1. Citizen Participation in Public Child Welfare: A Multi-State Study of Citizens Review Panel Members’ Perceptions of Effectiveness Blake L. Jones, MSW, LCSW, ABD University of Kentucky College of Social Work National Citizens Review Panel Conference Lexington, Kentucky May 28, 2004

2. "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

3. “Service is the rent we pay for living. It is the very purpose of life and not something you do in your spare time." ~ Marian Wright Edelman

4. “Our state has Citizens Review Panels because they are REQUIRED to. Period.” ~survey respondent

5. “We’re not really helping kids. All we’re doing is just generating another report that CPS won’t use!” ~Survey Respondent

6. Objectives of this Presentation  Brief Background on CRPs  Review of literature  Theoretical and Conceptual foundations of the study  Methodology  Results  News You Can Use

7. Citizen Review Panels Created through a 1996 amendment to CAPTA  3 panels per state (some only need one) by 7/99  Each panel has the responsibility to review compliance of state and local CPS agencies with respect to: –state CAPTA plan –Federal child protection standards –Other criteria the panel considers important, which may include coordination with foster care and adoption programs and review of child fatalities and near fatalities

8. Requirements for Citizen Review Panels  Composed of volunteer members that –are broadly representative of the community in which they are operating –include individuals with expertise in the prevention and treatment of CA/N –Include CPS liaison  Meet at least quarterly  Examine policies and procedures and, where appropriate, specific cases of both state and local agencies  Maintain confidentiality  Prepare an annual report

9. New Requirements from CAPTA Reauthorization  Evaluate PRACTICES as well as policy and procedure  Develop a means for public comment  Child welfare agency is to respond in writing to annual report within six months  ACYF to do an evaluation of CRPs

10. CPS Standards Subject to Review  Reporting procedures  Screening and investigation  Child safety steps  Immunity for good faith reporting  Confidentiality of records  Public disclosure in fatalities and near fatalities  Expedited TPR  Cooperation of law enforcement, courts and state CPS agencies  Expungement of records available to public  Appointment of guardians ad litem  Appeal of findings  Provisions not requiring reunification in certain cases

11. Panel Should Establish Protocols and Procedures to Review Each of the Following Parts of the CPS System  Intake and initial screening  Investigation or assessment  Case determination  Service planing, implementation, and monitoring  Case closure  Crisis intervention; emergency placement; family stabilization  Coordination of Services  Staff qualifications, training and workload

12. Examples of Approaches and Sources of Information  In-depth review of a small number of cases  Broader review of cases  Analysis of statewide data systems  Review of agency policy and procedures  Surveys  Quality Assurance Reviews  Focus groups or interviews of staff, consumers, service providers, mandated reporters, foster parents, others

13. Perceptions of Effectiveness… The first step

14. Previous Research on What Increases Perceptions of Effectiveness in Citizen Panels  Access to information  Clear goals and objectives (should be congruent with other entity)  Training  Cohesion among members  “Authentic” communication between agency and panel  Opportunities to build trust

15. Previous Research on CRPs  Jones, Litzelfelner, & Ford (2003) > Significant difference between CRP members and CPS workers regarding whether or not citizen involvement was important > Found a need for increased communication between the two as well as more education about each other’s roles

16. Main Research Question  What variables impact how CRP members perceive their Panel’s effectiveness?

17. Theoretical Underpinnings  Webler & Tuler (2000) > Theory of Discourse (based on Hambermas’ “rational communication”) > Says the process should be “fair” and “competent”

18. Arnstein’s “Ladder of Participation”

19. States in the Study Alabama Minnesota North Carolina West Virginia ArkansasNew Hampshire OhioWisconsinWashington FloridaNew Mexico South Carolina Wyoming Georgia New York Tennessee Idaho Maryland Nevada Michigan

20. Variables IndependentDependent  Communication Flow  Education  Months on Panel  Group Cohesion  Bylaws  Budget  Chairperson  Paid Staff Person  Perceived Effectiveness  Placement on Ladder of Citizen Participation

21. Instrumentation  Created “Citizen Review Panel Perceived Effectiveness Survey” composed of:** > “Perceived Effectiveness” Scale > “Communications Scale” > Group Cohesion Scale-Revised **Good internal consistency on all scales (Cronbach’s alpha.82-.90)

22. Methodology  664 anonymous surveys distributed by mail or through key contacts  SASE envelope enclosed (real stamps)  332 Returned (50% return rate)  Used SPSS to analyze

23. Results  75% Female, 25% Male  Mean Age: 52 years  Mean Education: 17.24 years  39% social workers (others: medical field, retired, educators, attorneys)

24. What variables have an effect on “Perceived Effectiveness”?  Communication Flow**  Months on Panel*  Group Cohesion*  Paid Staff Support* * p. <05 ** p.<001

25. What has an effect on where respondents placed themselves on the Ladder?  Communication Flow**  Group Cohesion*  Paid Staff Support* * p. <05 ** p.<001

26. Barriers to Collaboration  Lack of Funding/Resources for CRP  Defensiveness of child protective services agency (manifested through hidden agendas, for example)  Inconsistent meeting attendance by Panel membership  Lack of communication/feedback (i.e., no “official” response to the annual report )

27. Suggestions for Working Together  Better communication between CPS and CRPs (i.e., through memos of agreement)  Clearer goals and objectives for the Panel  CRPs need to be more educated about the roles of CPS  A more diverse membership on the panel (including parents, non-professionals, and ethnic minorities  Increased funding (including staff support) for CRPs

28. Limitations  Only 20 states surveyed (had to sample in some)  Did not measure “effectiveness,” only perceived effectiveness  Did not survey child welfare agency workers

29. So What?  Clearly define roles of responsibilities of CRPs and child welfare agency (this should be spelled out in a Memo Of Agreement)  Give feedback to Panels about what happens to their recommendations. If they are not feasible, say so, and explain why  Create consistent “point persons” within the agency to answer critical questions.

30. So What?  Ongoing and meaningful communication is critical (hold joint retreats/strategic planning sessions, potlucks, awards ceremonies)  Think Quality, not Quantity.  Set clear guidelines and goals, check in half way through the year to make sure the group is “on track”

31. So What?  Work on team development (use cohesion scale to assess)  Work with Chairperson to develop her or his leadership abilities  Provide at least a part-time paid staff person (be CREATIVE, sub-contract with a University to coordinate CRPs)  Celebrate successes and improvements  Value citizenship

32. The MOST important question: WHY is your work important?