Are You Ready for Alternative Response?Ohio’s Alternative Response Symposium

May 13, 2010

Caren KaplanAmerican Humane Association

Steve HansonSupreme Court of Ohio

Kristin Gilbert, Jennifer Justice, Leslie McGee, Cheryl Wolfe and Roger Ward

Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

Purposes of Alternative Response and Child

Protection CPS was established to respond to

all reports of suspected child maltreatment -numbers overwhelm available resources

Currently either screen out or do not open for services more than half of the reports - yet many children are vulnerable

Purposes of Alternative Response and Child

Protection Investigatory practice is often

adversarial and alienates parents AR = way to serve more screened-in

reports at earlier stage by engaging families in a non-adversarial process of linking them to needed services

What is Alternative Response? Alternative to child protection

investigative response and one of several responses within a differential response system

Sets aside fault finding and substantiation decision

Usually applied to reports that do not allege serious and imminent harm

What is Alternative Response? Focuses less on investigative fact

finding and more on assessing and ensuring child safety

Seeks safety through family engagement and collaborative partnerships

Allows and encourages agencies to provide services without formal determination of abuse or neglect

Core AR Elements

1. Use of two or more discrete response tracks for cases that are screened in and accepted

2. Establishment of discrete response tracks is codified in statute, policy, or protocols

3. Track assignment depends on an array of factors (e.g., presence of imminent danger, level of risk, the number of previous reports, the source of the report, and/or presenting case characteristics such as type of alleged maltreatment and age of the alleged victim)

4. Original track assignment can change based on new information that alters risk level or safety concerns

Core AR Elements

5. Services are voluntary on a non-investigative track– families can choose to receive investigation

response – families can accept or refuse offered services if

there are no safety concerns6. No substantiation of alleged maltreatment for families

served in a non-investigative track; services are offered without a formal determination of child maltreatment

7. Alternative use of central registry depending on track, meaning name of alleged perpetrator is not entered into central registry for those individuals who are served through a non-investigative track

National Portrait of Alternative Response

Why Implement Alternative Response?

Many parents, reporters, and social workers become frustrated with limited responses available to children and families

CPS “investigation” is perceived as overly accusatory and adversarial as initial response for many reports

Focus on substantiation and identifying perpetrator does not contribute to family’s readiness to engage in services

Why Implement Alternative Response?

Majority of traditional CPS responses do not result in any services being provided

Overwhelming majority of cases are not served through court orders; evidence collection is not always needed

Alternative Response allows system to move more quickly to address safety needs

Why ImplementAlternative Response? Alternative response can support

families by applying available resources to services rather than investigations

Alternative response is often accompanied by greater efforts to identify, build, and coordinate formal and non-formal services and supports

Children are safer sooner

Serve screened in reports earlier

Engage families in assessment

Link families to needed services

12

Commonalities between Alternative and Investigation Response Pathways Focus on child safety Promote permanency within

the family whenever possible Value community services Recognize authority of CPS to

make decisions of placement and court involvement

Respond to changing family circumstances

[Schene, 2005]

Child Welfare Pathways

ARAR• No DispositionNo Disposition•No ACV/AP LabelsNo ACV/AP Labels•AR Specific RulesAR Specific Rules•Some Modified Some Modified

ToolsTools

•Safety Focus•Assessment•Strengths Based•Family Focused•Engagement•Linkage with Services•SACWIS•Statute/Laws

IRIR• DispositionDisposition

• ACV/AP LabelsACV/AP Labels•Forensic ResponseForensic Response•IR Specific RulesIR Specific Rules

Case Process Flow Chartsimplified

Report of Alleged Child Maltreatment

Screened Out CPSRefer to Community

Services or Community Response

Screened in CPSDetermine eligibility

for appropriate track/response

SafeRefer for Services

Unsafe/Substantiated

Court & Safety PlanCPS Case Open

SafeRefer for Services

UnsafeSafety Plan

CPS Case Open

InvestigationInvestigation ResponseResponse

Alternative Alternative Response Response

Opportunity to Change Pathways

PathwayChange

Principles and Assumptions of Alternative Response Circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the response

Majority of reports do not need an adversarial approach or court-ordered interventions

Absent an investigation:– child safety will not be jeopardized– services can be in place more quickly– families will be more motivated to use

services

Assumptions continued... Effective assessment tools can be put in

place to assure safety and an informed response

Frontline staff in CPS and agencies are trained in strength based and collaborative interventions

