In preparation for this Friday’s meeting of the Governor’s Task Force on the Protection of Children, I’d like to highlight each workgroup’s proposed final recommendations (based on the February 27 Task Force meeting). On Friday the Task Force will meet to finalize the final recommendations. This post will focus specifically on the Family Assessment/Adequacy of Resources Workgroup recommendations.

Proposed Final Recommendations

  1. Rename “Family Assessment” to “Differential Response” (DR) to avoid confusion and align with national terminology.
  2. Interview children prior to parental contact whenever possible and develop protocols around this process.
  3. Document facts in any child protection response, and use this data to determine state and county trends. There was extensive discussion on this particular recommendation, particularly concerning what the “fact-finding” process should look like and what its purpose would be, as well as whether a determination process should also be implemented in FA.
  4. Support the use of multidisciplinary teams.
  5. Keep a dual-track child protection system.
  6. Make clearer criteria for the different pathways and review research-based vulnerability factors, including multiple use of FA by one family, child’s age, and presence of unrelated adults in the home.
  7. Ensure that pathway changes are being done appropriately and within the criteria set earlier.
  8. Make intake and screening tools more robust and ensure that data gathering is comprehensive.
  9. Complete trauma pre-screening for children in any child protection response.
  10. Conduct assessments on children with trauma symptomology.
  11. Monitor outcomes for children to determine if they are doing better after contact.
  12. Coordinate cross-systems services in order to increase safety and reduce risk of future harm.
  13. Evaluate decision-making tools, particularly the safety assessment, to ensure that they are reliable, updated, and culturally responsive.
  14. Review research on protective factors and predictive analytics and implement research in trainings and practice.

Discussion

There was quite a bit of discussion on these recommendations at the Feb. 27 Task Force meeting. I’ve highlighted 3 key points of contention here.

How should workers gather data to better inform screening and pathway assignment?

(Or, is an in-person visit prior to track assignment necessary? If yes, will that alienate families?)

While everyone appeared to be in agreement that more data needs to be gathered prior to determining whether to screen in a report and making a track assignment, there was disagreement about what that should look like. The FA workgroup presented two options to consider:

  1. Establish a more robust intake and screening process, including more comprehensive tools and data gathering from collateral contacts, in order to make a more thoughtful pathway assignment, or
  2. Conduct an in-person visit to the child and family prior to assigning the pathway.

Several concerns were brought up about having in-person visits: If a family appeared defensive or resistant, would that cause the worker to assign the family to Family Investigation (FI) even if the allegations did not merit that assignment? Moreover, several members were concerned that racial and economic disparities could be exacerbated with in-person visits prior to track assignment, and that such an approach would hinder workers’ ability to partner and engage with families. Stacy Hennen pointed out that it would essentially eliminate FA—per statute, if a track is not defined, the default is FI; thus workers would have to utilize an investigative approach (including use of law enforcement) for each visit. Hennen said that counties are opposed to in-person visits prior to track assignment. Robert O’Connor was concerned that option 2 was too prescriptive and would not allow workers to use their skills in assessing and determining their next move. Additionally, he pointed out that in any discipline, approaching families as suspects rather than partners will result in reactance, a psychosocial cognitive response that results in families shutting down and “taking a protective stance.” Toni Carter said that it would be better to be less restrictive, and that there is always an option of switching pathway assignment should it be needed.

MayKao Hang did point out that the first option does not exclude an in-person visit—it just does not require one for all cases. Kathy Johnson asked if it would be possible to “beef up” the statute defining substantial child endangerment, if that would get at the heart of the matter. Larene Randle Broome was unsure about both options, asking if Task Force members might consider how each option would impact children and families, and whether trauma might be exacerbated from one or both options.

Rich Gehrman’s concern about not conducting in-person visits was that workers may not be able to find out all the information needed just by phone calls. Former Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz and Dr. Lisa Hollensteiner felt that being able to see children first would help in making a better screening decision. Dr. Hollensteiner likened it to providing medical care without seeing the child in person. Senator Kathy Sheran pointed out that it is possible to be authentic with families without assigning track assignment right away, stating that the important thing is to be honest and forthright about the process.

Hennen, Hang, O’Connor, Brumfield, Fmr. Chief Judge Edward Toussaint, and Carter explicitly stated their support of option 1, whereas Gehrman, Blatz, Hollensteiner, and Sen. Sheran stated their support of option 2. The end result was that the FA Workgroup would go back to meet again about this option. We will hear from them on Friday, March 13.

At what level of risk should reports be assigned to FA?

Most Task Force members felt that the current safety and risk assessment tools need to re-evaluated in order to ensure that they provide an accurate and useful picture for child protection workers. Hennen said that her workgroup’s recommendation would be to find a screening assessment for risk that would help define “low risk” in order to assign those cases to FA. Brumfield and O’Connor were concerned that families can be determined to be moderate and high risk based on demographics alone (single parent, under age 25, with 3 kids) rather than actual safety issues, and that this might result in overcapturing disproportionate numbers of poor families and families of color. O’Connor stated his concern about “casting the net wider for the sake of casting it wider.” Blatz pointed out that FA had originally been sold as being only for families who were deemed low risk.

Should all child protection responses include “victim” and “perpetrator” labels?

There was also a brief discussion on whether all child protection responses should include a clear label of “victim” and “perpeatrator” in the state’s Social Services Information System (SSIS). Gehrman asked that this be considered as a recommendation. Hennen brought up that per federal CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act) requirements, anyone designated as “perpetrator” has the right to appeal, which would require counties and the courts to develop an appeals process for FA cases. Hennen also asked if such a designation was necessary in FA cases to ensure safety.