Presentation on theme: "How is Santa Clara County different today?"— Presentation transcript:
1How is Santa Clara County different today? Assessing the Impact of the Greenbook Initiative and Related Efforts since 2001:A SELECTION OF EVALUATION FINDINGSApplied Survey Research,Local Evaluator and Research PartnerPresented by Greenbook Initiative Leadership
2What is the Greenbook Project? In 2001, Santa Clara County was chosen as one of six communities, funded by the Federal Departments of Justice and HHS under an inter-departmental initiative: “Collaborations to Address Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.”Eight federal agencies supported this effort to implement policies from the “Greenbook”, a policy blueprint to design effective interventions between child welfare services, domestic violence agencies and the juvenile dependency court.
3Getting to Community-level Impact… System Changes within and amongst Greenbook and related effortsBetter Results for Families County-wideSusan’s RBA slideIt takes GB and other efforts to create sum impact : system level change that results in different treatment/ better experience for families going through system
4Greenbook’s Theory of Change THENThe immediate response to families with co-occurrence of DV and CM will be improvedThere will be protocols for further screening, assessment and service planningFamilies will be able to access opportunities for healing, such as counseling, batterer and alcohol/drug treatment programsIFProfessionals throughout the system are better trained and connected, andCommunities assist their own to seek help for DV/ Child Maltreatment (CM), andThere is improved screening and referral for DV and/ or CMTHENFamilies will be able to heal, andFamilies will improve their level of functioning, andFamilies will not experience further violenceMention this is a shorthand of graphical logic model that ASR facilitatedCo-occurrence means family has both DV and CM
5What happened in Santa Clara County: Project oversight provided by senior representatives from DFCS, five non-profit domestic violence agencies, Juvenile Dependency Court and Law Enforcement (Project Oversight Committee – POC).Project management provided by Kids in Common.Local evaluation conducted by Applied Survey Research.The Greenbook Project benefitted from a convergence of other projects and reforms: DFCS Redesign, Family to Family, and the System Improvement Plan.
6Eight Project Groups Development and training of DV Advocates. Cross training and building internal capacity.Batterer accountability and services.Multidisciplinary response.Change DFCS agency policy and worker practice.
7Eight Project Groups Integrated Courts Respect Culture and Community Initiative (RCCI)The Partnership Project.
8When “co-occurrence” children and their parents come into contact with the Law Enforcement, DFCS, Court and DV systems,how is their experience today different than it was, or would have been, in 2001?Than it was….same families that have been in and out of system since before or beginning of GBThan it would have been…families that are new to the system
9Project 2 – Cross Training Improved Capability of StaffThe reported level of knowledge about the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment has increased amongst system leaders associated with GreenbookInfluences:GB - IT meetingsGB - POCProject 2 – Cross TrainingImplementation Team (IT) attendees’ reported level of knowledge about co-occurrence, 2000 and 2003Post survey results…Standardized, dynamic curriculum with portions describing each system and co-occurrence 101: dual impact of DV and CM on childrenSource: ASR n=72, 2003 n= 39.
