2010 conference on differential response in child welfare
DESCRIPTION
2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare. Safety and Risk Management – Three Key Case Decisions. Barry Salovitz Senior Director, Strategic Consulting Casey Family Programs. Workshop Objectives. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare
Safety and Risk Management – Three Key Case Decisions Barry SalovitzSenior Director, Strategic ConsultingCasey Family Programs
![Page 2: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Workshop Objectives1. Expand collective knowledge and understanding
of safety and risk concepts and practices
2. Explore application of the concepts and practices to 3 case decisions using case vignettes to simulate decision making
3. Identify and examine the nature of common risk and safety fidelity errors
![Page 3: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3 Case Decisions
1. Child Safety2. Case Opening – Services Provision
3. Reunification
![Page 4: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Decision #1
1. No Safety Plan
2. In Home Safety Plan
3. Out of Home Safety Plan
![Page 5: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Decision #2
1. Services Not Needed
2. Services Needed – Offered
3. Services Needed – Court Ordered
![Page 6: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Decision #3
1. Reunification Recommended
2. Reunification Not Recommended
![Page 7: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
What is a “Framework”?
• Basic conceptual structure
• Ties together sets of mutually congruent & supportive beliefs, values, principles & strategies
• Addresses a common purpose
![Page 8: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Flying Without a Framework
1. Idiosyncratic beliefs, practice, decision-making2. Conscious and unconscious bias3. Errors in decision-making4. Inconsistencies5. Haphazard documentation6. Consultation & supervision suffers7. Lack of standards for QA/QI
![Page 9: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
The Framework Test• What decisions need to be
made?
• The causes or factors are associated w/ area of interest/concern
• What information needs to be assessed?
• How should this information be interpreted?
• What practice model is best suited?
• What interventions are appropriate?
• What constitutes progress and lack of progress?
• How much progress is expected before recommending a child return home, or case closure, or other permanency option?
• Practice model that unites everything in a way that can be applied in the field
![Page 10: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sample Framework Concepts• All safety threats involve risk; not all risks involve safety
threats • Protective capacities are strengths; not all strengths
function as protective capacities• Safety plans and service plans – complementary, but
different functions• CA/N cases are open for active safety threats; risk
cases are sometimes open; child well-being cases alone are often not open
• CA/N cases are closed when safety threats have been resolved or protective capacities are sufficient to protect; high risk has been reduced
![Page 11: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Why Differentiate Safety and Risk?
What About Well-Being?
What About Permanency?
![Page 12: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
“The sacred requirement…
…to assess a child’s safety in the home & respond appropriately; should not be simply a required agency event, or only a form completion compliance task. You must make it a way of thinking”.
![Page 13: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Safety Decision
Safety Threats
Protective Capacities
Child Vulnerability
A Framework for Safety Decision-Making
Source: Morton, T. & Salovitz, B. (2006) “Evolving a Theoretical Model of Child Safety in Maltreating Families” Child Abuse & Neglect, Vol. 30, Issue 12, December 2006, pp. 1317-1327.
![Page 14: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Safe
• caregiver provides protective capacities sufficient to protect his/her child from serious harm
![Page 15: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Unsafe
• caregiver does not provide protective capacities sufficient to protect his/her child from immediate or imminent serious harm
![Page 16: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Safety Questions
1. safety threats present (serious harm)?
2. adult protective capacities and child vulnerability mitigate or aggravate?
3. child requires immediate protection?
![Page 17: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Serious Harm vs. Safety Threats
• Cause or Association?
• Consequence or Manifestation?
![Page 18: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Serious Harm
• Actual or threatened consequence of an active safety threat– Is life-threatening or risk thereof;– Substantively retards the child’s mental or
physical health or development or risk thereof;– Produces substantial physical or mental
suffering, physical disfigurement or disability, whether permanent or temporary, or risk thereof; or
– Involves sexual victimization.
![Page 19: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Safety Threats
• Underlying conditions and contributing factors
• Behaviors, motives, perceptions, beliefs, conditions
• May exist within a caregiver, the family as a whole and/or the family’s ecology
![Page 20: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Safety Threats Involve:Underlying Conditionsneeds of family members, perceptions, beliefs, values, feelings, cultural practices and/or previous life experiences that influence the maltreatment dynamic within a family system and can increase the likelihood of child maltreatment or its severity
AND Contributing Factors
social problems or conditions (family or community), that can increase the likelihood of child maltreatment or its severity
![Page 21: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
A Safety Threat May Be a…..
