Are You Ready for Alternative Response?

1. Are You Ready for Alternative Response? Ohio’s Alternative Response Symposium May 13, 2010 Caren Kaplan American Humane Association Steve Hanson Supreme Court of Ohio Kristin Gilbert, Jennifer Justice, Leslie McGee, Cheryl Wolfe and Roger Ward Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

2. Purposes of Alternative Response and Child Protection • CPS was established to respond to all reports of suspected child maltreatment -numbers overwhelm available resources • Currently either screen out or do not open for services more than half of the reports - yet many children are vulnerable

3. Purposes of Alternative Response and Child Protection • Investigatory practice is often adversarial and alienates parents • AR = way to serve more screened-in reports at earlier stage by engaging families in a non-adversarial process of linking them to needed services

4. What is Alternative Response? • Alternative to child protection investigative response and one of several responses within a differential response system • Sets aside fault finding and substantiation decision • Usually applied to reports that do not allege serious and imminent harm

5. What is Alternative Response? • Focuses less on investigative fact finding and more on assessing and ensuring child safety • Seeks safety through family engagement and collaborative partnerships • Allows and encourages agencies to provide services without formal determination of abuse or neglect

6. Core AR Elements • Use of two or more discrete response tracks for cases that are screened in and accepted • Establishment of discrete response tracks is codified in statute, policy, or protocols • Track assignment depends on an array of factors (e.g., presence of imminent danger, level of risk, the number of previous reports, the source of the report, and/or presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged maltreatment and age of the alleged victim) • Original track assignment can change based on new information that alters risk level or safety concerns

7. Core AR Elements • Services are voluntary on a non-investigative track • families can choose to receive investigation response • families can accept or refuse offered services if there are no safety concerns • No substantiation of alleged maltreatment for families served in a non-investigative track; services are offered without a formal determination of child maltreatment • Alternative use of central registry depending on track, meaning name of alleged perpetrator is not entered into central registry for those individuals who are served through a non-investigative track

8. National Portrait of Alternative Response

9. Why Implement Alternative Response? • Many parents, reporters, and social workers become frustrated with limited responses available to children and families • CPS “investigation” is perceived as overly accusatory and adversarial as initial response for many reports • Focus on substantiation and identifying perpetrator does not contribute to family’s readiness to engage in services

10. Why Implement Alternative Response? • Majority of traditional CPS responses do not result in any services being provided • Overwhelming majority of cases are not served through court orders; evidence collection is not always needed • Alternative Response allows system to move more quickly to address safety needs

11. Why ImplementAlternative Response? • Alternative response can support families by applying available resources to services rather than investigations • Alternative response is often accompanied by greater efforts to identify, build, and coordinate formal and non-formal services and supports • Children are safer sooner

12. Serve screened in reports earlier Engage families in assessment Link families to needed services Purpose of Alternative Response and Child Protection 12

13. Commonalities between Alternative and Investigation Response Pathways • Focus on child safety • Promote permanency within the family whenever possible • Value community services • Recognize authority of CPS to make decisions of placement and court involvement • Respond to changing family circumstances [Schene, 2005]

14. Child Welfare Pathways d • AR • No Disposition • No ACV/AP Labels • AR Specific Rules • Some Modified • Tools TR • Disposition • ACV/AP Labels • Forensic Approach • TR Specific Rules • Safety Focus • Assessment • Strengths Based • Family Focused • Engagement • Linkage with Services • SACWIS • Statute/Laws • IR • Disposition • ACV/AP Labels • Forensic Response • IR Specific Rules

16. Case Process Flow Chartsimplified Report of Alleged Child Maltreatment Screened Out CPS Refer to Community Services or Community Response Screened in CPS Determine eligibility for appropriate track/response InvestigationResponse Alternative Response Safe Refer for Services Unsafe/Substantiated Court & Safety Plan CPS Case Open Safe Refer for Services Unsafe Safety Plan CPS Case Open

17. Opportunity to Change Pathways Investigation CPS Response Track Assignment Pathway Change: AR-I and I-AR Accepted Reports Alternative CPS Response Pathway Change

18. Principles and Assumptions of Alternative Response • Circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the response • Majority of reports do not need an adversarial approach or court-ordered interventions • Absent an investigation: • child safety will not be jeopardized • services can be in place more quickly • families will be more motivated to use services

19. Assumptions continued... • Effective assessment tools can be put in place to assure safety and an informed response • Frontline staff in CPS and agencies are trained in strength based and collaborative interventions • Only cases of greater severity need to be on the state central registry • Cases are monitored sufficiently to change course/paths when situation requires

20. Practice Shift • Focus on securing child safety through family engagement • Move from agency expert driven compliance approach to safety focused partnership with families and communities • Recognize and apply family and community strengths and resources; honor family wisdom about their circumstances, strengths and needs

21. Workforce Issues • Assessment is the key • Engagement of and partnership with family • Clinical judgment and discretion • One worker/one team - one family • Warm hand off to community providers • Broker and networker • Quality Social Casework Practice

22. PrerequisitesforSuccess • Skilled Workforce • Alternative Assessment • Manageable Workloads • Expansion of Service Array • Early Intervention

23. Prerequisites for Success • Flexibility in thinking and approach • Leverage flexible $$ wherever/whenever possible • Formal meaningful partnerships with AOD, MH, DV housing, and economic security (TANF) providers • Cooperative relationship between the family and the agency—foundation for the effective delivery of services

