An Overview for Staff, Community Providers and

Stakeholders

Shelley Straughan & Dana TorreySafety & Reunification

CoordinatorsDepartment of Human Services

2012Adapted from work by: ACTION for Child Protection, Inc.

Oregon Safety Model with Differential Response

1

Purpose and Goals of Presentation

To understand Differential Response (DR) as an accepted national practice leading to improved outcomes for families and child welfare systems

To learn how the Oregon Safety Model (OSM) and DR compliment each other and will work together to improve outcomes

To revisit the importance of Engagement in our work with families

2

Why Change Practice….again?All fields are consistently improving their practice

and skill…an ongoing professional obligation

Originally, abuse reports were handled by general child welfare programs…with a helping approach

Over time, the “legalistic” aspects of investigation, evidence, perpetrators, court involvement, etc. reinforced a more adversarial, unhelpful approach

Some areas, like central registry entries, have much greater impact on individuals than ever before yet…The process of reaching a finding/disposition

lacks precision and consistency

3

Why Change Practice?

Investigating and identifying a perpetrator does little to increase child safety

Families report being fearful or upset when CPS intervenes…Re-traumatization by the “system”Unlikely to divulge critical underlying needsCompliance rather than change

Circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the system’s response.

4

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

Child protection intervention is governmental intrusion into private family life, and the level/type of intrusion should closely match the presenting concerns

Systems screen out or do not offer services in 50% or more of reports, yet many children and families are in need of some helpful intervention

Why Change Practice?

5

Differential Response

A National Perspective

6

Differential Response Defined

An approach that allows child protective services to respond differently to accepted reports of child abuse and neglect based on such factors as the type and severity of the alleged maltreatment, number and sources of previous reports, and willingness of the family to participate in services. (American Humane Association)

7

What is Differential Response?

A choice of approaches

At least 2 Tracks “Alternative” and

“Traditional”

No fault finding, “disposition” or entry of perpetrator into Central Registries

Typically applied to reports that do not allege serious harm

8

What is Differential Response?A choice of approaches Focus is more on assessing and

ensuring child safety. Less on investigative fact finding

Allows families to receive agency funded services without formal determination of abuse/neglect, and when children are “safe”

Families may refuse services if children are safe

9

DR Expectations: Parent(s)/Caregivers will report positive

experiences with the DHS worker and primary service provider

Parent(s)/Caregivers will report that services provided were what they needed

Children will report that they had opportunities to discuss issues in private environments

Children will report positive experiences with the DHS worker and the primary service provider

Parent(s)/Caregivers will report they were treated fairly and in culturally appropriate ways

10

DR Expectations:

11

Improved job satisfaction for DHS workers who provide DR assessments

All families will receive a competent safety assessment consistent with the OSM, regardless of the track assigned

All families served by DR will receive a focused assessment (PCA and Strength and Needs Assessment)

Services will match to child and family need and will be targeted, solution-focused, time-limited.

Simplified outcome tools and measures will be used to gauge effectiveness of interventions.

National Implementation StatusMissouri was first state in 1994

13 states now implemented statewide

11 are implementing in selected counties

Tribal groups in 6 states are implementing

4 more states and DC are planning or considering implementation

12

DR Evaluation/Outcomes to Date

What have we learned?

13

First Visit: POSITVE Emotions Reported by Families (Ohio)

14

First Visit: NEGATIVE Emotions Reported by Families(Ohio)

15

Characteristics of families served through DR (Ohio):

Neglect was most common reportAbout half had previous accepted

reports of abuse/neglect 1 in 10 had a child placed in the pastA substantial portion were “chronic

CPS” familiesPoverty was prevalentMost received concrete help with utility

payments, unreliable transportation, lack of household goods/appliances, etc.

Other important findings (Missouri and Ohio)Child safety was NOT reducedFamilies reported more involvement in decision-

making and said services “really helped”More worker contacts with families and providersHigher family satisfaction with their caseworkerHigher job satisfaction for caseworkersLess subsequent reports of abuse/neglectLess out of home placementsCost slightly more upfront, but potential for

reduced long-term costs

Families were more likely to participate in services post-assessment.

The family friendly, non adversarial, participatory and voluntary aspects of DR led to reduced levels of future reports…

…Regardless of whether services were or were not offered to the families.

The Essential Nature of Engagement

19

Engagement is the means we use to offer hope,

the promise that things will be better,and the only way to establish rapport

leading to positive and powerful relationships.

20

Factors Accounting For Success in Change

Client – 40%

Relationship – 30%

Hope/Expectancy – 15%

Models/Techniques – 15%

Hubble, M., Duncan, B., & Miller, S. (1999). The Heart and Soul of Change. Washington, D.C.: APA Press21

Exercise: Self-Determination

22

Valuing Self-Determination in CPS: Proximity Scale (Not Scientific but Sufficient for Training Purposes)

23 – 30Strongly believe that client choice is not a realistic

concept to apply in CPS and must be guarded against. 15 – 22

Believe that client choice can only be applied selectively in CPS and must be regulated.

7 – 14Believe that client choice is an admirable objective, but

may vary in how practical a concept it is for CPS intervention.

0 – 6Strongly believe that client choice is fundamental to

successful CPS intervention.

23

Shared SW Philosophy: OSM and DRSummarized and adapted from: DuBois, B. & Miley, K.K. (1992). Social Work: An Empowering Profession, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 135-141.