Only cases of greater severity need to be on the state central registry

Cases are monitored sufficiently to change course/paths when situation requires

Practice Shift

Focus on securing child safety through family engagement

Move from agency expert driven compliance approach to safety focused partnership with families and communities

Recognize and apply family and community strengths and resources; honor family wisdom about their circumstances, strengths and needs

Workforce Issues

Assessment is the key Engagement of and partnership with

family Clinical judgment and discretion One worker/one team - one family Warm hand off to community

providers Broker and networker Quality Social Casework Practice

Prerequisites for Success Skilled Workforce Alternative Assessment Manageable Workloads Expansion of Service Array Early Intervention

Prerequisites for Success Flexibility in thinking and approach Leverage flexible $$

wherever/whenever possible Formal meaningful partnerships with

AOD, MH, DV housing, and economic security (TANF) providers

Cooperative relationship between the family and the agency—foundation for the effective delivery of services

Clear definition, policies and protocols to guide implementation

Clear roles and responsibilities for CPS, judges, families and communities

Interconnectedness with data systems–Track progress/outcomes–Track assignment

24

Educating mandated reporters

Partnering with community agencies

Training staff and community partners

Working with courts and law enforcement

25

Prospective Benefits

More children are better protected over time by engaging more parents in the process of making sustainable changes

Rate of subsequent, repeat reports to CPS has been demonstrated to decrease

Both families and agency child protection workers are more satisfied with the outcomes

Involvement of larger systems of support Approach is cost neutral or saves money

over time

Lessons Learned

There is intrinsic value of family voice – as partners, guiding service planning and decision making

Community partnerships are most effective ways to protect children

There is a need to involve families and community stakeholders early in process

Lessons Learned

Communication among/across stakeholders & jurisdictions is essential – establish vehicles for regular contact

Assessment is ongoing and cumulative as trust builds - need to respond

Evaluation matters – bring evaluators in early and make the investment to do it well

Resources

American Humane– http://www.americanhumane.org/pro

tecting-children/programs/differential-response/

Quality Improvement Center on Alternative Response – http://www.differentialresponseqic.o

rg/ Caren Kaplan

– carenk@americanhumane.org

With Gratitude

Establishing Alternative Response as an option for

Ohio’s Families

OHIO ALTERNATIVE RESPONSEPILOT PROJECT

How Did We End Up Here?

The Sequence of Events Two reports were critical of inconsistencies in

Ohio’s application of statutory definitions for child abuse, neglect and dependency– ABA Report– CFSR

Subcommittee on Responding to Child, Abuse, Neglect & Dependency (2004)

Final Report (January 2006) Advisory Committee on Children Families & the Court

2006 Recommendations Change to Child In Need of

Protective Services (CHIPS) legislative structure

Look into alternative/differential response as an option for handling some accepted reports of child maltreatment

2007 - Established Framework Received statutory authority to initiate a

pilot study Launched a nation-wide search for an

experienced consultants Selected American Humane, Institute for

Applied Research & Minnesota Partners - AIM

Conducted Regional Forums on Alternative Response to assist communities in self-identifying an interest in serving as a pilot site

Selected Pilot Counties

Red = 2006 substantiated & indicated child abuse reports Blue = Population as reported by census

data

Expanded Partnerships

Ohio’s Alternative Response Plan

Created a Design Team Two representatives per site were

appointed to a workgroup of the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Subcommittee on Responding to Child Abuse, Neglect and Dependency

Created a Model

The Design Team established: The “alternative pathway” as complementary

to (does not replace) Ohio’s existing child protective service response system.

Guiding Principles Assignment criteria Timeframes for decision-making Standard labels and their definitions Case Processing and flow Mechanisms for moving reports from one

track to another

Prepared for Implementation Establishing training for staff and

community

Evaluating local services

Developing a statewide message and educational materials

2008Offered Families a New Option

for Keeping Children Safe Alternative Response became an option for

families in pilots sites in July 2008. Random assignment of families for

evaluation purposes continued through September 2009.