10Project 2 – Cross Training Improved Capability of StaffDV victims and their children are now more likely to be served by sensitized, resourceful staff:At least 700 staff representing law enforcement, courts, social workers, and CBOs have been cross-trained by GB on impact of co-occurrence, how to screen/ assess, how other systems work, and resources/ referralsInfluences:Project 2 – Cross TrainingPercentage of participants who felt cross-training was helpful / very helpfulPost survey results…Standardized, dynamic curriculum with portions describing each system and co-occurrence 101: dual impact of DV and CM on childrenSource: ASR – Post training surveys (n=29), 2004 (n=45), 2005 (n=32), 2006 (n=31)
11Improved Initial Response During the past 5 years, many reforms in DFCS, including Early Intervention/Weekend Diversion, Family to Family, Joint Response, limiting shelter stays and Greenbook have impacted the overall rates of children entering the system.In 2001, 1,629 children were removed from their home.In 2005, only 1,231 were removed from their home.Area of concern for GB since beginning…the disruption and trauma experienced by kids being taken out of home, especially if it is avoidable or children can be placed with relatives…especially is primary cause of childrens’ exposure to DV. Desired outcome: Keep kids in the home or with relatives whenever possible.GB hoped that with better training/ protocols for LE would help them identify when the exposure was severe enough that it warranted child being removed from the home, and when it wasn’t (County Counsel’s protocol did this).LE enforcement protocol articulated when LE should bring in SW, and what DV resources could be given to victim
12Improved Initial Response Influences:GreenbookPractice & Culture ChangeEarly Intervention/Weekend DiversionFamily to FamilyLaw Enforcement DV protocolJoint ResponseChildren who may have been exposed to violence are now less likely to be removed from their homes and placed in shelter:The number of children removed from the home and brought to the Children’s Shelter has decreased since 2001Total Number of Annual AdmitsAverage Daily PopulationOur case abstraction data indicates that the percentage of children removed from their homes where domestic violence was present is decreasing. In 2004, 82% of children were removed from their home where dv was present. In 2006, this percentage decreased to 55%.Mandated reporting Protocol: County Counsel / Mike Clark added more better defined when chidlren’s exposure to DV in the home equaled abuse and warranted removal of that child fro the homeLE DV protocol: updated every year by Chiefs Ass (check)…spells out for officers exactly how to respond, how to ID children, when to call CPS, what resources to give victim, etc.Joint Response: Protocol between LE and SWs….SWs respond 24/7 to the scene…aim is to aid in assessing risk to child and to prevent removal from home….if not possible, child placed with family rather than taken to the shelterSource: Santa Clara County’s Children Shelter.
13Project 5- DFCS practice Early Intervention/Weekend Diversion Improved Initial ResponseFamilies coming into DFCS are now more likely to have their cases be diverted to voluntary services rather than for Dependency Court InterventionInfluences:GreenbookProject 5- DFCS practiceEarly Intervention/Weekend DiversionCW Reform (SIP)Family to FamilyNumber of children within DFCS whose families receive voluntary servicesSource: DFCS
14Improved Initial Response Removals – 4 days or less:In 2001, there were 538 children who were removed from their home for 4 days or less (33% of the total removals).In 2005, there were only 297 children removed for 4 days or less (24.1% of the total removals.)Removals for 4 days or less can be considered an indicator that a family is under stress and in need of services – but that it might not have been necessary to remove the child (and add to the family’s stress.) Again, the reforms, including Greenbook have likely contributed to the decline of this statistic. Not only were these removals decreased, they also decreased as a percentage of the total removals.
15Improved Initial Response DV victims are now more likely to receive a phone call from a DV advocate following a DV incident, offering crisis intervention and resources:Community Solutions serves approximately victims each year, either through follow up calls from police reports or as walk-ins.Law enforcement from San Jose, Los Gatos, Campbell and the Sheriff’s department referred 4,367 victims to Next Door, all of whom were reached at least once (05/06)From July – Dec 2005, Support Network for Battered Women’s Victim Advocacy Project reviewed police reports and followed up with 563 victims from the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and Los Altos Hills.Influences:Project 4 – DVRT & Family Violence CenterVAWA grant procured by GB (funded call support to victims and language bank)Law Enforcement’s DV protocolThree DV agencies have for years been making supportive follow up calls to victims after receiving police reports:Community Solutions in South County (helped by VAWA grant and project 4),Next Door in San Jose (in partnership with family violence center/ project 4)Support Network in Mountain view ((helped by VAWA grant)LE DV protocol: updated every year by Chiefs Ass (check)…spells out for officers exactly how to respond, how to ID children, when to call CPS, what resources to give victim, etc.
