evaluating the effectiveness of citizens review panels blake l. jones, msw, lcsw program coordinator...
TRANSCRIPT
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Citizens Review Panels
Blake L. Jones, MSW, LCSW
Program Coordinator
Kentucky Citizens Review Panels
www.uky.edu/socialwork/trc
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the
only thing that ever has."
Margaret Meade
“Service is the rent we pay forliving. It is the very purpose of lifeand not something you do in your spare time."
~ Marian Wright Edelman
“This whole citizens review thing is nothing but a public relations ploy”
~Anonymous CRP member
“We’re not really helping kids. All we’re doing is just generating another report that CPS won’t use!”
~Survey Respondent
Objectives
National Update
Dissertation proposal
What are YOUR thoughts one measuring CRP effectiveness?
How are state’s using CRP’s?
Great Variability> Numbers (Alaska: 5 volunteers, New Mexico: several
hundred)
> Staff Support
> Tasks
Recruitment vs. Appointment
Examples of Models
Created new panels (KY, Tenn.) > contract with Universities, other governmental agencies
Using existing panels (I.e., Child fatality review boards, regional or county QA teams, Governor’s task force teams). This appears common.
Hybrid (create new panels, but coordinate with larger group of existing panels)
Some states—Maryland, for example--have long history of “citizen review panels.”
What are Panel’s Doing?
Working on legislation issues (I.e, dual track response)
Examining community collaboration with CPS (through surveys, focus groups)
Evaluating state budget cuts on social services
Case reviews (I.e, looking for family involvement in case planning)
Employee satisfaction
Mandated reporters Administrative tasks
(by-laws) CPS’ involvement with
immigrant populations CPS’ relationship with
schools, law enforcement, mental health providers
Policy and Procedure (I.e., exit interviews)
CRPs used in the CFSR process
Minnesota Alaska (informal) Kentucky Wyoming South Carolina California (citizens reading PIP) Maryland (maybe?) Oregon Others?
Is it Working? Mixed results
Citizens having difficulty in defining their role, staying on track (easier with foster care review boards)
Seem to have changes on the local level (I.e., examining local policy and procedure)
Difficulty in recruiting diverse membership
Budget considerations (some recommendations not financially feasible)
Citizens want more feedback
Comments
“There is very little feedback from CPS so these panels rightly feel like their work is unappreciated.”
“ . . . Some team members are concerned that (their report) becomes so much paper in some big building”
“Some members do not have the basic skills to research a problem, develop a plan, begin working on it and track its progress”
“It makes no sense to me that an ‘objective’ body that is supposed to be evaluating a government agency would be housed within that agency”
Evaluation of Citizen Boards
Mostly focused on “outcomes” (i.e., Litzelfelner and CASA research)
Most researchers have found positive results from citizens boards
Perceptions of outside reviewers generally positive, though some distrust
reviewers (Leashore)
“Unauthentic” vs “Authentic” participation
King, Felty & Susel (1998)
Unauthentic• Conflictual• Input sought “after
the fact”• Reactive• Citizen treated as
necessary evil• Mistrust
Authentic• Collaborative• Input sought before
decisions are made• Proactive• Citizen treated as
partner• Trust
Difficulties in doing traditional program evaluations on CRPs
Wide variability in groups
Hard to measure impact of CRPs on child welfare systems (need longitudinal study)
What are “outcomes”? (reports?)
Shifting child welfare priorities (federal and state)
Dissertation Study
States Involved
Wisconsin Florida Alaska New York Alabama Ohio Tennessee Maryland Georgia
New Hampshire New Mexico South Carolina Arkansas Wisconsin North Carolina Wyoming West Virginia Nevada Minnesota
CRP Members and CPS Staff surveyed
Looking for:
> timely access to info
> training
> chairperson
> frequent contact with liaison
> ability to impact policy decisions
> Feedback from CPS
Arnstein’s Ladder
Where does YOUR citizens review panel fall on the “ladder”
Hypothesis: there will be a significant difference
Delegated Power: Citizens on your panel have the needed power to actively change the child protective system Partnership: The child protection system allows citizens to share in decision making, but retains all the power to change things Placation: The system just “tells you want they want you to hear” about child protection in your state Consultation: The child welfare system consults with citizens but does not give them any power Informing: The child welfare administrators in your state engage in “one way” communication with citizens (i.e., by providing superficial answers or discouraging questions) Manipulation: The child welfare system uses the citizens review panels to push its own agenda
Other Variables
Previous leadership/volunteer experience
Gender, ethnicity (“representative” of community?)
Content of report/response to report
Limitations
Studying perceptions only
Point in time study (need longitudinal study to assess organizational change)
Generalizable nationwide?
What are
YOUR
Thoughts?