may 1, 2014 rose greene and ellen unruh

A Study of the Effects of Co-Locating DV Advocates in Child Protective Services Offices:

The New York Experience

May 1, 2014Rose Greene and Ellen Unruh

Background

Background

Research Methods

Background

Research Methods

Findings in Brief

Background

Research Methods

Findings in Brief

Selected Findings

Background

Research Methods

Findings in Brief

Selected Findings

Implications

Source: Center for Human Services Research, Director of Services Interviews, 2011

Field interviews and focus groups

Surveys of Workers

Case Record Reviews

Qualitative

Quantitative

Improvements

Yet….ongoing challenges

How Did Co-Location Work?

Location, Location, Location

How Did Co-Location Work?

Location, Location, Location

Identification and Referral

How Did Co-Location Work?

Location, Location, Location

Identification and Referral

Worker Practice

Effect on CPS worker practice, knowledge and attitudes

74%

65%

60%

29%

Not Co-Located Co-Located

Consult with DV staff on cases involving DV

Have a positive experience working with DV agencies

CPS Caseworkers

11%

25%

53%

4%

11%

36%

Not Co-located Co-located

Helped DV victims identify DV offender behavior patterns

Discussed with DV victims the DV of-fender’s impact on the children

Spoke with DV offenders about DV and taking responsibility for their actions

DV Advocates more likely to:

35%

63%

63%

15%

21%

9%

Not Co-located Co-located

Attend CPS home visits

Be invited to case conferences

Be invited to family team meet-ings

DV Advocates

98%

88%

92%

84%

71%

70%

Not Co-Located Co-Located

Agree that they have a good understanding of what CPS can/cannot do

Talk with their clients about how to keep their children safe

Know enough about the CPS process to help clients through it

What effect did this have on families?

Case notes less likely to include victim-blaming language

Co-LocatedNot Co-Located

29%

46%

Client Engagement

Clients are open to DV advocate since she does not carry the threat of child removal

DV advocates help translate CPS process to clients

CPS can act as a buffer for receiving DV services

Cite DV as the ONLY reason for substantiation of DV victims

9%

23%

Not Co-located Co-located123 cases 107 cases

Challenges

Information Sharing

Challenges

Information Sharing

Perpetrator Programs

Challenges

Information Sharing

Perpetrator Programs

Target Population

Recommendations

• Expand and replicate the co-location program

Recommendations

• Expand and replicate the co-location program

• Support continuous quality improvement of the co-location model

Recommendations

• Expand and replicate the co-location program

• Support continuous quality improvement of the co-location model

• Pursue strategies to address unmet community needs for victims and perpetrators

For More Information

Center for Human Services Research-For links to CPS/DV evaluation reports:http://www.albany.edu/chsr/csp-dv.shtml

New York State Office for Children and Family Services-For NY child welfare/DV practice guidancehttp://ocfs.ny.gov/main/dv/child_welfare.asp