The update for this week on the final recommendations from the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children is on the potential changes to what is currently known as Family Assessment. If you are reading this post, you may already be familiar with the two-track response system that currently makes up Minnesota’s child protection system. The assignment of high-risk cases to Family Assessment in the past elicited concern for many members of the Task Force, who believe that Family Assessment was meant for low-risk cases and that perhaps due to funding differences, children’s lives were put at risk by not being assigned to an investigation. Here are the final recommendations for Minnesota’s two-track system.

Please note that these are currently recommendations and do not represent any actual changes to public policy or practice as of yet.

The Creation of Differential and Traditional Response

Under the recommendations, Minnesota will no longer use “Family Assessment” and “Family Investigation.” Instead, the Task Force recommends renaming Family Assessment to Differential Response (DR) and Family Investigation to Traditional Response (TR). This is to be in line with national practice. The report clarifies that both responses are involuntary child protection responses of alleged maltreatment and that both will assess child safety and identify family strengths to help reduce risk factors. Per the recommendations, the goals of either response must:

  • Identify family strengths
  • Be culturally affirming
  • Assess and ensure child safety
  • Conduct fact-finding
  • Coordinate and monitor services
  • Address effects of maltreatment through trauma-informed interventions
  • Promote child well-being and permanency
  • Increase positive outcomes

All substantial child endangerment cases (and other risk factors) must be identified as high risk and sent to TR. Low risk cases will be “reports of maltreatment that are clearly low risk” and not substantial child endangerment or high-to-moderate risk; these cases would be assigned to DR. All other moderate risk cases and those that are difficult to assign without more information will require additional fact-finding before the track decision can be made.

Making the Decision

Pathway response determinations will be based on a required information standard developed by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), counties, tribes, stakeholders, and experts. Standards may include face-to-face interviews with the child who is the subject of an allegation and his or her family members. If it can be done, interviews of children shall be done individually before contacting their parent or legal guardian. DHS will develop definitions and pathway criteria for the different responses. TR cases must be assigned within 24 hours if it is clear that they are high risk/involve substantial child endangerment. Pathway switching criteria will also be developed.

In order to make well informed track assignment decisions, DHS will encourage the use and support the development of multidisciplinary teams in decision making, and will provide specific supports and training for these teams. Furthermore, DHS will “adopt stronger and more robust intake and screening tools for gathering data prior to track assignment.” If a family is not partaking in the services offered or safety factors have not improved to the degree that is necessary to keep the child safe, social services agencies must consult with county or tribal attorneys to discuss the filing of a CHIPS (Child in Need of Protection or Services) petition.

Fact Finding

DHS will establish protocols around fact finding. Fact finding may include in-person interviews with the child subject and family, teachers, and other necessary collateral contacts. The information gathered will describe who/what/when/where/how, harm, protective factors, child vulnerability factors, family strengths, resiliency, context, and times the child was safe within the family. DHS will develop protocols for thorough fact finding.

Tool Development and Training

DHS will update, review, and validate all decision making tools. They will prioritize safety tools above others. Furthermore, DHS must define what tools are being used in decision making, their purpose, and how they are to guide decision making. The recommendations call for a better safety assessment tool that “reflects dangerous and child vulnerability factors.” DHS will review the research on protective factors and implement relevant information in trainings and practice. Only valid screening and assessment instruments will be used. Based on research on child interviewing techniques and best practices, DHS will incorporate this information into trainings as well. As it has been mentioned before, child safety will guide these protocols.

Trauma Pre-Screening

Lastly, the Task Force recommends conducting trauma pre-screenings on any child during a child protection response. DHS will develop and pilot the pre-screen tool and it will be expanded statewide in 2016. As with everything else, it will be based on current best practices and research.

Long Term Recommendations

The task force encourages DHS to consider dissolving the two track system altogether and instead requiring fact-finding for all “screened in” reports and several options for response based on the best interests of the child.

What are your thoughts on the current proposed changes to the two track system? What are you thoughts on doing away with the two track system altogether? We hope to hear from you!