24. Clear definition, policies and protocols to guide implementation Clear roles and responsibilities for CPS, judges, families and communities Interconnectedness with data systems Track progress/outcomes Track assignment Preparationfor Implementation 24

25. Educating mandated reporters Partnering with community agencies Training staff and community partners Working with courts and law enforcement Preparationfor Implementation 25

26. Prospective Benefits • More children are better protected over time by engaging more parents in the process of making sustainable changes • Rate of subsequent, repeat reports to CPS has been demonstrated to decrease • Both families and agency child protection workers are more satisfied with the outcomes • Involvement of larger systems of support • Approach is cost neutral or saves money over time

27. Lessons Learned • There is intrinsic value of family voice – as partners, guiding service planning and decision making • Community partnerships are most effective ways to protect children • There is a need to involve families and community stakeholders early in process

28. Lessons Learned • Communication among/across stakeholders & jurisdictions is essential – establish vehicles for regular contact • Assessment is ongoing and cumulative as trust builds - need to respond • Evaluation matters – bring evaluators in early and make the investment to do it well

29. Resources • American Humane • http://www.americanhumane.org/protecting-children/programs/differential-response/ • Quality Improvement Center on Alternative Response • http://www.differentialresponseqic.org/ • Caren Kaplan • carenk@americanhumane.org

30. With Gratitude

31. Establishing Alternative Response as an option for Ohio’s Families Ohio Alternative Response Pilot Project

32. How Did We End Up Here?The Sequence of Events Two reports were critical of inconsistencies in Ohio’s application of statutory definitions for child abuse, neglect and dependency ABA Report CFSR Subcommittee on Responding to Child, Abuse, Neglect & Dependency (2004) Final Report (January 2006) Advisory Committee on Children Families & the Court

33. 2006 Recommendations Change to Child In Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) legislative structure Look into alternative/differential response as an option for handling some accepted reports of child maltreatment

34. 2007 - Established Framework Received statutory authorityto initiate a pilot study Launched a nation-wide search for an experienced consultants Selected AmericanHumane, Institutefor AppliedResearch & MinnesotaPartners - AIM Conducted Regional Forums on Alternative Response to assist communities in self-identifying an interest in serving as a pilot site

35. Selected Pilot Counties Red = 2006 substantiated & indicated child abuse reports Blue = Population as reported by census data

36. Expanded Partnerships

37. Ohio’s Alternative Response Plan Created a Design Team Two representatives per site were appointed to a workgroup of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Subcommittee on Responding to Child Abuse, Neglect and Dependency

38. Created a Model The Design Team established: The “alternative pathway” as complementary to (does not replace) Ohio’s existing child protective service response system. Guiding Principles Assignment criteria Timeframes for decision-making Standard labels and their definitions Case Processing and flow Mechanisms for moving reports from one track to another

39. Prepared for Implementation • Establishing training for staff and community • Evaluating local services • Developing a statewide message and educational materials

40. 2008Offered Families a New Option for Keeping Children Safe • Alternative Response became an option for families in pilots sites in July 2008. • Random assignment of families for evaluation purposes continued through September 2009. • By conclusion of data collection, 4,822 families had been assigned to the study: • 2,482 (51.5%) assigned to experimental track (AR) • 2,340 (48.5) assigned to control track (“business as usual) • 92 cases were excluded from study because of track changes

41. From Activation to Integration: County-Focus • Maintaining child safety • Developing routine • Establishing ongoing support • Collecting data: state and local • Developing partnerships • Building political will for change • Problem solving

42. From Activation to Integration: State Focus • Responding to workers’ training needs • Building political will for change • Identifying the elements that are critical to success, including dollars and services • Integrating alternative response into state’s priorities; aligning initiatives • Ensuring essential oversight and accountability

43. Pilot Challenges • Equity in workloads (randomization) • SACWIS • Dual Caseloads • Tensions between workers

44. Practice Challenges • How to explain AR • Dual caseloads • Interviewing requirements; where rule meets philosophy • Letting go of old ways; change management • Finding services

45. From the front line: what’s good? • Family Response • Time Spent in Field • Increased/More Creative Services for Families • Families’ Supports • Outcomes show promise • Services reflect family needs • Caseworker satisfaction

46. From the front line: lessons…. • Importance of skilled decision-making at the front door (screening). • Extended timeframes for assessment allow greater opportunity for engagement • Caseload size has impact on workers’ ability to engage • Flexible Funding: effective response to families must have the flexibility that allows both immediacy and allows services to be determined by need rather than availability.

47. From the front line: critical connections…. • Housing • Gaps in substance abuse and mental health services • Transportation

48. Infinity and Beyond! • Pilot Study Time Frame: • July 1, 2008 - December 30, 2009 (18 months) • Final Report • April 2010 • Dual Focus: • Targeted Pilot Expansion • RFA – March 2010 • AR Symposium - May 13 & 14, 2010 • Ten Expansion Pilots – June 2010 • Statewide Implementation

49. REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

50. Application Review Process • Evaluationby American Humane Consultants using Criteria in Application • Selection: Recommendations made to ODJFS & SCO; decisions made by Subcommittee • Notificationon June 18th: Selected sites contacted via telephone (preferred) or E-mail