A NEW APPROACH TO CHILD PROTECTIVE INVESTIGATIONS

ALTERNATIVE RESPONSE SYSTEMS

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE SYSTEMS

ARS – WHAT IS IT?

While reports with identifiable safety concerns are appropriate for traditional investigations which contain clearly identified roles of perpetrator and victim, and the determination of findings, other reports might be more appropriately handled by a less adversarial process focusing on assessment of needs and offer of services.

ARS – WHAT IS IT?

The new approach is predicated on the theory that by engagingfamilies in a less threatening way via an assessment and serviceprovision track, they will be more likely to acknowledge familyproblems and agree to receive recommended services.

The emphasis of ARS is family engagement, family participationin decision-making, and voluntary participation in services.

MANDATE FOR CHANGE

In 2003, Chapter 2003-127, Laws of Florida (Committee Substitute for Senate Bill No. 1442) required that the Secretary of the department appoint a Protective Investigator Retention Workgroup (PIRW) to consider seven specific legislative requests and develop recommendations. These included:

1. Examine the feasibility of an alternative response system for responding to low-risk child abuse and neglect reports. . .

2. Examine and develop a plan for an investigative process that provides for different levels of investigative activities based on the level of severity of risk and probability of continued or increased abuse and neglect.

MANDATE FOR CHANGE

From December 2005 through September 2006, the Florida Department of Children and Families convened a statewide Workgroup to re-examine the Report’s recommendations and to complete design requirements for an alternative response system demonstration in several jurisdictions, supported by enhanced decision support protocols.

WORKGROUP PARTICIPANTS

45 participants representing Sheriffs Offices, Community Based Care Lead Agencies, DCF, the Florida Department of Health, and other community stakeholders met with representatives from the Child Welfare Institute (CWI) for a period of two-days each on 10 separate occasions.

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

64% Investigative Track 36% ARS Track

1. Child safety was not compromised, in fact, there was evidence that the safety status of children improved (increased service provision)

2. Families were less likely to have new child maltreatments (27.2% vs. 30.3%)

3. Up front costs greater but less costly and more cost effective in the longer term.

4. Families liked AR better.

5. Child Protection workers liked AR better.

MINNESOTA – MISSOURI – NORTH CAROLINA – VIRGINIA

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

35% Investigative Track 65% Family Assessment Track

1. Child safety not compromised

2. Percentage of reported incidents in which some action was taken increased

3. Recurrence of CA/N decreased

4. Cooperation of families improved

5. Workers judged the family assessment approach to be more effective

MINNESOTA – MISSOURI – NORTH CAROLINA – VIRGINIA

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

48.5% Forensic Track 51.5% Family Assessment Track

1. Child safety not altered; no change in rate of “substantiated reports”

2. Reunification rates – improved but not statistically significant

3. Families are more receptive to social workers under MRS

4. Impediments: dual responsibility, staff turnover, high caseloads, limited resources

5. Recommendations: Limit caseload to 6 to 8 per worker, need additional “decision” category – No Further Services Recommended

MINNESOTA – MISSOURI – NORTH CAROLINA – VIRGINIA

EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE

39% Investigative Track 61% Family Assessment (FA)Track

1. Only 2% of FA referrals were reassigned to Investigative Track

2. Percentage of investigations that were ‘Founded’ increased from 23% to 36%.

3. 32% of FA Track identified as having one or more service needs

4. 32% of Investigative Track families identified as having one or more service needs

MINNESOTA – MISSOURI – NORTH CAROLINA – VIRGINIA

RECENT DATA ANALYSISRECENT DATA ANALYSIS

● ● 27.2% of recurrence takes place within 61 days (CSA27.2% of recurrence takes place within 61 days (CSA Recurrence of Maltreatment after Initial Report ofRecurrence of Maltreatment after Initial Report of Maltreatment, Quarter ending 12/31/05). Maltreatment, Quarter ending 12/31/05).

● ● 44.6% of CSAs closed with Some findings had a 44.6% of CSAs closed with Some findings had a subsequent report closed with Verified findings – anysubsequent report closed with Verified findings – any maltreatment (Recurrence of Maltreatment within Sixmaltreatment (Recurrence of Maltreatment within Six Months, Quarterly Listing sample ending 12/31/05).Months, Quarterly Listing sample ending 12/31/05).

● ● Of the 44.6% subsequent reports closed with VerifiedOf the 44.6% subsequent reports closed with Verified findings, 60% of these involved recurrence of the samefindings, 60% of these involved recurrence of the same maltreatment.maltreatment.

-FLORIDA’S PROPOSED MODEL- -FLORIDA’S PROPOSED MODEL- Key Decision PointsKey Decision Points

●● Role of Abuse Hotline Role of Abuse Hotline

● ● Redesign of CSA – currently contains a mix of ‘Present Danger’ Redesign of CSA – currently contains a mix of ‘Present Danger’ items, general maltreatment risk factors, child vulnerability items, general maltreatment risk factors, child vulnerability characteristics and “signs of maltreatment”characteristics and “signs of maltreatment”

● ● Three pilot modelsThree pilot models1.1. PI’s do both Safety Assessment and Family AssessmentPI’s do both Safety Assessment and Family Assessment

2.2. PI’s do Safety Assessment and immediately pass on to PI’s do Safety Assessment and immediately pass on to CBC’s for Family AssessmentCBC’s for Family Assessment

3.3. PI’s and CBC ‘Family Assessors’ go out together and make PI’s and CBC ‘Family Assessors’ go out together and make a determination of needed actiona determination of needed action