• Situation (e.g. unsafe home, criminal activity)
• Behavior (e.g. impulsive actions, assaults)
• Emotion (e.g. immobilizing depression)
• Motive (e.g. intention to hurt the child)
• Perception (e.g. viewing child as a devil)
• Capacity (e.g. physical disability)
![Page 22: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Protective Capacities
• Capabilities, motives, perceptions, beliefs or emotions that can avert the impact of threats of serious harm
• May exist within a caregiver, the family system & its ecology
• May have racial, ethnic, religious or cultural influences
![Page 23: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Vulnerability• degree to which a child can avoid, negate or
modify the impact of safety threats
• missing or insufficient protective capacities
![Page 24: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Safety Decision Examples
A. Safe B. In-Home Safety Plan C. Out-of-Home Safety PlanD. Legally Authorized Out-of-Home Safety
Plan
![Page 25: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Safety Plan
intervention strategy to control a safety threat or supplement insufficient protective capacities to protect a child from serious harm
![Page 26: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Safety Planning Guidelines
• specific and concrete control strategy• must be implemented promptly• whenever possible, parent should have a role
in its development and implementation• should employ least restrictive strategies
possible while assuring the child’s safety
![Page 27: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Safety Planning Guidelines • Can be developed and implemented by
incorporating identified protective capacities• must assess the caregivers willingness and
capability to agree and abide by the terms of the safety plan
• active participants must be capable of monitoring/enforcing its terms
![Page 28: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Safety Plan Guidelines
• must be continuously re-evaluated and modified, whenever necessary
• cases should not be terminated, outside a court order, when an agency managed safety plan is active
![Page 29: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Supplementation of Protective Capacities
The addition of additional protective capacities to the family system without removal of the child
![Page 30: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Guidelines for Discontinuing a Safety PlanWhen a threat of serious harm no longer exists orcontrol of the threat within the family is
probable; can be maintained without safety focused intervention or active safety plan monitoring
![Page 31: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Risk
• likelihood of any harm to a child in the future due to abuse or neglect
![Page 32: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Risk Factors
• highlight the family system • may include demographics, needs, strengths,
safety threats, functioning levels• associated with understanding the nature of the
family’s involvement with the CW system (maltreatment, A/N history, underlying conditions & contributing factors)
• likelihood of future A/N
![Page 33: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
RISK is concerned with... SAFETY is concerned with...Assessing the likelihood of future harm; identifying the nature of the risk/safety issues
Assessing present danger
Decision making based on a time continuum
Decision making based on the present to the immediate near future
Harm on a severity continuum from mild to serious
Serious harm
Safety threat resolution; risk reduction through improved family system functioning; well being
Immediate protection; protective capacities supplementation
Safety and Risk FundamentalsSafety is a subset of risk. All safety concerns are risk
issues. Not all risk concerns are safety issues.
![Page 34: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Service Plan
Intervention strategy designed to:resolve safety threatsreduce riskpromote child well-beingattain permanency
![Page 35: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Treatment completion or attendance as a change proxy
![Page 36: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Positive changes in parental behavior and attitudes might occur absent completion of treatment programs.
![Page 37: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Critical Issues for Reunification/Case Closure
• Underlying conditions or contributing factors related to safety threats have been resolved/diminished
• Protective capacities have increased • Child vulnerabilities have been reduced• Feasible plan for reunification support exists
![Page 38: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Predictors of Reunification
• Visitation record• Completion of substance abuse treatment
programs• Parent’s income; higher income leads to quicker
reunification• Stable housing• Age of child; babies reunify at lower rates• Behavior problems of child; behaviorally-
troubled children reunify at half the rate of children with few behavioral problems
![Page 39: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
“Children should be returned home when they are considered to be safe for the foreseeable future, not simply for the next 24-48 hours.”
A present danger orientation is not sufficient to answer the question.
![Page 40: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
ANY QUESTIONS?
![Page 41: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Case #1: Cannon Family
1. Is the child safe from immediate and serious harm?
2. Is a safety plan needed?3. If yes, what plan is most appropriate?4. What else, if anything, would you want
to know to inform your decision?
![Page 42: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Case #2: Adams Family
1. Should this case be opened for services and why?
2. Voluntary or Court Ordered?3. What else, if anything, would you want
to know to inform your decision?
![Page 43: 2010 Conference on Differential Response in Child Welfare](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56816773550346895ddc64a0/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Sample Family Case
1. Is this family ready for reunification and why?
2. If yes, what reunification support plan would you recommend, if any?
3. If no, what additional progress needs to occur?
4. What else, if anything, would you want to know to inform your decision?