By conclusion of data collection, 4,822 families had been assigned to the study:– 2,482 (51.5%) assigned to experimental track

(AR)– 2,340 (48.5) assigned to control track (“business

as usual)– 92 cases were excluded from study because of

track changes

From Activation to Integration: County-

Focus Maintaining child safety Developing routine Establishing ongoing support Collecting data: state and local Developing partnerships Building political will for change Problem solving

From Activation to Integration: State Focus

Responding to workers’ training needs Building political will for change Identifying the elements that are

critical to success, including dollars and services

Integrating alternative response into state’s priorities; aligning initiatives

Ensuring essential oversight and accountability

Pilot Challenges

Equity in workloads (randomization)

SACWISDual CaseloadsTensions between workers

Practice Challenges

• How to explain ARHow to explain AR• Dual caseloadsDual caseloads• Interviewing requirements; where rule Interviewing requirements; where rule

meets philosophymeets philosophy• Letting go of old ways; change Letting go of old ways; change

managementmanagement• Finding servicesFinding services

From the front line: what’s good?

• Family ResponseFamily Response• Time Spent in FieldTime Spent in Field• Increased/More Creative Services for FamiliesIncreased/More Creative Services for Families• Families’ SupportsFamilies’ Supports• Outcomes show promiseOutcomes show promise• Services reflect family needsServices reflect family needs• Caseworker satisfactionCaseworker satisfaction

From the front line: lessons….

• Importance of Importance of skilled decision-making at the front doorskilled decision-making at the front door (screening).(screening).

• Extended timeframes for assessmentExtended timeframes for assessment allow greater allow greater opportunity for engagementopportunity for engagement

• Caseload size has impactCaseload size has impact on workers’ ability to engage on workers’ ability to engage• Flexible Funding:Flexible Funding: effective response to families must effective response to families must

have the flexibility that allows both immediacy and have the flexibility that allows both immediacy and allows services to be determined by need rather than allows services to be determined by need rather than availability. availability.

From the front line: critical connections….

• HousingHousing• Gaps in substance abuse and mental Gaps in substance abuse and mental

health serviceshealth services• TransportationTransportation

Infinity and Beyond!

Pilot Study Time Frame:– July 1, 2008 - December 30, 2009 (18

months) Final Report

– April 2010 Dual Focus:

– Targeted Pilot Expansion RFA – March 2010 AR Symposium - May 13 & 14, 2010 Ten Expansion Pilots – June 2010

– Statewide Implementation

REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS

Application Review Process EVALUATION by American Humane

Consultants using Criteria in Application

SELECTION: Recommendations made to ODJFS & SCO; decisions made by Subcommittee

NOTIFICATION on June 18th: Selected sites contacted via telephone (preferred) or E-mail

Application Criteria

AGENCY CAPACITY AND PLANNING (20 POINTS)

COMMUNITY CAPACITY (15 POINTS) TARGET POPULATION (10 Points) SERVICE DELIVERY STRUCTURE (20

points) EVALUATION CAPACITY (10 POINTS) ANTICIPATED CHALLENGES (15 POINTS) BUDGET PROJECTIONS/FINANCIAL

COMMITMENTS (10 points)

Expectations of AR Counties Participate in Ohio AR Leadership Council Assess reports of alleged CA/N using AR

approach as permitted by Ohio statute Provide services for families as directed

by assessment process and family service plan

Collect, analyze and report on specific data elements to assure ongoing AR efficacy

Timeline

May 13, 2010: Counties submitting proposals are required to attend Are You Ready for Alternative Response? from 2:00pm – 5:30pm

May 28, 2010: Deadline for submitting electronic applications to ohioar2010@gmail.com with the subject line “Ohio AR Application.”

June 18, 2010: Selection/Announcement of ten pilot sites.

September, 2010: Families are assigned to Counties’ Alternative Response Pathways

 

What Lies Ahead?

Future Plans

Continue to support original 10 pilots Partner closely with the QIC-DR 6 county

pilot and support their implementation Review AR Project Final Report

recommendations and outline next steps Continue the critical support provided by

the AIM team Expand to 10 new counties by

September 2010

Future Plans

Build training infrastructure Bring on additional counties during

the first quarter of 2011 Review current policies and forms Draft Ch. 119 rules Continue to enhance SACWIS to

support the Alternative Response approach

It’s Important to Know….