24

Oregon Safety ModelIntegrating Differential Response

25

The Oregon Safety Model

Implementation of The Oregon Safety Model (OSM) was begun in 2006-07

Consistent efforts will continue to improve the application of OSM safety concepts and family-centered practices

Oregon DHS will continue all OSM practices while integrating Differential Response

26

Oregon’s Child Welfare System Goals:

The principles of the OSM, DR, SB 964 are working in concert toward:Keeping children safe and at home.Increasing and enhancing effective

preventive and family reunification services Decreasing the number of African-American

and Native American children placed in foster care and reducing the length of stay when they are placed

Strengthening partnerships between child welfare agencies, community-based organizations, and families

27

Why Differential Response?

DR is driven by the desire to….Be more flexible in the response to child

abuse/neglect.Address family needs more quickly; most cases not

driven by court intervention, so evidence collection is not necessary.

Build family support systems; DR is often accompanied by greater efforts to identify, build, and coordinate formal and informal family supports.

Be more intentional about connecting families to resources when children are “safe” (as defined by Oregon Safety Model practice)

28

Development of DR in OregonDR in Oregon is a work in progress.

Internal DHS research Legislative Presentation DR Manager Hired Focus Groups: DHS staff, Providers, Tribes, Families,

Advocates, Legal and Judicial, etc. Core and Design Teams In-Home Safety and Reunification Team hired 12 Orientations around the state in May 2012

Planning and development will continue, we are now in the design phrase and will be moving into both the developmental phrases and implementation phrase

No date for implementation at this time period

29

DR is not being considered as a method to reduce workload and will not increase the number of cases opened by DHS Child Welfare.

The Oregon Safety Model Guides DR Decisions

31

A Comprehensive Safety Assessment is completed by a CPS worker in both tracks

If children are determined to be “unsafe” the case will be opened by Child Welfare

If children are determined to be “safe” Child Welfare will not open a case

If children are “safe”, but moderate to high needs are identified, families may receive services from community providers (no Child Welfare case open)

Protective Capacity Assessment guides case planning by Child Welfare and influences voluntary services to DR families.

Oregon’s 2 Tracks : Traditional and Alternative?

(Handout)

32

33

Traditional Track Alternative Track

Safety Assessment Safety Assessment

Joint Assessment with provider strongly encouraged

Joint Assessment with provider strongly encouraged

Disposition/finding required No disposition/finding required

Central Registry entry as indicated No entry in Central Registry

Services offered if child is “unsafe” as defined in OSM practice

Services Offered if Mod to High Needs & children are “safe” as defined in OSM practice

Participation is not voluntary Participation is Voluntary/Family may decline services

May involve court action No court involvement

34

Traditional Track Alternative Track

There will be an in-home or out-of-home safety plan

No Safety Plan is needed

Children remain in the home with in- home safety plan if:• parent is willing/able to engage• home is safe and calm enough to allow safety service providers access• sufficient safety service providers available to assist in managing the child(ren)’s safety

Children remain in the home

Out-of-home safety plan required if above not met; court involvement

No out-of-home placements; no court-involvement

Protective Capacity Assessment (PCA) directs Case Planning

Protective Capacity Assessment (PCA) forms core of Strength and Needs Assessment, voluntary service provision

DHS opens and carries the case if child(ren) determined “unsafe”

DHS does not open a case when children are determined “safe”

35

Traditional Track Alternative Track

Services provided based on case plan, continue until case closure

Services provided based on Strengths and Needs Assessment, time limited, solution focused

Ongoing Safety Management Ongoing attention to child safety

Case closed when threats are eliminated or protective capacities are sufficiently enhanced to manage the safety threats, children are “safe”

Case closed when client opts out, goals reached, no services needed, or service time frame complete

36

CALL/REFERRAL TO DHS

INITIAL CONTACT:DHS AND PROVIDER

SAFETY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY DHS

INITIAL CONTACTDHS AND PROVIDER

SAFETY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY DHS

SAFETY THREATS EXISTOR TRADITIONAL INTERVENTION IS NEEDED. DETERMINE DISPOSITION,

CENTRAL REGISTRYENTRY PER POLICY: FOLLOWS OSM FOR SAFETY PLANNING AND INTERVENTION

DHS OPENS AND CARRIES CASE

FAMILY DECLINES SERVICES

NO SAFETY THREATS

DHS DOES NOT OPEN CASE** PROVIDER DOES STRENGTHS/

NEEDS ASSESSMENT WITH FAMILY SERVICES OFFERED

PROVIDER CONTINUES SERVICES WITH FOCUS ON

CHILD SAFETY

90 DAY SUMMARY AND OUTCOME REPORT BY PROVIDER TO DHS

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSEPROCESS AND

DECISION FLOWACTION FOR CHILD PROTECTION INC

MEETS CRITERIA ASREPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR

NEGLECT

NO SAFETY THREATS PROVIDER CONDUCTS

STRENGTHS/ NEEDS ASSESSMENTMOD TO HIGH

NEED=SERVICES OFFERED.

REPORT NOT ACCEPTED/REFER TO OTHER

RESOURCES

FAMILY ACCEPTS SERVICES

Alternative Track Traditional Track

IF NEW REPORT OF CA/N

No services needed or family declines

service

PROVIDER CLOSES CASE

FAMILY SEEMS TO HAVE MOD

TO HIGH NEED AND WANTS SERVICES

PROVIDER REQUESTS EXTENSION IF NEEDED. CONTINUES SERVICES WITH FOCUS ON CHILD SAFETY

DHS DOES NOT OPEN CASE

DHS DOES NOT OPEN CASE

DHS DOES NOT OPEN CASE

** If no provider at initial contact, worker arranges warm handoff with provider/family

Questions & Answers