Reconciling Competing Values in the Delivery of Child Welfare Services Under ASFA, MEPA, and Community-Based Child Prote

1. Reconciling Competing Values in the Delivery of Child Welfare Services Under • ASFA, MEPA, and Community-Based Child Protection* • Richard P. Barth, Judith Goodhand, Nancy S. Dickinson • Jordan Institute for Families • School of Social Work • University of North Carolina • Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550 • *based on : Barth, R.P., Goodhand, J.,& Dickinson, N.S. (2000). Reconciling competing values in the delivery of child welfare services under ASFA, MEPA and community-based child protection. In J. Zlotnick (Ed.). Changing paradigms of child welfare practice: Responding to opportunities and challenges. Washington, DC: US DHHS, ACF, ACYF, Children’s Bureau. Research to Teaching Initiative

2. The Federal Policy Framework of Child Welfare Practice • Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) • Interethnic Adoption Provisions (1996) • Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (1993) • Family Preservation and Support (1994) • Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (1980) Research to Teaching Initiative

3. CHALLENGES • Underlying values in the professional and public sectors will influence implementation • Conflicting values may result when new policies are implemented but not reconciled with old policies • Value conflicts may result in incomplete implementation when there is a discordance between practitioner’s own values and public policy VALUES POLICY PRACTICE Research to Teaching Initiative

4. Tornado of Values in Child Welfare • Legal permanency • Psychological permanency • Community-based child protection • Continuity of care • Reasonable efforts • Racial & cultural heritage • Safety Research to Teaching Initiative

5. AFTERMATH: “ . . . a practice environment where equitable and efficient practice is at risk.” Research to Teaching Initiative

6. The Development of MEPA, ASFA, and Community Based Child Protection MEPA (1993) IAP (1996) Emphasis on LegalPermanency ASFA (1997) AACWA (1980) Restrictions on Use of Race in Public Policy Community Based Child Protection Emphasis on Psychological Continuity Civil Rights Act (1964) Research to Teaching Initiative

7. Brief Child Welfare Policy Recap AACWA (1980) to ASFA (1997) Both policies consistently emphasize: • Timely provision of child welfare services • Legal permanency for children Research to Teaching Initiative

8. AACWA to ASFA: Value Shifts Provisions within ASFA de-emphasize attention to continuity and community. • Child’s safety is priority in child welfare decision making • Agencies will forego reasonable prevention and reunification efforts for some children • Concurrent planning • Children are entitled to “reasonable efforts” to an adoptive home if they cannot go home • Agencies must assure that children can be adopted across county or state lines, to avoid delay or denial of placement Research to Teaching Initiative

9. Permanency Planning Under AACWA • Legal Permanency: • Legally defines time frames, reasonable efforts requirements, and administrative procedures. • Creates a secure legal status for children who can not return home. • Psychological Permanency: • Acknowledges “attachment” and a “feeling of belonging” as beneficial to children. • Conceptual basis for the “family continuity” movement. • Weights past time with caregiver more than future legal relationship to caregiver. Research to Teaching Initiative

10. Goals of Family Continuity Practice (VALUES) Supporting families Child protection Planning for permanence Psychological Permanence No federal laws enforce family continuity practice (PRACTICE) • Kinship foster care • Neighborhood foster care Placing siblings together Open adoption Research to Teaching Initiative

11. What is it? Emerged in the late 1980’s & early 1990’s Family preservation emphasis Community-based planning and partnerships Designed to strengthen local neighborhood responses Examples: Annie E. Casey Family to Family Initiative Clark Foundation’s Community Partnership Initiative Kellogg Foundation’s Families for Kids Children’s Bureau Initiatives Community-Based Child Protection Research to Teaching Initiative

12. Civil Rights Race is not a permissible consideration for public policy making unless there are clear reasons for affirmative action. There can be no tolerance for discrimination against adults on the basis of race Child Welfare The need for children to feel comfortable is a core principal of culturally competent child welfare practice. Adoption is a children’s program and potential adoptive parents have no significant standing MEPA/IAP: Traditional Civil Rights and Child Welfare Values Research to Teaching Initiative

