Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything
that counts can be counted. Albert Einstein Slide 2 Introductions
of the presenters: Theresa Costello, NRCCPS, Director Janet
Ciarico, Consultant, NRC-CWDT Kim Wieczorek, SD SACWIS Project
Director Pamela Bennett, NRCCPS Sr. Staff Associate, Former SD
Ongoing Program Specialist Some context for the discussion:
Decision points in the case process Terminology Impressions
regarding some things that are NOT routinely counted in many states
Reality check: what difference does that make? Ways to move
incrementally towards counting the things that count South Dakotas
experiences Group discussion about moving away from a wish list
Overview of Today Slide 3 Decisions Made during the Investigation
Slide 4 Decisions Made Post-Investigation Slide 5 Things We Know to
TrackThings We Dont Always Track SAFETY is about the concern that
in the near future a child will be severely harmed because the
situation at home is so out of control. Accurately IDENTIFYING
SAFETY THREATS and RESPONDING to SAFETY THREATS WITH SUFFICIENT
SAFETY PLANS are the fundamental reasons why public child welfare
agencies exist. Substantiation relates to whether some type of
maltreatment already has happened. Timely initial contact helps
demonstrate we are expending the right amount of effort to respond
to allegations. Some Basic Premises Slide 6 Threats to a childs
safety can play out right in front of you: Immediate or Present
Danger. Threats to a childs safety can exist, but can be harder to
discern without more information. The child is in Impending Danger.
There may be no maltreatment (unsubstantiated), yet public child
welfare needs to develop and implement a response due to Present or
Impending Danger. The child is unsafe. When a child is unsafe, an
analysis must determine what the sufficient response (correct level
of intrusiveness) is. A SAFETY PLAN is developed to control the
threats. The Safety Plan may be in home (the child continues to
reside with the caregivers/parents) or out of home (the child lives
elsewhere). Terms Slide 7 Number of reports Number of substantiated
investigations Number of initial contacts made within timeframe
Number of children placed in foster care Number of investigations
closed Number of investigations opened for services Number of
permanency plan reviews Length of stay in foster care Number of
disrupted placements Number of re-referrals Some of the Things We
Count Slide 8 How many children at the onset of the investigation
were in immediate danger? How many times was an immediate safety
plan implemented in order to carry on with the rest of the
investigation? How many of those children were moved voluntarily to
a relatives home? What Often Isnt Counted? Slide 9 How many of
those children are still at the relatives home by the end of the
investigation? How many children are deemed safe/unsafe by the end
of the investigation? How many cases are opened for services with
an in- home safety plan? How many cases are opened for services
with an out- of-home safety plan (including a voluntary placement
with a relative)? What Often Isnt Counted? Slide 10 At initial
contact, the CPS worker tells the family that the child needs to
stay elsewhere. The family agrees, believing finding a relative for
the child is a better alternative than court and/or foster care.
The child goes to a relatives home voluntarily. All contact between
the parents and the child must be supervised by the relative. The
case may then be closed for all services. In some states it may
stay open. In many states the case is perceived as an in-home or
intact casenot subject to permanency timeframes, hearings, etc.
Hundreds of thousands of children are in these kinds of placements,
with little or no tracking mechanisms. Studies show that when cases
do remain open, kin receive fewer services, have less contact with
workers. (Geen, Urban Institute, Dubowitz, Berrick) Lack of
Management Reports Obscures Practice Trends Like: Slide 11 A
3-year-old child was killed while under the protection of a safety
plan. Family members do not agree with the agency that there was a
stipulation that the child have no contact with the father. Family
members were genuinely surprised that the child was deemed unsafe
by the agency, since the case was unsubstantiated and court was not
involved. No information about the safety plan related to the start
and end dates, the people/service providers involved, or the
conditions set forth were available. Lack of Data Slows Analysis:
Was a Fatality Part of a Systemic Practice Problem? Slide 12 Would
it help in resource planning to know how many cases each year had
certain types of safety threats identified? Would it help prevent
placement or reunify more quickly if data were known regarding what
kinds of services were deemed necessary (but unavailable) for an
in-home safety plan to be sufficient? Would the community have a
better understanding of CPS families and agency needs if data could
show that 37% of unsubstantiated cases also had a finding that the
children were nonetheless unsafe? Data Influences Planning Slide 13
Work Together to Plan and Implement Program Changes Program and
systems staff should work together as a team from the planning
stages. Working toward a common goal builds a positive working
relationship. Communication between all parties is key. Maintain a
common understanding of language and definitions. Slide 14 Data
Considerations Make a data plan based on updated goals. Consider
the data most useful to track and achieve your goals. Consider data
that will be useful at all levels: To assist staff in meeting new
agency goals. For the agency to assess new goals. Consider the data
you already have in your system: How existing data can be used. How
program changes may affect existing data collected. Consider new
data items that are needed to track and meet your goals. Slide 15
Consult with Other Jurisdictions Find out how other states and
jurisdictions are addressing the same issues. What type of process
did they develop? What type of system changes did they implement?
How are they tracking and assessing safety goals? What can you
learn from their experiences? Slide 16 How Does an Agency Begin to
Count the Things That Count? Slide 17 South Dakota Timeline Safety
Change in Practice (1998) SACWIS Conversion (1998-2002) SACWIS IFA
Screen Changes (2001) SACWIS Reporting Changes (2001 2002) Ongoing
Services change in practice (2005 2007) PCA Workgroup reviewed
reports together (2007 2008) Slide 18 Example Present Danger
Response Protective Plan Agency/family response to children in
present danger that does not involve custody removal. (This is
often a number not counted in SACWIS or agencies. Consider this
from the childs view.) 2009 6.3% 2010 6.4% 2011 6.1% Slide 19
Example Impending Safety Responses Children Placed Out of Home
Through Court Jurisdiction (42.0%) In-Home Safety Plan (27.1%)
Maltreating Parent Left (4.2%) Non-maltreating Parent Can/Will
Protect (26.7%) Slide 20 Example 2009 Substantiated 22.87% Cases
with children unsafe 26.0% 2010 Substantiated 22.02% Cases with
children unsafe 26.1% Slide 21 Milestones for Progress Recognition
that only counting SACWIS federal requirements did not tell the
agency all they needed to know SACWIS evolution to provide program
the outcomes they required to judge practice and model fidelity
Ongoing program and system collaboration Slide 22 Benefits
Increases accountabilities Increases transparencies (more focused
and less story based) System ownership System integration in
practice model Analysis of practice leading to strategic planning
Slide 23 For technical assistance on this topic National Resource
Center for Child Welfare Data and Technology
https://www.nrccwdt.org Debbie Milner [email protected] National
Resource Center for Child Protective Services http://nrccps.org
Theresa Costello [email protected]
