1. An Overview for Staff, Community Providers and Stakeholders Shelley Straughan & Dana Torrey Safety & Reunification Coordinators Department of Human Services 2012 Adapted from work by: ACTION for Child Protection, Inc. Oregon Safety Model with Differential Response 1

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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 needs Compliance rather than change Circumstances and needs of families differ and so should the system’s response. 4

5.  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

6. Differential Response A National Perspective 6

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. National Implementation Status Missouri 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

13. DR Evaluation/Outcomes to Date What have we learned? 13

14. First Visit: POSITVE Emotions Reported by Families (Ohio) 14

15. First Visit: NEGATIVE Emotions Reported by Families (Ohio) 15

16. Characteristics of families served through DR (Ohio): Neglect was most common report About half had previous accepted reports of abuse/neglect 1 in 10 had a child placed in the past A substantial portion were “chronic CPS” families Poverty was prevalent Most received concrete help with utility payments, unreliable transportation, lack of household goods/appliances, etc.

17. Other important findings (Missouri and Ohio) Child safety was NOT reduced Families reported more involvement in decision- making and said services “really helped” More worker contacts with families and providers Higher family satisfaction with their caseworker Higher job satisfaction for caseworkers Less subsequent reports of abuse/neglect Less out of home placements Cost slightly more upfront, but potential for reduced long-term costs

18. 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.

19. The Essential Nature of Engagement 19

20. 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

21. Factors Accounting For Success in Change Hubble, M., Duncan, B., & Miller, S. (1999). The Heart and Soul of Change. Washington, D.C.: APA Press 21

22. Exercise: Self-Determination 22

23. Valuing Self-Determination in CPS: Proximity Scale (Not Scientific but Sufficient for Training Purposes) 23 – 30 Strongly 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 – 14 Believe that client choice is an admirable objective, but may vary in how practical a concept it is for CPS intervention. 0 – 6 Strongly believe that client choice is fundamental to successful CPS intervention. 23

24. Shared SW Philosophy: OSM and DR Summarized and adapted from: DuBois, B. & Miley, K.K. (1992). Social Work: An Empowering Profession, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 135-141. AcceptanceAffirming Individuality Purposeful Expression of Feelings Non-judgmentalObjectivity Controlled Emotional Involvement Self-DeterminationConfidentiality 24

25. Oregon Safety Model Integrating Differential Response 25

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. Development of DR in Oregon DR 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

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

31. 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.

32. Oregon’s 2 Tracks : Traditional and Alternative? (Handout) 32

33. 33 Traditional TrackAlternative Track Safety Assessment Joint Assessment with provider strongly encouraged Disposition/finding requiredNo disposition/finding required Central Registry entry as indicatedNo 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 voluntaryParticipation is Voluntary/Family may decline services May involve court actionNo court involvement

34. 34 Traditional TrackAlternative 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. 35 Traditional TrackAlternative 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 ManagementOngoing 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. 36

37. Questions & Answers