13. Civil Rights Practitioners cannot be allowed to use race but will still try to use it; therefore auditing and fines will be necessary for enforcement. Child Welfare Agencies should be allowed to use race in a sensible way--e.g., allowing same race placements if families are already in the pool and no delays will result from matching. Civil Rights and Child Welfare Research to Teaching Initiative

14. MEPA and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions MEPA (Multiethnic Placement Act, 1993) prohibits federally-funded agencies and entities from: • Denying anyone the opportunity to become a foster or adoptive parent due to the race of either the parent or the child. • Denying the child the opportunity to be placed due to the race of either the parent or the child. Research to Teaching Initiative

15. MEPA and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions MEPA requires states to develop plans for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the diversity of the children in need of placement. MEPA did not Prohibit ALL consideration of race Research to Teaching Initiative

16. Interethnic Adoption Provisions (1996) • Further limited the extent to which race can be considered in adoptive and foster placement. MEPA: May not deny placement “solely” on the basis of race. IAP: May not deny placement on the basis of race. MEPA: May not “categorically” deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent. IAP: May not deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent. Research to Teaching Initiative

17. Value Juggling for Front Line Staff Continuity • Personal Values Legal Permanence • Agency Values • Policy Values SAFETY Community, Culture/Race Research to Teaching Initiative

18. Four Key Child Welfare Values 1. Safety 2. Permanency 3. Extended Family Continuity 4. Community/Racial/Cultural Continuity Research to Teaching Initiative

19. ASFA: Safety for children is delivered by legally ensuring against reabuse and providing permanence for children. Community-Based Safety for children is delivered through stronger families and communities. Safety Research to Teaching Initiative

20. Safety Preservation vs. Safety How should the competing value of allowing a mother the chance to care for her newborn be weighed against the longer-term safety concerns for that child? Community Continuity vs. Community Safety How should the general level of safety in the community be considered when placing a child into an otherwise safe foster or kin home? Research to Teaching Initiative

21. Permanency ASFA Legal permanence via adoption is the highest priority after reunification. Community-based Practice A child’s right to be with the child’s own family and kin is heavily stressed--at times weighted more heavily than legal permanency. Research to Teaching Initiative

22. Extended Family Continuity ASFA Requires the termination of parental rights and responsibilities for children heading for long-term foster care (unless compelling reasons exist not to TPRR). Community-based Practice Long-term placement without TPRR--especially with legal guardianship--can be an acceptable alternative if the child cannot return to live with her birth family. Research to Teaching Initiative

23. Community, Racial, Cultural Continuity • ASFA • Places no weight on racial, cultural or ethnic continuity • Timely legal permanency (even if across state or county lines) is more highly valued than neighborhood placement. • Community-based Practice • Increases the likelihood that children will be placed in same race or familiar cultural placements (which hopefully evolves into an adoptive placement if reunification is not possible). Research to Teaching Initiative

24. Community/Racial/Cultural Continuity • Community Practice value states that placement in child’s own neighborhood will: • Reduce child’s trauma • Minimize family disruption • Facilitate reunification • Reduce child reentry due to increased social support • Increase adoptive placements that are within the same race or culture. Child Family: birth, kin, adoptive, foster Community Research to Teaching Initiative

25. Strategies & ServicesforReconciling Tensions That Arise Between Various Elements of a Competing Child Welfare Value System Research to Teaching Initiative

26. The Challenge Changing child welfare practices and values is like changing the wheel on an express train moving at 100 miles an hour ChildWelfare Research to Teaching Initiative

27. Strategies & Services • Geographic assignment of cases • Family group decision making or case conferencing • Neighborhood foster families • Pre-service training for foster-adoptive families and child welfare workers • Immediate services • Shared family care • Concurrent planning • Culturally competent and fair practice • Monitoring and agency self-evaluation Research to Teaching Initiative

28. Geographic assignment of cases Child welfare workers, supervisors and middle managers are assigned to specific neighborhoods and are responsible for: • Familiarity with resources, supports and strengths of neighborhood • Engaging the community in an active plan of child protection • Developing and supporting foster and adoptive families Research to Teaching Initiative