Training

The 10 accepted sites will minimally have the following:– Two-day initial training that includes AR

101, procedural changes, pathway assignment and engagement techniques

– A community forum to help partners understand the changes that will be occurring within the agency’s approach with families

Training Each agency will have at least two on-site

coaching experiences provided by AIM staff The new sites will be a part of Ohio’s

Leadership Council, the partnership group of Ohio’s alternative response sites. As such, they will have the opportunity to participate in all activities available to the Council. In the past, this has included:– On-site coaching– Specialized training opportunities– Peer review opportunities– Quarterly Leadership Council activities

Training

It is recommended that all agency staff participate in the initial AR training

Training for all assists in avoiding organizational myths and internal friction

Generally, ongoing AR training has been directed to AR staff

Capacity and relevance determine the appropriateness of non-AR attending AR training experiences

Funding

Provided by Casey Family Programs

$20,000 per year for two years Operates on a calendar year All monies must be liquidated by

the end of each year Quarterly reports are required

Approved uses of funding:– Services– Travel– Staff– Training– Consultants– Cost associated with public events

Funding

Advantageous for counties to apply as group?

Will there be experimental and control groups?

Funding available per service plan? Alternative Response expansion

plans?

Additional FAQ’s

One Goal Two Approaches

AR Policy and Practice

Similarities

Child safety is the priority Comprehensive safety and risk assessments Holistic family assessment involving all

children and adults in the home Service plans developed with the family and

based on family needs, safety and risk issues Ongoing reviews of safety, risk and services Case closure based on increased safety, risk

reduction or agreement to terminate services

AR-Specific Rules

OAC 5101:9-14-03Implementation of pilot protocols for

public children services agencies in the alternative response pilot program

OAC 5101:9-14-04PCSA requirements for alternative

response to child abuse and/or neglect

AR Toolset

JFS 01401, CAPMIS Safety Assessment JFS 01409, CAPMIS Safety Plan JFS 01419, AR Family Assessment JFS 01423, AR Ongoing Case Assessment JFS 01418, AR Family Service Plan* JFS 01417, AR Family Service Plan Review* JFS 01422, AR Case Closure*

*The CAPMIS case plan, case plan review, and SAR tools may be used in lieu of these AR tools at the agency’s discretion

Differences

Additional decision within 24 hour screening timeframe:– Screen-in/Screen-out– Case Category– Priority– Pathway Assignment (CA/N reports

only)

Pathway Assignment Tool Not a registered JFS form (use is optional) Decision pending on SACWIS inclusion Automatic assignment to Traditional

Pathway– Allegations of serious harm to a child– Allegations of sexual abuse– Suspicious child fatality or homicide– Specialized Assessment required– Third Party Assessment required

Differences

Non-emergency initiation options (24 hours)– Attempt F=F with parent, child or

collateral source – Attempt phone contact with parent or

collateral source– Letter to parent, guardian or custodian

acknowledging a report was received and inviting the family to engage with the PCSA

Differences

Four (4) working days to make F=F contact with the child subject of the report and one parent or caregiver if not completed at the time of initiation

Four (4) working days to complete the assessment of safety with an additional three (3) working days to complete the JFS 01401 in SACWIS

No disposition; no ACV or AP* labels

*AR report histories cannot be used for Central Registry background checks

Differences

Forty-five days to complete the JFS 01419, AR Family Assessment*

A JFS 01418, Family Service Plan (FSP) may be developed any time after the assessment of safety is completed; updated as needed

The FSP must be developed no more than 15 days after the decision for ongoing services*

*Recommendations to change the timeframes for completion are pending

Differences

The JFS 01417, Alternative Response Family Service Plan Review can be used for both the 90 review and SAR

Case closure decision and information is documented on the JFS 01422, Alternative Response Case Closure

Court-involved cases and custody cases cannot be assigned to the AR pathway

Q & A

Alternative Response Mailbox: AR@jfs.ohio.gov

Child Protective Services: 614-466-1213– Dorothy Striker (Program Lead)– Catherine Lawhorn – David Thomas– Denielle Ell-Rittinger

Alternative Response

and SACWIS

Majority if not all of the data collection will be gathered from SACWIS

It is vital that counties use SACWIS If other data is needed, ODJFS will

ensure that it serves a clearly defined purpose and is related to statewide implementation

One example is services

Data

Counting What Matters

We will extract SACWIS data to inform pilots.

For families to improve, they must have services.

Concern: Service data is currently insufficient for determining…– The number of people needing specific services.– Duration between the referral and delivery.

It is critical for county leaders to know for future planning how many families need specific services, the demand for those services, and costs.

Counting What Matters

If we are unable to modify SACWIS that will allow us to report to counties, we will require counties to report this information to us on a per case level.

We prefer to obtain this information from SACWIS rather than counties. Thus, we care working closely with the SACWIS team to make a change in the Service screens.