in child welfare: An exploratory use of intensive family preservation services. Child Welfare, 76(3), 447-469.
Wells, S. (1995). Introduction. In D. DePanfilis, D. Daro, & S. Wells (Eds.), The APSAC Advisor: Vol. 8., No. 4. Special issue on risk assessment, 1-2.
Wells, S. J., Fluke, J. D., & Brown, C. H. (1995). The decision to investigate: Child protection practice in 12 local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17 (4), 523-535.
Westat, Inc. (1998). CPS screening policy study. Rockville, MD: Author.
Adams, P., & Nelson, K. (1997). Reclaiming community: An integrative approach to human services. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 67-82.
Annie E. Casey Foundation (n.d.) People helping people. Partnerships between professional and natural helpers. Family to Family Tools for Rebuilding Foster care. Baltimore: Author.
Annie E. Casey Foundation (n.d.) Team decision making. Involving the family and community in child welfare decisions. Family to Family Tools for Rebuilding Foster Care. Baltimore: Author.
Apple, K., Berstein, S., Fogg, K., Fogg, L., Haapapa, D., Johnson, E., Johnson, R., Kinney, J., Natoli, J., Price, D., Robert, K., Robinson, K., Steele, T., Trent, E., Trent, M., Trent, V., Smith, R., & Vignec, R. (1997). Walking the talk in the neighborhoods: Building professional/natural helper partnerships. Social Policy, 27(4), 54-61.
Armstron, K. L. (1997). Launching a family-centered, neighborhood-based human services system: Lessons from working the hallways and street corners. Administration in Social Work, 21(3/4), 1-8.
Corrigan, D. (1996). An educator's view on expanding partnerships. In K. Hooper-Briar & H. A. Lawson (Eds.), Expanding partnerships for vulnerable children, youth and families. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Jones, S. J., & Zlotnik J. L. (Eds.). (1998). Preparing helping professionals to meet community needs: generalizing from the rural experience. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.
Kot, V., Bruner, C., & Scott, S. (1998). Citizen review panels for the child protective services system: Guidelines and protocols. Chicago: The National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse.
Mulroy, E. A. (1997). Building neighborhood networks: Interorganizational collaboration to prevent child abuse and neglect. Social Work, 42(3), 255-265.
National Child Welfare Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice. (2000b). Community collaborations: A growing promise in child welfare. Best Practice Next Practice, 1(2), 1-3.
Scott, S., & Bruner, C. (1996). Supporting effective citizen involvement in child protective services: A guide for state and local officials. Des Moines, IA: Child and Family Policy Center.
Weil, M. (1997). Community building: Building community practice. In P. A. Ewalt, E. M. Freeman, & D. L. Poole, (Eds.), Community building: renewal, well-being, and shared responsibility (pp. 95-106). Washington, DC: NASW Press.
Gardner, S., & Young, N. K. (1997). The implications of alcohol and other drug-related problems for community partnerships for child protection. Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.(CASA). (1999). No safe haven: Children of substance-abusing parents. New York: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on substance abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1998). Foster care: Agencies face challenges securing stable homes for children of substance abusers. Washington, DC: Author.
Young, N.K., Gardner, S., & Dennis, K. (1998). Responding to alcohol and other drug problems in child welfare: Weaving together practice and policy. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Young, N.K., & Gardner, S. (2000). Navigating the Networks: Lessons and promising practices in linking alcohol and other drug treatment with child welfare services. Unpublished manuscript.
Aron, L. Y., & Olson, K. K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to address domestic violence: The experiences of five communities [on-line]. Available: <http://www.urban.org/welfare/aron3.htm>.
Beeman, S. K., Hagemeister, A. K., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Child protection and battered women's services from conflict to collaboration. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 116-126.
Colorado Department of Human Services. (1995). Crossing the bridge: A cross-training curriculum for domestic violence/child protection workers. Denver, CO: Author.
Conroy, K., &. Magen, R.H. (1997). Training child welfare workers on domestic violence: Trainer's manual. New York: Columbia University School of Social Work.
Edleson, J. L. (Ed.). (1999). Introduction to special issue. Child Maltreatment, 4(2), 91-92.