29. Geographic assignment of cases • Practice Example: • (Cuyahoga County, Ohio -- after 5 years) • Increase of neighborhood foster families of over 70% • Staff assigned to neighborhoods developed greater regard for the communities where they worked and became more accepted within the community. Research to Teaching Initiative

30. Family Group Decision Making or Case Conferencing (FGDM/CC) Meetings which involve family members, relatives, child welfare workers, and neighborhood representatives • Family has a voice in a supportive environment and provides essential information • Social worker defines role, concerns, agency policies, legal constraints, and requirements • Expeditious development of a safety or permanency plan for the child • An opportunity to identify people who could offer legally permanent alternative placements Research to Teaching Initiative

31. Neighborhood Foster Families • Partnership between foster families and birth families and social workers to expedite reunification or the achievement of another permanency goal • A new job description for foster families and social workers • A support system for birth, foster, and adoptive families Research to Teaching Initiative

32. Pre-service Training for Foster-adoptive Families and Child Welfare Workers • To provide foster and adoptive parents and new staff an orientation to child welfare legislation and agency principles, policies and practice • To create a support system among the foster/adoptive families • To develop a potential cadre of second families for children who will understand the value of legal permanency and will work as partners for reunification or another form of permanency Research to Teaching Initiative

33. Immediate Services Immediate services can help to reconcile concerns about the ability of families to preserve themselves in the face of shortened ASFA timelines. Practice example: • In-house drug treatment services (Jefferson County, Colorado) Research to Teaching Initiative

34. Shared Family Care • Offers an alternative to in-home services and to out-of-home care by arranging the placement of the entire biological family in a foster home or group setting (sometimes in concert with drug or mental health day treatment) • Endeavors to maximize pursuit of the values of child protection and family continuity Research to Teaching Initiative

35. ConcurrentPlanning • Institutes a concurrent process of: A) Family reunification efforts B) Adoption planning (should reunification efforts ultimately fail) • Attempts to maximize the likelihoods of: • A) Reunification • B) Timeliness • C) Legal permanence Research to Teaching Initiative

36. Culturally Competent & Fair Practice • Bridging different perspectives on the role of race and culture in child welfare • Developing ways to assess the individual needs of a child beyond their racial or ethnic group membership • Creation of additional ways to achieve the goals of diligent recruitment for families of color Research to Teaching Initiative

37. Monitoring and Agency Self Evaluation • To help distinguish between those innovations which meet several of our value standards and those which may meet some but seriously compromise others • To permit midcourse corrections • To encourage dialogue about practice values, goals and outcomes Research to Teaching Initiative

38. Are we calling for a detailed blueprint for providing services that eliminates the discretion of child welfare workers? NO. Child welfare services workers make difficult choices that require an understanding of the specific mandates and underlying values of policy without the interference of their own values. Research to Teaching Initiative

39. Breaking Value Ties • Individualized child & family assessment • The best choice among competing values, may be contingent upon the assets and needs of a particular child • Meeting the (longterm) needs of children (and families) is the constant value that must always be weighed against the others Research to Teaching Initiative

40. Breaking Value Ties (continued) • Structured decision making • Decisions should be made with the foundation of known and understood values and predictable outcomes • At the same time, decisions should be enlightened by the circumstances of the individual child Research to Teaching Initiative

41. Tools for Structure and Support of Policy Implementation Clear articulation of core values, principles and goals Dissemination of values and principles to all staff members in a process that encourages dialogue but defines boundaries Training to orient staff to changes in procedure Strategies to keep the core values and principles of the agency visible and viable Routine procedures to test and re-test agency practice against the stated values, principles and policies Research to Teaching Initiative

42. Child Welfare Values Framework Cultural Competence and Fairness Legal Permanency Child Safety Clarification of Values and Procedures Public Support for Child Welfare Services Research to Teaching Initiative

43. Thank you very much Thanks, too, to Troy Martin for his thoughtful contributions to this project. Research to Teaching Initiative