1. Family Assessment Response

2. Welcome & Introduction Introduce yourself to the group: 1.Name 2.Work location 3.Work title 4.What is it about FAR that brought you to this work? 5.What is your biggest worry about moving forward?

3. This Week Session I: Overview of FAR Session II: Casework Practice Model

4. Session I OVERVIEW OF FAR

5. LEARNING OBJECTIVES Understand the definition and procedures of FAR Know the similarities and differences between FAR and Investigations Gain knowledge of FAR procedures and the case workflow

6. What is it?

8. What is FAR? FAR is an alternative to the traditional Child Protective Services investigation A perpetrator is not identified and a finding of child abuse and neglect is not made Risk and safety assessments are completed and assessing child safety is the focus Services are voluntary and of a short duration – 45 days unless the family agrees to extend the time – 90 days max

9. What is FAR? Focuses less on investigative fact finding and more on assessing and ensuring child safety, Seeks safety through family engagement and collaborative partnerships, and Allows us to provide services without formal determination of abuse or neglect

10. CA’s Goals for FAR More children stay safely at home Provide early intervention Child safety through partnering and assessing Increase scope of service delivery Improve family-centered practice and integration of SBC Increase resource identification

11. CPS Responses

12. Commonalities of Investigations & FAR Both are needed responses to Child Abuse and Neglect Reports Both aim to achieve the three major child welfare outcomes: child safety, promotion of permanency and attunement of child well-being Both maintain CA’s authority to make decisions about child removal Both utilize SBC as the case management model to improve outcomes

13. Why Implement FAR?

14. Increasingly, concerned citizens and organizations are realizing that the best way to prevent child abuse is to help parents develop the skills and identify the resources they need to understand and meet their children's needs and protect them from harm

15. Differential Response in the U.S.

16. Why Implement FAR? According to National Study of Child Protective Services Systems and Reform Efforts (2003), 20 states identified one of 3 purposes as reason for DR system: – child safety (55%) – family preservation or strengthening (45%) – prevention of CA/N (20%)

17. Ohio Study SACWIS Family surveys Follow-up telephone calls with families and workers Caseworker surveys General agency surveys Community surveys Document review Cost data Site visits

18. Family Characteristics* High rates of unemployment, female-headed families, lower educational achievement were each associated with low income. Instability in housing was also found. Low-income families with these characteristics typically experience problems with: unaffordable and unstable housing utility payments, lack of furniture and appliances unreliable transportation occasionally lack of sufficient food and clothing * All findings presented come from the Ohio Alternative Response Evaluation: Final Report, prepared by the Institute of Applied Research, released in May 2010. www.iarstl.orgwww.iarstl.org

19. Family Characteristics* About half of FAR appropriate families had previous accepted reports of child maltreatment and one in every ten had a child placed in the past. A substantial portion were chronic CPS families. Reports of neglect most common * All findings presented come from the Ohio Alternative Response Evaluation: Final Report, prepared by the Institute of Applied Research, released in May 2010. www.iarstl.orgwww.iarstl.org

20. First Visit: POSITIVE Emotions Reported by Families

21. First Visit: NEGATIVE Emotions Reported by Families

22. Other Important Findings Child Safety was not compromised Families reported more involvement in decision-making More use of concrete services Families reported services “really helped” Higher family satisfaction with worker More worker visits and contact with families and providers LESS subsequent reports LESS out of home placements and removals Cost- slightly more expensive, but potential to reduce long- term costs Higher job satisfaction for workers

23. Impact on Traditional Response in Missouri Findings include : More cooperation and engagement between law enforcement and Children Services staff Charges were made sooner against sexual abuse perpetrators indicating that the intensive investigative work up front by workers was helpful to law enforcement

24. ….Missouri More findings: Implementing a pathway for the low to moderate risk cases (alternative response), allowed more time to be spent on the severe cases in a traditional response More successful prosecutions were made against perpetrators for sexual crimes against children, indicating more thorough investigations According to a study by Loman (2005) Differential Response Improves Traditional Investigations: Criminal Arrests for Severe Physical and Sexual Abuse. Institute of Applied Research.

25. Washington State Evaluation TriWest 6 year study

26. PROCEDURES HOW FAR OPERATES

27. Who You Gonna Call? Children’s Administration Headquarters Leads: Jeanne McShane: 360-902-7858 jeanne.mcshane@dshs.wa.gov Dawn Cooper: 360-902-8469 dawn.cooper@dshs.wa.gov Regional Leads: R1/2 - Julie Ellis: 509-363-3495 julie.ellis@dshs.wa.gov R3/4 - Kara Rozeboom: 425-673-3113 kara.rozeboom@dshs.wa.gov R5/6 - Anita Teeter: 360-725-6807 anita.teeter@dshs.wa.gov http://www.dshs.wa.gov/ca/about/far.asp 27