Findlater, J. E., & Kelly, S. (1999). Reframing child safety in Michigan: Building collaboration among domestic violence, family preservation, and child protective services. Child Maltreatment, 4(2),167-174.
Ganley, A. & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for children's protective services. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund.
Lecklitner, G.L., Malik, N.M., Aaron, S.M., & Lederman, C.S. (1999). Promoting safety for abused children and battered mothers: Miami-Dade county's model dependency court intervention program. Child Maltreatment, 4(2),175-182.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (1998). Family Violence: Emerging programs for battered mothers and their children. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.(1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence & child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice. Reno, NV: Author.
Schechter, S., & Edleson., J. L. (2000). Domestic violence & children: Creating a public response. New York: Open Society Institute.
Whitney, P., & Davis, L. (1999). Child abuse and domestic violence: Can practice be integrated in a public child welfare setting? Child Maltreatment, 4(2),158-166.
Bollenbacher, V. (2000, September). The effect of the state child protection model on securing children's rights: Debunking the myth models and constructing legal rights. Paper presented at the meeting of the 13th International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Durbin, South Africa.
Cage, R., & Pence, D. (1997). Criminal investigation of child sexual abuse. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs.
Child abuse investigations transferred to state police (1998, May/June). Youth Law News.
Kolbo, J. R. & B, E. (1997). Multidisciplinary team approaches to the investigation and resolution of child abuse and neglect: a national survey. Child Maltreatment, 2(1), 61-72.
Pence, D., & Wilson, C. (1994). The team investigation of child sexual abuse: The uneasy alliance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shepherd, J. R. (1997). The role of law enforcement in the investigation of child abuse and neglect. In M. E. Helfer, R. S. Kempe, & R. D. Krugman (Eds.), The battered child. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Courtney, M. (1998). The costs of child protection in the context of welfare reform. The Future of Children, 8(1), 88-103.
Duerr Berrick, J., Barth, R., & Needell, B. (Eds). (1999). Special issue on welfare reform and child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 21(9/10).
Knitzer, J., & Bernard, S. (1997). The new welfare law and vulnerable families: Implications for child welfare/child protection systems. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty.
Adams, R., Alter, C., & Krauth, K. (1995). Strengthening families and neighborhoods: A community-centered approach. Final report on the Iowa Patch Project. Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
Barsky, A. (1999). Community involvement through child protection mediation. Child Welfare, 78(4), 481-502.
Burford, G., & Pennell, J. (1997). Family group decision making: After the conference--progress in resolving violence and promoting well-being: Outcome report (Vols 1-2). St. Johns, NF: Memorial University Press.
Pennell, J., & Burford, G. (2000): Family group decision making: Protecting children and women. Child Welfare, 79(2), 131-158.
Thoennes, N. (1997). An evaluation of child protection mediation in five California courts. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 35, 184-195.
[Go To Contents]
To be included in Exhibit 2, a State had to have its demonstration or initiative described in a published document or on a web site.
States have been noted as initiating such programs if they are piloting programs that respond to children differently based on an initial assessment of risk or if they have introduced new family assessment protocols. Such protocols include attention to and indeed may focus solely on the assessment of family needs, rather than solely on the substantiation of maltreatment. (Sources: AHA, 1996; National Conference of State Legislatures, 1999; Christian, 1997; English et. al., 2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.)
States are included in this category if they have piloted programs at the local community level that have some of the following characteristics: reduce the separation or isolation of CPS from the community, utilize informal community resources, or re-locate CPS staff in the community. (Sources: AHA, 1996; Christian, 1997; Shirk, 1998.)
States are included in this category ifthe law enforcement agency is responsible for or has significant responsibilities in the handling of some cases of child maltreatment as defined by State statute. (Sources: Christian, 1997; Bollenbacher, 2000.)
States are included in this category if they have built innovative bridges in at least one community among their CPS and AOD treatment agencies. (Source: Gardner & Young, 1997; Young & Gardner, 2000; IV-E Waivers.)
States are included in this category if they have built innovative bridges among their CPS and DV agencies at the state level (*) or at a community level (X). (Sources: Aron & Olson, 1997; National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1998.)
[ Back to Exhibit 2 ]
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS)
Last updated: 04/24/01