Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation to: Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Presenter: Jo Ann Lamm, MSW Date: August 5, 2014 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Presentation to: Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Presenter: Jo Ann Lamm, MSW Date: August 5, 2014 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 Presentation to: Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Presenter: Jo Ann Lamm, MSW Date: August 5,

2  What is the status nationally of Differential Response (DR)?  The Georgia Experience with Differential Response since (Analysis in 2010)  The impact, benefits and challenges of Differential Response  Recommendations  Successes/challenges/opportunities ahead? 2

3  DR is an approach that allows for more than one way to respond to screened–in CPS reports of child maltreatment  Typically recognizes two tracks/responses - “Investigative or IR” and “Family Assessment or Alternative Response (AR)”  Assignment is based on an array of factors( type and severity of alleged maltreatment, number and sources of prior reports, age of child, risk and safety levels)  DR is a well organized CPS system that is supported by legislation, and/or State policies, procedures and protocols 3

4  Focus on child safety is paramount  Promotes family engagement when possible  Recognizes CPS authority to make decisions about risk and safety, removal, out of home placement and service provision  Recognition that other community partners may be the more appropriate service providers 4

5  19 States and DC are using DR statewide  At least 7 additional States, tribes or jurisdictions are considering planning implementation of DR  Multiple evaluations have been conducted  Most recent evaluation by QIC-DR on Illinois, Colorado and Ohio July

6 6

7  Child safety is paramount and not compromised with either response  Improved family engagement  Rate of subsequent repeat CPS reports have decreased  Enhanced family and CPS staff satisfaction  Increased community involvement  Prompt services delivery  Family participation in decision making increased  Cost effectiveness 7

8  Are children as safe or safer in AR than children in investigative response (IR)?  How is AR different in terms of family engagement, caseworker practice and services provided from IR?  What are the costs to implement DR? 8

9  In 2 of the 3 sites, AR families were less likely to be re- referred  Fewer than 5% of children either AR or IR were removed during the 1 year study  AR families were more likely to receive services such as social support, educational, parenting and other services while IR families more likely to receive substance abuse services  In 1 site AR families received services more rapidly  In 2 sites AR parents felt 1st meeting was more positive; IR families worried more at 1 st meeting  In 1 site AR families were satisfied with treatment by CPS, the level of help received and likelihood of contacting caseworker in the future  Costs varied 9

10  Lack of statewide policy; lack of consistent or uniform criteria of practice- unknown expectations of what is acceptable Diversion/Family Support practice  Data Integrity Issues  Distrust of Agency  Varying use of the word Diversion/criteria for assignment to Diversion 10

11 Differential Response restructures the entire CPS system: from casework foundation, training, supervision, coaching and practice 11

12  DR influences how all aspects of CPS are implemented and delivered  It is difficult to determine the sole impact of DR due to states implementing other practice reforms simultaneously  Family engagement practice strategies influence how all CPS staff approach families 12

13  Improved assessments  Absence of labeling may positively impact the relationship between CPS, partners and families  Substantiation rates increase  ACF guidance emphasizes family engagement  Innovative approaches-a third prevention track and community providers assume case responsibility 13

14  Leadership Influence  Buy-in and ownership by Drivers  Agreement on Vision, Mission and Values  Need strong practice foundation prior to DR  DR Design: Systemic Re-structuring of Infrastructure- statewide policy, training, technical assistance, on-going consultation, local supervision and casework practice 14

15  Implementation Variability  Implementation Inconsistencies  Communication Plan  Examine Caseloads  Limited Resources  Identify training needs for CPS staff, supervisors, agency leadership and community partners 15

16  Ensure efficient use of DR and model fidelity  Allow for switching tracks/responses  Track and explain changes in data  On-going need for coaching, assessing and revisions based on observations/data  CQI/Evaluation 16

17 Positive Steps and Actions… 17

18  Development of statewide DR/Family Support policy and guidance  Centralized Intake  Statewide Intake Policy  Work in past with ACCWIC and NRCCPS to address safety- implemented Safety Response System  2 Pilot sites are using Family Functioning Assessment process  Other? 18

19  Clarity of Vision, Mission and Values that supports a strong CPS casework foundation  Develop strategic plan that addresses what needs to be accomplished to ensure good case work practice  Address the core concerns of child safety and risk 19

20  Assess and address caseload size for success  Ensure appropriate resources  Streamline DR model and Safety Response System- Is there consensus on the use and how DR/Family Support and Safety Response System “fit’ together?  Fully implement DR and ensure accountability to model 20

21  Family Support Policy must be followed and implemented consistently across the state  Was policy developed with counties and partners?  Ensure adequate and on-going training that supports foundation first and holds true to DR model fidelity for caseworkers, supervisors and agency leadership 21

22  Determine role of State DFCS in accountability  Develop communication strategies to keep counties and partners informed of practice  Build an infrastructure to guarantee sustainability from the beginning  Build in a CQI process and an Evaluation 22

23  What are the desired outcomes?  How do you get there?  What are the gains and losses?  What’s working well?  What are the successes/challenges/opportunities ahead? 23

24  National Quality Improvement Center on Differential Response in Child Protective Services. (2014, July).Final Report: QIC-DR Cross Site Evaluation.  Center for Child and Family Policy(2006,June). Multiple Response System Evaluation report to NCDSS, Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University.  Child Welfare Information Gateway. tial_response. 24

25  Lamm, JA.(2010).Differential Response System Implementation in 25


Download ppt "Presentation to: Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Presenter: Jo Ann Lamm, MSW Date: August 5, 2014 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google