16Project 5- DFCS practice Improved Initial ResponseFamilies coming into DFCS are now more likely to be screened for DVInfluences:Project 5- DFCS practicePercent of DFCS cases (random sample) screened for Domestic Violence.Source: ASR – Case Abstraction.N= 150 each year
17…and what difference do we hope all of these system changes have made for families? Reference theory of change….that IF we improve the quality of the response, access to services, opportunities for healing, and batterer accountability, then we hope that families that go through the system do not experience further family violence…that they do not come back thru again.Note this is a long term outcome and depends on contribution of so many local efforts (GB, the advocacy community, LE protocols, F2F, Joint Response, SIP/ CW Reform, etc)
18Reduced Family Violence The rate of DV calls for assistance has decreased in Santa Clara CountyRate of calls per 1000 populationDV in general across the state is in decline…Because of the good declines in many cities,Compared to similar counties (SM, others pending), Santa Clara County has a greater decline…..Source: California Attorney Generals’ Office.
19Reduced Family Violence The re-occurrence of child abuse has decreased in Santa Clara CountyPercent of children in DFCS who experience a subsequent allegation of abuse, within 6 months of first substantiated allegationCHART:percent of children who have subsequent allegation of abuse within 6 months of the base period within which their first substantiated allegation occurred. E.g. base period was calendar year 2000….the abuse occurred within first 6 months of 2001.N’s vary between 50 and Stable from year to yearWHAT THIS CHART SAYS:Of the four counties, Santa Clara started out with highest % of cases with re-abuse within 6 months, and ended 7 years later with lowest.Source: Needell, B., Webster, D., Armijo, M., Lee, S., Cuccaro-Alamin, S., Shaw, T., Dawson, W., Piccus, W., Magruder, J., Exel, M., Conley, A., Smith, J., Dunn, A., Frerer, K., & Putnam Hornstein, E., (2006). Child Welfare Services Reports for California. Retrieved August 2006 from University of California at Berkeley Center for Social Services Research website. Table: Recurrence of Abuse/Neglect over Time: Children with a first substantiated report of abuse/neglect for base period (example) July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
20Overall Climate Change across Systems Each year, key informants have been consistently positive about Greenbook’s impact, especially the initiative’s ability tokeep co-occurrence on the cross-sector, county level policy agenda, andkeep people talking….bringing sectors together to have the sometimes tough conversations needed to create cross-sector policy changeMost commonly noted impact is the hardest to measure: culture change…a shift in perceptions, attitudes…leading tobreakthrough of real or perceived barriers between sectors…leading toSubtle yet innumerable changes in daily practices…and this priming of the climate is the foundation that is essential for sustaining past efforts and developing new onesSubtle but innumerable changes in daily practices, such asDifferent, more sensitive language used when talking to peers or clients (lawyers using different language in the courtroom)Reaching out and calling peers in other sectors for referrals or advice…personal relationships being built
21Key Factors of SuccessIT meeting attendees in 2003 said the following were key factors that have contributed to the success of the Santa Clara County Greenbook InitiativeMean score of various factors,where “1” means not at all a success factor and“5” means very much a success factor.CHART:Mean scores from 1 to 5, IT participants ranked from a list of factors the TOP factors contributing to success….FINDINGThinking about culture change….You all said in 03 things that pointed to that change: agreement about the nature of the problem, shared vision, having strong leadership, and the formation of key individual relationships..The biggest obstacle noted in 03 was lack of resources….our ability to build upon the foundation we’ve established to design and implement new practices.Source: Applied Survey Research, 2003.
22Next StepsExpand Greenbook Leadership to include representatives from Mental Health, Drug and Alcohol Services and Probation.Support the implementation of the recommendations from the GB Safety Audit.Having a Greenbook Project coordinator was identified as being critical to the success of this work. Therefore, a means to provide on-going coordination is needed in order to insure continued improvement of outcomes for children and families experiencing domestic violence and child maltreatment.
23Select “Recently Released Reports” For More Information:You may download a full copy of the Greenbook Evaluation at:orSelect “Recently Released Reports”